RE: (erielack) On Mallets . . .that (some folks think) should not have been built

["Schuyler Larrabee" <schuyler.larrabee_@_verizon.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: erielack-owner_@_lists.elhts.org 
> [mailto:erielack-owner_@_lists.elhts.org] On Behalf Of Rich Young
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:20 PM
> To: erielack_@_lists.elhts.org
> Subject: (erielack) On Mulletts , and lines that should not 
> have been built
> 
>     A quick revisit on locomotive designs that where bad 
> ideas. Basically those designs flat out stunk and I think it 
> was SGL that said that " they couldn't have been that bad 
> because they kept them for 15 years" 

Right that was me, but Rich, you didn't read that right.  They has ONE 2-8-8-8-2 for a couple of
years before they THEN ordered two more.  If the Matt Shay had been a failure, then they would NOT
have ordered two more.  Ergo, it must have done what it was designed to do.

>     To answer why they kept them, it was purely financial. If 
> you look at how they were paid for, through bonds and 
> equipment leasing trusts, they HAD to keep them. They 
> couldn't sell them or scrap them as they did not own them. 

I'll accept that.  But I doubt that was the ONLY reason.

> Nor could they  rebuild them into something else as they were 
> radically different that they could not be changed 
> significantly to actually work.

Well, I dunno about that.  The Southern rebuilt stuff into other types, including something along
the lines of a 2-8-2+2-8-2, where the last engine was under the tender, very much like the Matt
Shay, just not so long.  They also kept them for a long time.  I think if he ERIE wanted to rebuild
them into something else, Susquehanna Shops were perfectly capable of doing just that.  The built
some impressive locomotives from scratch.

  And they certainly were not 
> going to pay them off and lose the interest expense, so they 
> used them for what they could took the depreciation and when 
> the financial obligation was gone, so were they! 

OK, but someplace I've seen evidence that they were USED up till sometime not long before their
scrapping.  And like I said, if they did what they were designed to do, then by definition, they
were a success.  Not every locomotive has to be able to pull a conventional train over the line.  Is
a Shay a failure because it can't pull the Phoebe Snow and make the timetables?

I can't read the rest of your email just now, but I'll get to it tomorrow night, most likely.

SGL


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org

------------------------------