| Posted by xBNSFer on October 20, 2016 | |
Looking at this photo makes me wonder why the stem locomotive makers and railroads didn't adopt "cab forward" for all steam engines (SP did it for their particular circumstance of having a lot of tunnels and snow sheds, but it was otherwise pretty much not done). The train crews wouldn't have to choke on smoke, get cinders in their eyes, or go home covered in (as much) grime, all while having a MUCH better view of the track ahead.
|
| Posted by Dana M. on October 20, 2016 | |
To answer exBNSFer's question - I recently visited the California State Railroad Museum in Old Sacramento, California and I asked that very same question to the "experts" there. The gentleman who was stationed in the cab of the 4294 for the day informed me that the other railroads actually considered getting Cab Forwards - but the fact that the cab was "so exposed and being in front, it posed more of a safety risk to crews should there be a head-on collision!" they didn't want to get them. The "safety risk" was the main drawback for the other railroads purchasing the Cab Forward. However, there is only ONE documented death of a crew in a Cab Forward due to a head-on collision with another train. There are only a few recorded accidents involving the Cab Forwards that the fear for crew safety was negligible.
|
|