Kent & East Sussex Railway

I don't think it is as simple as that. For example, the worst riding loco I have ever been on is a GWR 56xx, which had a horrible fore-and-aft surge. But I believe that that is because it was balanced in a way to minimise vertical imbalance (hammer blow), which it did by transferring that to longitudinal. The reason AIUI is because balancing in that way minimised risk when working in areas, such as collieries, liable to subsidence - which sort of suggests that actually it might have been quite kind on the track, at least from a hammer blow perspective!

So I am not sure there is necessarily a correlation between "this loco is rough when experienced from the cab" and "this loco is hard on the track". My hunch is that Austerities ride badly primarily because they have short wheelbase and therefore pitch around on any localised dips that a longer locomotive would ride over more smoothly, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are therefore hard on the track.

I think you really need to understand what are the factors that cause damage to track, and then see which locos have those factors. But I believe it is more complex than a straight relationship that says "because this type of loco is rough riding, it is therefore automatically hard on the track".

Tom

 

And where would you place a Pacer in the table of who wrecks the track (Jointed Flatbottom)
Who will be first with A Skip


/