Data from table in the July 1890 issue of RREJ. The article noted that these were passenger 10-wheelers intended for heavy grades. The "vestibule" train for which it was expressly designed had 9 cars and was to be moved over the section at an average of 32 mph. This was a large 4-6-0 for its time as far as heating surface area goes.

As usual with Railroad Journal assessments, the new design was reported to be fulfilling expectations just fine.

Data from Angus Sinclair & John A Hill, "Richmond Compound Locomotive," Railway Engineering, Volumen V (May 1895), pp. 265-266. Works number was 2427.

This was a trial engine, a one-off 2-cylinder compound that was tested against several other simple-expansion locomotives. Not surprisingly, given that the locomotive is mentioned at all, the reviews were very favorable: "The engine has been doing remarkably good service, and is highly popular with all the people who have anything to do with the handling of her."

One of the writers (presumably Sinclair) wrote of a recent trip and his impression of the smoothness of the engine. Had he not known it was a compound, he wouldn't have suspected, he reported: "She ran as freely as a simple engine; there was an entire absence of pounding and jarring; and working heavy or light, she performed her duties very satisfactorily."

The railroad reported significant coal and water savings as well. Like most North American railroads, however, the Chessie did not pursue 2-cylinder compounds very far.

Class F-11 (Locobase 7856)

Data from C&O 9-1936 Locomotive Diagrams supplied in May 2005 by Allen Stanley from his extensive collection. Works numbers were 20391, 20418, 20479-20480, 20502 in May 1902; 21329-21331 in November 1902; 21493, 21501 in January 1903; and 24113, 24136, 24159 in April 1904.

Other than having a relatively large firebox heating surface, these Ten-wheelers were of about average size for a US mixed-traffic 4-6-0 of the turn of the century. Their cylinder volume was on the small side, which meant it was likely that the boiler provided more than ample steam on starting. The smallish grate probably limited the ability of the design to run at even moderate speeds for long periods.

The CR & M soon was reorganized as the Chicago Cincinnati & Louisville (1903); the CC & L was taken over in 1910 by the Chesapeake & Ohio.

Class T-1 / F-12 (Locobase 6461)

See the article " Hocking Valley/C&O Ten-Wheelers" by Thomas W Dixon, Jr. in the Chesapeake & Ohio Historical Magazine (June 2004), accessed on http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3943/is_200406/ai_n9410620 . See also "Heavy Power for the Hocking Valley Ry," Railway Master Mechanic, Vol 34 (December 1910), pp. 519-520.

The heating surface data comes from the RMM article; Dixon's article shows significantly higher values for the firebox.

Dixon explains that the HV needed more powerful passenger engines for their main line between Toledo and Columbus, Ohio. Although more and more railroads had adopted some form of superheating, especially for passenger locomotives, the HV's GJ De Vilbiss specified slide valves and saturated steam.

Dixon comments that, although these were relatively modestly proportioned machines, their appearance "...was excellent, a small, neat, compact, well-proportioned locomotive." He explains that the high factor of adhesion helped the trio keep a schedule that called for 9 regular and 6 flag stops in a 122-mile run that was booked for 3 hours 50 minutes. This timing included sections of 60-mph running.

In later years, the T-1s were modified with 8" piston valves and Baker valve gear. When the HV merged with the Chesapeake & Ohio in 1930, the T-1s became F-12s; within 5 years all three had been scrapped. See Locobase 6462 for the superheated T-2s that entered service two years after the T-1s.

Class T-2 / F-13 (Locobase 6462)

See the article " Hocking Valley/C&O Ten-Wheelers" by Thomas W Dixon, Jr. in the Chesapeake & Ohio Historical Magazine (June 2004).

This quartet, which were essentially superheated T-1s (Locobase 6461), was assembled from two batches: 89-90 (works # 51732-51733) came from Brooks in 1912, while 91-92 (works # 54304-305) came from Richmond. They weighed about a ton more. Dixon doesn't comment on the difference in the firebox heating surface, which is considerable. It's possible that T-1s had arch tubes that were deleted from the T-2s to simplify maintenance.

When the HV merged with the C&O in 1930, 92 was almost immediately scrapped. The other 3 survived on their original turf until the late 40s when age and shrinking passenger-train demand rendered them surplus.