Chile Government 4-4-0 Locomotives in Chile


Class Details by Steve Llanso of Sweat House Media

Class unknown (Locobase 9312)

Data from American v English Locomotives, Correspondence, Criticism, and Commentary respecting Their Relative Merits (New York: Robert K Pease, 1880), pp. 36-37. See Locobase 9311 for the full details of the trial to which two Rogers locomotives were put on Chilean rails.

Having reported that the English "goods" engine couldn't manage the 11 2/3-mile trip to the summit pulling the stipulated 35 cars, W W Evans doesn't describe the Rogers locomotive's run in detail. He contents himself with noting that the American engine reached the summit pulling all 35 cars (587 gross tons) in 41 minutes, less than half the time it took the British engine to manage 335 tons.

Locobase is agog at the disparity, but distrustful. There were the two passenger contenders as well; see Locobase 9313 and 9314.


Class unknown (Locobase 9314)

Data from American v English Locomotives, Correspondence, Criticism, and Commentary respecting Their Relative Merits (New York: Robert K Pease, 1880), pp. 36-37. See Locobase 9311 for the full details of the trial to which two Rogers locomotives were put on Chilean rails.

American engineer W W Evans was delighted to report on the clean sweep staged by the Paterson, New Jersey locomotives over their British rivals. For his accounts of the other three tests, see Locobases 9311-9313.

In the passenger trial, the small Rogers engine, even though rolling on taller drivers, bested the British 2-4-0 by 9 minutes by ascending to the summit of an 11 2/3-mile line out of Santiago in 26 1/2 minutes. Locobase looks at the relative sizes and concludes that even when granting Evans harsh characterization of the British locomotives (see Locobase 9313), there must have been some questionable business to allow this flyweight to average 24 mph with a 291-ton passenger train.

The New Zealand government to whom all of this commentary was directed did seem to prefer American designs, even when they bought the actual locomotives from Britain.

Principal Dimensions by Steve Llanso of Sweat House Media

Classunknownunknown
Locobase ID9312 9314
RailroadChile GovernmentChile Government
CountryChileChile
Whyte4-4-04-4-0
Number in Class11
Road Numbers
GaugeStdStd
Number Built11
BuilderRogersRogers
Year18591859
Valve GearStephensonStephenson
Locomotive Length and Weight
Driver Wheelbase (ft / m)
Engine Wheelbase (ft / m)
Ratio of driving wheelbase to overall engine wheelbase
Overall Wheelbase (engine & tender) (ft / m)
Axle Loading (Maximum Weight per Axle) (lbs / kg)
Weight on Drivers (lbs / kg)39,160 / 17,76339,576 / 17,951
Engine Weight (lbs / kg)62,966 / 28,56162,227 / 28,226
Tender Loaded Weight (lbs / kg)
Total Engine and Tender Weight (lbs / kg)
Tender Water Capacity (gals / ML)
Tender Fuel Capacity (oil/coal) (gals/tons / Liters/MT)
Minimum weight of rail (calculated) (lb/yd / kg/m)33 / 16.5033 / 16.50
Geometry Relating to Tractive Effort
Driver Diameter (in / mm)54 / 137266 / 1676
Boiler Pressure (psi / kPa)115 / 7.90115 / 7.90
High Pressure Cylinders (dia x stroke) (in / mm)16" x 24" / 406x61014" x 24" / 356x610
Tractive Effort (lbs / kg)11,122 / 5044.866967 / 3160.18
Factor of Adhesion (Weight on Drivers/Tractive Effort) 3.52 5.68
Heating Ability
Tubes (number - dia) (in / mm)
Flues (number - dia) (in / mm)
Flue/Tube length (ft / m)
Firebox Area (sq ft / m2)
Grate Area (sq ft / m2)
Evaporative Heating Surface (sq ft / m2)912 / 84.76783 / 72.77
Superheating Surface (sq ft / m2)
Combined Heating Surface (sq ft / m2)912 / 84.76783 / 72.77
Evaporative Heating Surface/Cylinder Volume163.29183.11
Computations Relating to Power Output (More Information)
Robert LeMassena's Power Computation
Same as above plus superheater percentage
Same as above but substitute firebox area for grate area
Power L1
Power MT

All material Copyright © SteamLocomotive.com
Wes Barris