Ray (and Les):
Correct: < less than, > greater than.
It would seem that the KD-6 were dispersed for use in industrial service, and hence no definitive (read: published) roster or number series (that I have heard of).
The KD-7 were used mostly in Southern China on China Railway divisions that were set up for right hand running. I don't know of any KD-7 that were converted to left hand.
These days, left hand running is standard throughout China.
A bit of arcane information: the Russian class FD 2-10-2s, that I saw running in the Shanghi area in 1980 along with KD-7s, were right hand running as well.
Sorry for the thread creeping away from S-160s!
J.David

Youtube playlist of 29 S160 videos. ARR 557 volunteer Stewart Sterling put it together. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... sbv_2vhGNb

Link to one of my favorite S160 videos, a short Facebook video of Big Jim - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10153640719120492

TVRM #610 (which is the last locomotive featured on the video compilation, is not an S160, but a post war Lima of about 1955 vintage.

1953 as I remember and she is a Class A locomotive.

610 is supposed to be very similar mechanically to the S160s, although there are cosmetic differences. I found this comparison in a Susquehanna NMRA Chapter bulletin.

Although "S160" is widely accepted as the designation for the second design of WWII War Department Consolidations (there was another, slightly earlier design with 50" drivers), in many hours of research I haven't found any use of this designation until well after WWII. I'm pretty confident that it is not a War Department or USATC designation. I have heard that Tourret was responsible for it coming into common usage and that it may have been based on an internal ALCO designation.

I can say that the designation doesn't appear on any of about 800 drawings I have reviewed, the BLW and Lima card indexes, many pages of ALCO engineering notes and calculations, an ALCO Form 4, nor minutes for several meetings attended by Major Marsh and representatives of the three builders that took place while the design was being developed.

The BLW designation for the design was 2-8-0 19S, but under their classification system it also applied to other Consolidations with 19" bore built after about 1940.

In the correspondence they were typically referred to as "U.S. War Department 2-8-0."

Along the same line, where did Class A for 610 came from? I'm assuming that Baldwin would have classified it as 2-8-0 20S.

One of the specs for the 610 jumped out at me. Note the engine wheelbase for the 610 is listed as 15'-6" while the wheelbase for the other locomotive series is listed as 23'-10". This is so different that it seems like it must be a mistake. The MINIMUM wheelbase for 57" wheels would be 13'-5" with NO spacing between wheels for things like brake rigging.

Anyone out there know anything more about this?

Diagram posted May 26 shows a total engine wheelbase of 23'3" and a driver wheelbase of 15'6". Maybe somebody else can explain where the 23'10" figure comes from.

Tom

The specification sheet from four locomotives that BLW provided to the Alaska Railroad in 1943 gives driving and rigid wheel base as 15' 6", total engine as 23' 3", and engine and tender as 51' 7-3/4". It wouldn't be practical for the Army engines to be different, so I suspect the Ft. Eustis dimensions (which appear to have originated in an Army publication) were in error.

I think I know why 610's boiler appears to be the same but has one less tube. There is a single tube at the top center of the tube nest, above the flues on the S160 boilers.

Info from "United States Army Transportation Corps Locomotives" by R Tourret - self published in the UK, 1977.

The "S160" is the US Army classification based on the approximate gross weight of the locomotives (minus tender) in pounds - it is actually stated as 161,000 lbs on the loco diagram.

The 15'6'' wheelbase is measured from the leading coupled axle centre to the trailing axle centre. 23'3" is the total locomotive wheelbase measured from the leading truck centre to the trailing driver centre.

Similarly the "Middle East" 2-8-2 was classified "S200" - the gross weight of the locomotive is shown on the diagram to be exactly 200,000lbs!

Jim.

But are there any references to "S160" that pre-date Tourret? Particularly from USATC? I've been through a lot of primary reference material and I haven't found anything.

O.K. but the S100 ("U.S.A. tank" in U.K. parlance) only weighs 46.5 long tons. However, I also always understood that the S160 classification was an official USATC one - I was sure I'd come across it before 1977 but could be wrong. It's certainly interesting that Dick hasn't found any reference in original documents.
Cheers,
Ray.

The standard USATC 0-6-0T is shown to weigh 100,650lbs - hence S100 designation.

In the preface to his book Tourret cites over two dozen UK and European military/enthusiast sources. North American sources were:

Office of the Chief of Transportation Department of the US Army
R F Corley of the Canadian General Electric Co
G A Benedict, Motive Power Superintendant, Alaska Railroad
C J Rogers, President of the White Pass and Yukon Route
H L Goldsmith

Checking through the book it appears that the "S..." code/classification was mostly applied to locos intended for operation by the USATC in occupied/invaded countries in support of the war effort. A few derivative classes of the S160 type - S161 to Jamaica/S162 & S166 to Russia - appear to be exceptions to that "rule".

The use of pounds to decribe the weight of heavy machinery such as locomotives is,in my experience, unique to North America. In any other country "long" Tons or the metric Tonnes would be used. This suggests that Tourret was supplied with the "class" numbers from a North American (probably USATC) source.

Jim.

Thanks for the clarification Jim. I should have read the previous post more carefully. Ray.

I don't question that Tourret did extensive research. His initial work was probably completed in the pre-desktop computer days and the amount of work he must have put into the 1970s edition is mind-boggling. (I have the 1995 version of his book.)

I agree with your assumption that the S classifications are related to the approximate locomotive weights.

I still find it puzzling that no documents with the S160 designation have appeared which pre-date Tourret's writings.

I double checked another document concerning the WWII War Department locomotives, a 1964 "Trains" article by Col Howard Hill, designer of the War Department standard gauge 2-8-2 and 0-6-0T, that describes his experiences in designing the locomotives and also mentions the two War Department Consolidation designs. He doesn't make any reference to the "S" class designations but does use class designation for some British locomotives that he mentioned.