What's everyone's favorite steam locomotive?
suck it, big boy queers. Allegheny steamed better and made more power.
also lima > alco
>>913480
My man
>>913475
I love all steam locomotives, but there will always be a special place in my heart for wood burners. I love that huge spark arresting stack, they have so much character.
Because a bunch of guys thought "You know what, we could build our own, new, locomotive!". And then they did.
>>913889
This. I fuckin' love this story.
20th century mercury art decotrain/10
>>913888
Oh, almost forgot
>dat br(ass)
>>913889
Looks a bit like a Coronation/Duchess class ?
Gotta pull home with this one.
>That is your heaviest locomotive?
>Shameful display!
>>913952
Those horse blinder things annoy me.
>>913936
2-6-6-6 locos needed huge fireboxes to drag huge coal trains over the Appalachians
>>913911
what is this and why was it built?
>>913480
More horsepower doesn't mean shit in the mountains, where tractive effort reigns supreme. And the 2-6-6-6? Minuscule improvement over the 2-8-8-2s they replaced, in that regard. N&W Y series and Virginian AE were far better to drag freights.
>>913952
>iron horse need blinders
>>914006
Huge firebox and "superpower" rear trucks are for high horsepower...which is only at high speed. As my previous post states, tractive effort is what you want in low speed operation, and tractive effort is what determines tonnage rating. 2-6-6-6 had only 110,000lb tractive effort, compared to an N&W Y6b 2-8-8-2 putting out 127,000 simple, 166,000 starting, and the Virginian 2-10-10-2 putting out 147,000 compound, 176,600 starting.
My favourite ultimately varies, but Andre Chapelon's 240P class 4-8-0 is always on the shortlist...just look at her! And the highest power-weight ratio of ANY steam locomotive ever constructed...
>>914015
It's so it could be used within city limits that had a ban on steam engines. And I think for practicality reasons too. Steam trains generate too much smoke to be used in an underground station/tunnels.
There are better, but seeing this guy rolling through my town a few years back was pretty neat.
>>913952
Tr1, the sister model for freight.
>>914039
Steamers were not allowed in Manhattan. Not even steam dummy for elevated trains.
>>913945
It's an LNER A1 class, but yeah both are 4-6-2 express locomotives so they do look similar.
>>914078
Smoke deflectors: they funnel air and force it up and over the chimney, helping to pull smoke up & over the locomotive instead of down the sides (and into the cab)
Russion O and E classes just look aesthetically pleasing. "We don't need no truck, add more steel!" -Russian locomotive engineer.
Was Gustav in "The Edge" an E-class?
class 01
Daylight
Why do we call them steam locomotives while coal is their primary energy source.
They should be called coal locomotives.
>>914161
Well. Technically they can run on steam - after all some power stations are steam turbine type.
But GTFO.
>>914164
You do know they can be wood and coal fired too? (Some countries even mixed in bad coffee and corn during shortages)
>>914170
*wood and oil
>>914170
also oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_burner_%28engine%29
>>914172
I know, I was thinking oil but typed coal by mistake.
This one. Aesthetically pleasing & a workhorse from my home city. I love it, shame none survive...
>>914182
Ehh British locomotives just have a boring appearance to me, besides their colours.
>>914186
How do they look boring? Genuinely curious...
>>914188
I dunno, just the shape and such, too smoothe an appearance. French locos have a more interesting look.
>>913911
Please tell me that's using electric heat to fire the boiler.
>>914084
Not below 42nd street at any rate. Which is why Grand Central was built at 42nd street.
![mallard-hauls-scarborough-spa-express-in-1988[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/cc0KyXC.jpg "mallard-hauls-scarborough-spa-express-in-1988[1].jpg")
>>914186
>Mallard
>boring
>>914161
Oh look, the Milwaukee autist is here.
Do everyone a favor and trip already so we can filter your code.
>>914164
Because their working fluid is steam. Steam is what does the work. What creates that steam is another matter.
Amazing btw. how you can clearly see how the British, American, Russian and "continental" locomotives all have distinct design features.
Like American locos have fuckhueg fireboxes because they wanted to burn lignite. British are all slim and tight packed due clearance, Russians clearly wanted all the tarctive effort while speed was no concern hence no trucks (also novel things like compound engines and preheaters), French disliked rear trucks and preferred one more drive wheels there, Germans had the tiniest shunters but manly and streamlined line locomotives, Italians: all your valve gear desings are be long to us and so in.
>>914202
If I was a billionaire I'd build dual tracks out in the middle of nowhere and have trains drag race each other and go for top speed steam train runs.
I thought the j class that was capable of 140mph
>>914192
>They don't have enough weird lumps and shit sticking out
>I much prefer locomotives that look like they've been welded up by a drunk Russian
Okay
>>914217
What the fuck is your problem?
>>914242
Direct that question at yourself.
It's not just me anon. You've been called out in just about every train thread I've been in.
>>914202
Didn't that train have a tender with a small passage to the cab for some obscure reason?
As in, something like that if it's a long express route, the second driver might chill out in the passenger side and as the time for their shift comes, they don't need to time it to a station.
>>914242
The drunk Russian were remarkably up to date as locomotive engineering went.
The thing is, like it was with so many things in communism that they carefully studied the global trends, deduced "the perfect locomotive" and then produced it in mass quantities 10 years past everyone else had moved on.
>>914247
I believe it was so they could change crews without stopping.
>>914175
Looks interesting. I was suspecting it would have been something lake the last generation of 1940s, but it was 1910s! It must have been cutting edge, when new.
At the eastern grand duchy, this was the heaviest locomotive at the time, nicknamed "jumbo". I think it was based on German design.
>>914248
I'm not that guy. I just thought it was extremely unwarranted to react like that to someone posting a train. Isn't that what the thread is for? Why be such a dick?
Would like to see the Russian Decapods run, but you know how they are, can't go over guarded-frogs.
>>914270
Why's that? Too long frame?
I really do dig the black and red celebratory livery of the Russian locomotives.
(Almost as much as I like dark green on black, mind you :) )
>>914272
Built for Russia (the final order of 200 undelivered due to 1917 revolution) which used 5ft gauge. The conversion to standard gauge was by putting on wider wheels. A guarded frog guides train wheels, but they're so wide on the locomotives that that go on top of them instead.
I suppose they might have needed significantly more work to convert to standard gauge without the wide wheels. Moving cylinders inward, maybe even the frame was too wide.
>>914266
Welcome to 4chan. And since you're new that means you haven't seen "muh little Joe" being accompanied with autistic tantrums about management conspiracies.
>>913911
Da fuq?
I am a train enthusiast
I like steam locomotives
But damn, they all look the same.
>>914317
U wot m8?
Sure, some are similar but not all of them.
> also, das racis(t)
>>914242
This.
Seems like only the British gave a shit about the looks of their locos. Hate the look of pipes & shit pointing out everywhere, just like the BR standard classes.
>>914380
One thing I'm not wrong about: Britain had the most stupidly small loading gauge. And for some reason refused to use stokers even on locos that absolutely would need them.
>>914380
It's just personal preference though. Not really a fan on the smokebox front either, with those werrd levers.
![GWR_broad_gauge_locomotives[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ZCiKJgo.jpg "GWR_broad_gauge_locomotives[1].jpg")
>>914514
Brunel's broad gauge would like to have a word with you.
>>914518
Of standard gauge, I should have specified....there's practically no loading gauge at all on 7ft, width wise....still counts under "britain!"
>>914514
>Britain had the most stupidly small loading gauge.
Well that's a consequence of going first; you can't look at anyone else and say "Nah, we'll make some improvements". Not to mention getting people to invest in this new transportation method is difficult so you have to do things on the cheap.
>>914538
This.
It was huge when we invented the concept.
>>914182
Oh shit, is that the locomotive Edward is based on? The resemblance is uncanny.
>>914200
It is. The Swiss don't have any coal of their own, and in WWII, they couldn't import any. So they pulled a No. 8 wire solution and ran with it.
I have two favourites, this because it just screams 'Victorian Engineering'.
>>914653
And this because yes, that is streamlining I guess...
Possibly the only American loco that could go neck-in-neck with the Mallard in terms of speed.
The name of this little thing is "holy war".
>>914711
I'm suspecting it is a condenser to save water.
>>914161
.favorite steam locomotive
is this not avatarfagging at this point?
>>914654
>streamlining
get on my level
>>914247
I think a few of the British express trains had that.
>>914317
The common designs (like the Pacific) tend to look fairly similar, but there seem to be a lot of unusual variations on steam engines, moreso than there are with diesels. Diesels have pretty much just three cab styles and two wheel configurations for the most part, its mainly their paint job that makes them stand out.
>>914161
fuck off milwaukee
>>914247
I know some of the LNER A3's and A4's did, it was mainly for trips from like London to Edinburgh so that the crew could swap over. It took like 9 hours so being able to seamlessly swap over the crew would have most likely cut down on some time.
>>914182
They look great, sorely tempted to pick up one.
>>914161
>>914217
>>914865
>>915130
Not me, btw. First off I don't post from my phone like a pleb and second off this isn't an appropriate thread to post Little Joes and I only post pics when and where relevant. Someone is trying to falseflag me but it's a pretty blatant and not very successful attempt. I have no ill-will towards steam locomotives. I'm a fan of SP's cab-forwards myself.
any narrow gauge really, especially german ones
too cute
>>918524
What about the South african Garratts (NG G16) that were used with 2 foot avontuur railway? Definitely not small.
For all intents and purposed I would not call 1000mm or 1067mm gauges narrow gauge if they form the national network of the country. Usually the rolling stock isn't that much smaller compared to standard and broad gauges, and there are plenty of tiny cute locomotives built for "full" gauges in existence.
>>918534
Buh.
>>914710
Yeah, I don't know about that. There are other powerful, streamlined locos with massive drivers out there.
>>918486
>falseflag
That just goes to show you that you're such a prolific Milwaukee (shit)poster that people are easily able to shitpost and it's attributable to you.
At this point you might as well trip so that we'll at least know it's you when a Joe is posted.
![140x1_01m[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/c9iPhio.jpg "140x1_01m[1].jpg")
>>914654
J Class is best kiwi streamliner.
>>913475
oy bet
Love those Zimbabwe Garratts.
>>918911
Wtf is up with that configuration and general odd set up?
>>918943
That allowed for the water and coal to contribute to traction as well, while the locomotive retained the ability to cope with the narrow turns and small profile of the railway.
the Mother of all Fireless Cookers, without a doubt
>>918943
Nothing odd here. It is an efficient way to articulate a steam locomotive. Garratts were very popular in Africa, Asia and Australia - especially on cape or metre gauge railroads, as they are very flexible, do not have firebox size issues and still can provide plenty of tractive effort.
They just are virtually unknown in the US.
>>918560
Officially recorded as hitting 110mph (in a snowstorm) in 1941. Later unofficially recorded as hitting 125mph, but the observer was French, so he may have been trying to shit on the Mallard.
>>914712
Nope, there is nothing behind that grille except the smokebox door.
>>919624
So say you have a bigass factory with steam-powered stuff. You also move so much goods, you need your own locomotive.
Instead of buying a locomotive with a fire, you strap a bigass tank to a locomotive's frame, and fill it with the steam and hot water from your factory's boilers!
Also particularly useful if you're moving pure/flammable materials.
>>919786
I'm an idiot, I've heard of these before.
German express locomotive DR 18 201. Fastest operational steam locomotive. Top speed 182.5km/h
>>919832
Sweet stripes. I bet it adds like a thousand hp.
It works for us car enthusiasts :^)
Gotta say, I'm a sucker for slick steam locos with sweet paint jobs.
>>919786
You can also think of it as being battery-powered, except storing steam pressure rather than electricity. They're mainly used in industrial applications, in areas full of flammable materials or where ventilation is poor. Regular steam engines have a "battery" effect as well, they can use steam faster than it is being generated, allowing them to temporarily put out mechanical power greater than the thermal output of the firebox.
Too bad these monsters were never saved. Widest boilers and widest cylinders ever put on a locomotive, and the most tractive effort (176,600lb starting) short of a triplex
>>922788
Forgot pic
Something just occurred to me /n/, would the increasing natural gas infrastructure encourage a comeback of steam in America? Even if its just in niche routes?
>>922977
Not really. Diesel engines can burn natural gas fairly efficiently, and even a tiny gas turbine would be more powerful. The only niche routes are hauling nostalgic tourists.
/Alberta Prairie Steam Tours!
>>922977
No. In addition to what previous anon said the maintenance alone would be prohibitive. That along with new infrastructure to manufacture and support them out on the rails. And probably a lot more.
In summary; too many shekels needed to be invested with no shekels to be saved/made
>>922977
The only way you might get steam again is if the oil industry just suddenly died.
>>923571
No
Polish Pm-36-1
Another one. Luxtorpeda
>>923648
it looks more like a railbus than a locomotive
t. pole
>>914121
That looks oddly like a Shay. I don't think it really is, but the drive arrangement is Shay-like.
Note that there are two steam engines ganged together.
>>913475
Not my absolute favorite; those would be the N&W Class J, the Big Boys, T1s, Alleghenies, and other articulated locomotives but I always thought the M1 Steam Turbine Locomotive was neat.
>>914163
Lots of locomotives ran the Daylight scheme.
You're referring to GS-4 4449.
>>913475
Why to worry about Steam ones,
If you can take a Diesel one
Nice and beautiful machines though
>>924308
M1 was conceptually interesting and a sexy beast, but the coal dust in the traction motors did it in. Now, if it ran on heavy fuel oil, stuff too thick for diesels or gas turbines to run on, it might have been attractive.
A4 faggots
>>927168
Love steam in the snow, especially when it's falling.
> moar pls
For those who were not aware, the Flying Scotsman has recently come out of retirement after a decade long refit.
>>914158
Seconded.
>>913475
The one in your pic.
That, or webm related: Santa Fe 3751
>>928935
>Steam loco running full speed next to a highway just inches away from cars
B A S E D
A
S
E
D
>>928935
that is cool as all heck.
>>913475
>All these Mallets
'no'
BEST STEAM coming through.
>>914023
>>914026
Why don't they build railroads straight over the mountains and use kinetic energy to coast over them like a roller coaster, instead of winding intricately around them at shallow incline and low speed?
>>929009
Do you want to ride a rollercoaster to work?
>>929029
oh hell YES
>>928853
The one thing I'll give the britfags is that they painted their locos in good looking colors.
>>928935
>bucketsofcum.jpg
>>929032
I hope I can throw up on you from a rear facing seat.
>>922977
NUCLEAR STEAM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Affordable_Fission_Engine
>>913888
They almost look more like pieces of art instead of locomotives. Seriously, I actually kind of prefer them this way.
It's one of the many many favorites I have, but it always has a special place in my heart.
T&P 610. Even though it doesn't have an official name, I like calling it the Big Tex since, well, 2-10-4 = Texas type and its a T&P locomotive. It looks like a fucking tank.
>>931274
UUUU
J72 tank engine. My first model.
This engine is one of the few that were built by N.E.R, L.N.E.R, and B.R, construction spanning over 53 years.
MÁV 424.
>>919784
Ah, so it's a novel design of smoke deflector.
>>924109
It's an 0-6-0 Fiji sugar cane hauler built in Indonesia. It somehow got shipped to America where it hauls recreational train rides in Edaville, Massachusetts at an old cranberry line.
>>929009
because then your "lift hill" is a cogway that can haul a thousand tons up a mountain, which isn't really possible
bestest steam loco
>>919384
its a shoop.
Ever installed sl on your unix system?
>>913889
>Because a bunch of guys thought "You know what, we could build our own, new, locomotive!". And then started.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwbMJnE0lQk
>>937262
I'd think keeping the boiler certified or whatever it's called would be expensive and cut into profits. Just a guess.
This preetie...
...And this cutie.
my favorite articulated ever
my second favorite articulated ever
I don't care if half of them were failures, the PRR experimentals will always be in my heart.
Also, I'm new, is there some sort of hate for the Milwaukee Road?
>>939838
There's this faggot that will never shut up about how great it was and how it was sabotaged by the management.
It's all bullshit and he has but one source, some lunatic shit spewer, to back it all up.
So enjoy your stay, and remember: It's always train time.
>>939838
I love cool experimental stuff. What is that and what else you got?
No hate for Milwaukee per say just the autistic foamer that is fixated on management conspiracies.
And welcome to 4chan, hope you have thick skin. Don't take shit personally, it's just how it is here
>you faggot
>>939986
>per say
Wa la!
>>940001
I must admit I don't get this reference/comment.
>>940061
He's making fun of you for being such rube to not know it's "per se" by saying "wa la!" instead of "voilà."
>>940062
Fuck! I knew that god damn it. These drugs are turning my brain to shit. (Prescribed)
>>941142
Forgot photo.
>>939843
>If you can read this, you're not a train.
"Ahem", said Thomas.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
This blue wonder
>>943404
>>943550
>pictures for ants
>>943583
>babby's first articulated/i'm literally 8 years old and just discovered trains
>>943613
Were you raped by an engineer who piloted a challenger?
So much anger.
>>944737
That's a Big Boy, boy.
>>932343
Nope. It is the K class streamlining.
I've heard that is also had a cowling over the drivers, but that was removed almost immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bPTqJtWpRc
>>945546
I counted 3 wheels quickly. Upon further inspection I see I was wrong.
aren´t steam locomotives ridiculously unhealthy for the passengers.
I´d rather take a horse or walk desu
>>945869
Passengers aren't inhaling from the smoke stack m8.
Well, maybe in the first few years. But the bigger risk was catching on fire from the burning embers raining down on passengers in the open cars.
>>932250
MAKKENZY IS THAT YOU
Looks nice but was a piece of shit performer
stepney is pretty good
Don't know why I like it but I do
>>946091
strasburg tom is sexi
The Boynton Bicycle Railway. The cab is freaking double-decker. How could no one be fascinated with this?
>>946099
>100 mph design speed on a pine stabilizing rail
no thank you
Come back soon bae
Side note does anyone else have some Steam webms? Im open to any but would like some UP Stuff
>>943613
>Stop liking what I dont like
>>946099
Cool shit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boynton_Bicycle_Railroad#
I've always loved the look of the prairie tanks.
>>946367
I like that green paint.
>>946502
I dont have a link but Skips JewTube is UPSteam
>>931223
>Big Tex
I like it
>>946529
Thanks
Random question: what's the fastest steam engine on paper? It's theoretical top speed? And it has to have actually been produced. So if you went back in time and wanted to do a record top speed run you could.
Stupid question. Does anyone have Extream Machines: Wheels of Steel? There was a clip In there I wanted but The best quality Video on YouTube got taken down last year
>>941142
No, it's a LNER D16/3. Same 4-4-0 arrangement as the LMS 2P but this one's a Gresley rebuild of a GER loco.
>>946541
What about the J class? Heard it could hit 140mph
>>946653
Doubtful. Lots of apocryphal stories abound from that era of steam loco's that went faster than they actually did. Most are tall tales; some have a few grains of truth embellished by the passage of time. I think the fastest at the time (in the US) must've been between the Milwaukee or CNW Hudsons, the PRR T1, or perhaps another of the large, superpowered Northerns that roamed the rails then.
BIG
>>947306
>All dat grease and oil
>>950141
>It can go orders of magnitude faster than that.
140mph is silly fast for a steam engine. What do you mean by orders of magnitude?
Wish I was a billionaire so I could make a top speed record breaking steam engine
>>950141
>orders of magnitude faster
that would be up in supersonic territory
>>950243
That would be pretty cool in science fiction. It seems so retardedly awesome.
>>951926
mph is not an SI unit and thus does not conform to SI notational standards. You should perhaps re-read the SI brochure.
>>951926
>140 m/h is incredibly slow for any means of human-scale transportation
No shit faggot. We're talking about a steam engine with xbox hueg driving wheels and reciprocating parts.
>>951926
mph is miles per hour
m/h is meters per hour
Please learn the difference. It's quite significant.
>>914163
Seconding SP 4449. Loved it ever since I saw it in Tough Guys when I was a kid.
>>922977
>would the increasing natural gas infrastructure encourage a comeback of steam in America?
Nope. There are many cost burdens associated with running steam locomotives, but the #1 cost is fuel cost. Big steam locomotives burn tons and tons and tons of fuel compared to soulless diseasel locomotives.
Kind of curious
Will steam make a comeback in some form if greater costs are recognised for fossil fuels?
eg biomass fuelled modern steam engine, steam turbine electric, sustainable liquid fuels through diesel, biogas, or alternatively full track electrification and stationary generation?
>anon who does not know much about railways beyond the basics.
>>954213
...obviously short local haulage will be different to long haul or transcontinental.
>>954213
Why would you use steam if it's not in a stationary power plant? It's terribly inefficient to carry your own water around with you and you can't use a large body of water as basically a heat sink.
>>954216
As I said I don't know much about trains, so I'm curious and thought the anons on this thread might know, I guess for long haul steam would be even worse then due to the excess weight, would this make it better suited to water transport?
>>954224
Weight really isn't THAT big of an issue when it comes to freight locomotives, amigo. You're talking about trains that are up to 23,000 tons. Carrying a bit of water in a tank car isn't that big of weight penalty. The real cost is the time and infrastructure to set up a water supply system. Railroads in the age of steam were very dependent on a source of water to refuel engines. You'd be adding another piece to the puzzle instead of filling up a 5,000 gallon diesel tank and not having to worry about it for another 1,000 miles.
Diesels are simple, easy, scalable, and efficient. Steam was dropped for a lot of very good reasons.
I know you're thinking of fossil fuel scarcity, but the truth is that diesel will be scare for consumers long before it's scarce for industries.
>>929009
>
because you can't lift any usable loads and it kinda has to go both directions.
>>954238
Yes, I can see that being a real problem especially in arid continental areas.
Thank you for your explanation.
My favorite... a workhorse
>>939843
>There's this faggot that will never shut up about how great it was and how it was sabotaged by the management.
Wait, isn't that the Milwaukee Road fag though?
>>939843
>>954686
Nevermind, misread. Thought you were talking about some guy saying the same thing about the PRR.
Additionally, SOON...
>>954224
It's not weight it's inefficient as fug design. Not to mention the maintenance nightmares. Steam takes a LOT of work.
>>954244
There were some clever designs using condensers to recycle the water back through the system but it didn't re capture all of it. Australia used this as well as South Africa. I'm sure there are other countries but those are the ones that I remember.
Forgot to mention in my previous post to address your bio mass comment. We already have the ability to make diesel substitutes. I would surmise that in the future we can scale up production efficiently and cost effectively. They make it with algae, it's cool shit.
Mason Locomotives.
Nuff' said.
>>958469
That's new to me. I like it anon. Gonna go look it up now.
>>958469
>no surviving examples
>>946089
pleased to say i've been on the footplate of this beauty
>>962502
Hope you're in one of those cars.
You know an engine is considered huge for the the time when it uses terms such as "brobdignagian."
For example piston valves (that in itself a rarity until superheating) of 16" diameter, as big as the cylinders of many locomotives still in service!
>>959739
The closest you can get to a Mason locomotive would be its developmental ancestor, the Single Fairlie.
There's one left, in New Zealand.
>>963203
That tender looks so disproportionately tiny, it's hilarious.
>>959739
>>963209
Hold the phone, there is a surviving example.
A standard-gauge locomotive.
>>963210
Not as much as the Virginian 2-10-10-2s, so they could fit on existing turntables
>>963331
Wow, never knew this existed. How was traction on the front drivers? The last wheels don't have much over them.
Never knew this existed either
I love odd ball shit
>>929009
>toby.jpg
Pic related is not shed train.
>>963503
I'm confused by your post.
>>931274
Smaller than this ridiculousness.
It's better than having, say a Decapod with tiny ass wheels, that use so much steam just turning the damn things so many times.
Also, VGN's 2-10-10-2 had the widest boiler ever put upon a locomotive, 118" at widest point. Same goes for cylinder bore, with the low pressure cylinders 48" wide!
>>922790
See this drawing. The 118" figure is in lower figure, in front of firebox.
>>963530
>turning the damn things so many times
They're not meant for high speed. Smaller drive wheels = greater tractive effort, as well as allowing a larger boiler, as well (in the case of no trailing bogie) as a deeper firebox that's above the wheels for width.
The Jawn Henry was pretty rad
As much as I love 4-8-0s, I will admit they can be very easily made unattractively "dumpy" when having a large boiler but small drivers
>>964414
Compare the N&W M2 to the NdeM PR-8. The PR-8 was about 4 tones heavier, making it the largest conventional 4-8-0 (only D&Hs's 500hp triple expansion 4-8-0 was bigger). It has a much more attractive look than the M2.
One unusual feature of the PR-8 though, is that the rear drivers actually projected intot he firebox! Obviously only possible with oil firing.
>>964415
Interesting comparison. Didn't even notice the firebox until you mentioned it.
