ATSF 3462

I wouldn't doubt it. The S.F. 3460 class locomotives had 84" drivers and were the largest Hudsons ever built.. 

There are lots of arm chair experts on locomotives, who learned everything they know (or think they do) from reading published material.

The only justifiable complaint I ever heard was that the 3460's required more than normal finesse from the hand on the throttle, as the high boiler pressure, and large drivers demanded the best of the best on the seatbox to minimize slipping.  That's not an indication that the 3460's were not good engines.  If I had hired out in 1940 instead of 1970, I'd have gladly taken a call for a 16-car No.7 with a 3460 any day.

Number 90

I'll bet that you would much rather have a 2900 on a 16 car train 7 than a 3460. In Farrington's book, "the Santa Fe's Big Three", the actual dynamometer test reports are published without any comment from the author. As a matter of fact, Farrington praises all three engines. But it is obvious from the test logs that the 3460 class was trouble prone, and not up to the standards of either the 4-8-4 or the 2-10-4.

Hudson5432 posted:

Number 90

I'll bet that you would much rather have a 2900 on a 16 car train 7 than a 3460. In Farrington's book, "the Santa Fe's Big Three", the actual dynamometer test reports are published without any comment from the author. As a matter of fact, Farrington praises all three engines. But it is obvious from the test logs that the 3460 class was trouble prone, and not up to the standards of either the 4-8-4 or the 2-10-4.

Of course I'd rather have a 2900 Class 4-8-4.  It had more weight on drivers and paid a higher rate.