Technical question: Why weren't steam locomotives built the other way round?

I just watched a documentary explaining some advantages of electric locomotives over steam locomotives. One argument was that the engineer had a better view over the track since the cockpit of an electric locomotive is (in most of the cases) located at the front, whereas the driver's cab is arranged behind the great boiler.

But is this really necessary? Could't steam locomotives with a driver's cab at the front be constructed?
 
I just watched a documentary explaining some advantages of electric locomotives over steam locomotives. One argument was that the engineer had a better view over the track since the cockpit of an electric locomotive is (in most of the cases) located at the front, whereas the driver's cab is arranged behind the great boiler.

But is this really necessary? Could't steam locomotives with a driver's cab at the front be constructed?

It would require the structure of the train to be rather different. Steam trains needed to be fuelled manually, after all. Where would the fuel be held, where would the stoker be, etc?
 
Imagine being the poor man keeping the fire going in this!
leader-diag.jpg



Lack of ventilation and excessive heat not to mention lack of room! Despite that the Leader was one of the better attempts. Bulleid tried again when CME of CIE but put the driver in a more conventional position.
tb61_w7.gif
 
Cabforward, as well as other configurations, were tried and experimented with on occassion. This site documents a number of those such experimental locomotives (http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/locoloco.htm). I don't have the technical background to fully understand exactly why they never became popular, but the site does a decent job of explaining it.
They did become popular on the Southern Pacific, as that site mentions; they ended up operating over 250 cab-forwards locomotives at one time or another, which is a pretty respectable number. The terrain that they were operating on meant that the cab-forwards arrangement had a number of advantages (principally, it reduced asphyxiation of the crew from smoke and exhaust gasses in snowshoes and tunnels), and they had cheap access to fuel oil given their operating base in Southern California. So they had a real need for the arrangement and the ability (by fueling with oil instead of coal) to mitigate most of the downsides.
 
As goblin mentioned, the cab forward units were oil fired so no need to have anyone shoveling coal. There were (eventually) automatic units for feeding coal but they were bulkier and more complex than oil feeding. As long as you are using coal (or wood) keeping the cab at the rear is necessary.
 
Even with an automatic stoker for coal, there's a need for the fireman to be with the stoking mechanism; they needed tending on a regular basis. Also, the fireman and engineer need to be in the same place, so that the engineer can let the fireman know what's going to be needed for steam. Oil fuel is essentially a prerequisite for cab forward locomotives to work well.

Tank engines, if designed appropriately are essentially double ended.
 
Top