NYC PT2 Tender

D500 posted:

"Is there some history with it in real railroading?"

What - do you think Lionel and others just made it up?

======

And furthermore, regardless of comments above, a big, sleek PT tender definitely does belong behind a NYC Hudson, not just the Niagara (too bad the Mohawks never got them). Note that when they were originally put behind streamlined Century Hudsons that they were simply striped and lettered and required no streamlining at all - and looked superbly smooth.

Love the 12-wheeler, too, you understand. But that PT centipede tender looks so modern - which is why it was the perfect esthetic compliment to the Niagara - which looks a bit streamlined itself, even though it is not.

The PT tenders (of which there were 6 variants) were, in my humble opinion, a marvel of engineering.   NYC built both the PT1's and one only PT2 (which was tied to Hudson 5401) and the 10 PT3 tenders at their Beechwood Grove shops.  The entire PT4 class were LIMA built.   All of the Niagara PT5 tenders, along with the lone PT6 variant used on Niagara 5500, were ALCO built.  A fully loaded PT tender outweighed the Hudson it was tied to.  I also feel that a de-shrouded J3a Super Hudson looked  good with the PT tender even if the proportions didn't quite match.  I have the Sunset 3rd Rail version of that.   For those of you that may be interested the NYCSHS Central Headlight, 3rd quarter 1985, has a full blown article on the PT tenders authored by H.L. Vail, Jr. 

PS:  The tenders used with the L3 and L4 Mohawks were certainly large enough in their own right, especially the L4b's with the cistern behind the slope sheet allowing for scooping water at higher speeds.