The cost to install and maintain watering facilites, as well as any operational delays, would surely be looked at by the beancounters as an evil waiting for an excuse to disappear. Running double requires more men, at an increased cost and possibly depleting the extra boards. Servicing the power at intervals could not be avoided, of course. These, and other points discussed are valid observations, yet an industry driven by competively inspired efficiency seems in my mind to have missed the opportunity that every seagoing propulsion powered vessel possesses: take it with you, or go dead in the water. Not to advocate trying to run 1,000 miles without a fuel or water stop, I still find it curious that little or no effort was made to eliminate at least half (a 50% bean savings) the water stops by utilizing aux. tenders or equivelant.

Having spent six years in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club in the engine room, I've come away with a fairly fine grasp of propulsion principles and fluid transfer. While turning an engine with auxillary tenders would probably be impossible or at least impracticle, the given connections from tender to tender might possible be limited to four: Air, steam, water and fuel. Tenders could run in either direction, not requiring turning. Poor water quality requires more effort (cost) to prepare for its life as feedwater and wells need maintenance to deliver that poor water. Early dieselization is an obvious choice- I'd not advocate steam power longevity in light of that. Yet, for many years, trains were ran dependent upon a distant watering point. One contributor points out that aux. tenders were used on some runs by another railroad, and in light of this, I can't recall ever reading about the Santa Fe using aux. tenders either. Interstingly enough, the last time I worked between Needles and Barstow, the water tower at Goffs Butte (IIRC) was still standing.

Thanks to all for some interesting thoughts...