The anthracite(?) coal used caused a large firebox (more coal was needed) which caused the cab to be even wider or moved further along the boiler. If I was assigned to a camelback loco, I would surely want to be shoveling coal rather than sitting above the rods which sometimes broke and "cleaned house".
I think this is the right answer, isn't it Herbert?
____________________ It doesn't matter if you win or lose, its' how you rig the game.
Anthracite coal requires a much larger grate--Hence wider boiler.
While breakage of rods didn't occur all that often, I wouldn't want to be "up close and personal" either. The FRA (I think it was)--decreed that no new locos of that design be built after 1935, principally because of the large separation of fireman and engineer. One could drop dead without the other knowing. Since some of the Eastern railroads had anthracite mines for customers- or were outright owners of coal companies, it made sense to burn the stuff. It did burn much cleaner.
Said Phoebie Snow,
about to go
upon a trip to Buffalo,
My dress stays white,
from morn to night,
while on the route of anthracite
And Thanks guys, for the kudos!
____________________ Fix it again, Mr Gates--it still works!"