peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:   
   > I came across pictures of these locomotives, which were used to take   
   > passenger trains in and out of the Cleveland Union Terminal when local   
   > ordinance did not allow steaming within the city limits:   
   >   
   > http://morphotoarchive.org/rvndb/rvnjpeg_img_rec.php?objno=RVN10359   
   >   
   > [...] I find it interesting that the locomotive's superstructure is so   
   > much shorter than the undercarriage, about two-thirds the length.   
      
   At first glance, it sure does look like the body of a streetcar or a   
   small electric locomotive, dropped onto the frame and wheels of a much   
   larger steam? locomotive.   
      
   > I would be interested in any information about why they were designed   
   > like this.   
      
   I don't *know*, but I can *guess*...   
      
   Looking at Wikipedia (would they lie to you?), the picture you linked   
   is probably a New York Central "P motor".   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYC_P_Motor   
      
   These were preceded by the "T motor", which seems to have a similar   
   "short body, long frame" design.   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYC_T-Motor   
      
   The T motors in turn were preceded by the "S motor", which seems to   
   have been pretty early in the electric locomotive business (1904).   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYC_S-Motor   
      
   The picture on the Wikipedia article, and others online, show that   
   the S motor body was just about as long as the frame - similar to a   
   modern diesel locomotive.   
      
   Two days after the S motors went into service, there was a bad   
   derailment, killing 24.  Per Wiki, "The investigation identified design   
   flaws involving the long rigid wheelbase and its performance at high   
   speed.  The solution was to convert the entire class to use 2 axle   
   leading and trailing trucks to better guide the locomotive around   
   curves." and "With weight split between powered and unpowered axles the   
   S motors were never completely satisfactory at pulling long heavy trains   
   at high speed. The 1907 accident only made matters worse with additional   
   unpowered axles being added [...]".   
      
   The T motors had all powered axles.  I suspect this might have been the   
   motivation for making the frame longer, to have enough room to fit them   
   all in.  If Alco-GE found that all of the control equipment,   
   transformers, cab, etc, would fit in less length than the frame, then it   
   seems reasonable to have a shorter body.  Also, they may have re-used a   
   body design from some other locomotive.   
      
   The P motors had some idler axles as well, so they probably also needed   
   the long frame.  If the body from the T motors worked, they probably   
   didn't see any reason to change it for the P motors.   
      
   Again, this is speculation based on Wikipedia articles.  Take it with   
   as much salt as you think you need to.   
      
   Matt Roberds   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)