the trucks and all gearing was open, exposed to the elements. A further patent from 1891 describes a locomotive with horizontal cylinders connected to the drive shaft through a 2-speed transmission. Battles's patent describes the core design that became the Class B Climax, and his patent illustrations show the name Climax emblazoned on the locomotive cab. Scott patent Charles D. Scott, who had previously proposed a less successful geared steam locomotive, filed a lawsuit against Gilbert and Battles and applied for a patent in his own name, which was granted to him on 20 December 1892 after a lengthy legal dispute. But the lawsuit left Scott penniless because he could hardly benefit from the invention. Scott's patent showed the arrangement of the steam engine, boiler and two-speed gearbox in accordance with Gilbert's patent while the drive without differential gearbox was described in accordance to Battles' patent. Scott's patent corresponds to the most common design of Class A Climax locomotives. In 1893, Scott proposed a geared steam locomotive, in which the frame of the boiler was hinged to the frame of the tender. The running gear underneath the boiler was firmly connected to it and was driven by common lateral cylinders and side rods. Underneath the tender was a truck which was similar to the Climax locomotives driven by a central shaft which took the power from the front axle of the locomotive via a hypoid bevel gear. For the first time, the design used closed axle drives with housings on one hand protecting the gear unit from and on the other hand also containing the gear lubricant. Production All Climax locomotives were built by the Climax Manufacturing Company (later renamed to the Climax Locomotive Works), of Corry, Pennsylvania. In addition, an agency and service facility was established in Seattle, Washington to sell and maintain locomotives for west coast buyers. Production began in 1888 and the last Climax locomotive was produced in 1928. Between 1000 and 1100 were built. Operational reliability Many loggers considered the Climax superior to the Shay in hauling capability and stability, particularly in a smaller locomotive. This was due to its fully sprung truck arrangement; the Shay locomotive had no springs on the bogie on the drivetrain side and was therefore not fully able to compensate for twists in the track. The ride on the large class C Climax was characteristically rough for the crew, since the