Questions on Steam Engines

[FTGT725]

I just watched several videos on steam engines that are still running today. While I had many of my questions answered, I still have a few.

When did UP change 844 from being coal fired to being oil fired or was it always oil fired?

How far could an engine like UPs 844 go between coaling with an average size freight? How far can it go between oilings?

While watching the videos, there were valves to defrost the windshields on the engines. My question is did any steam engines have windshield wipers? I've seen many steam engines but I've never seen any with wipers. How did the crews see during inclement weather?

Thanks in advance for your answers. 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The record length between stops for a coal-fired locomotive was 205 miles on L&N between Nashville and Birmingham with the "South Wind".  L&N 295 was fitted with a large tender to extend its range.  I would think that 150 miles would be a typical range for coal-fired steam locomotives.

[timz]

That's the US record, for scheduled runs. And of course a passenger train could go farther than that between coaling stops-- L&N itself held the record (?) at around 490 miles for a few years (until NY Central engines got bigger tenders?).

As for a freight... would they ever go more than 100 miles without coaling?

[DSO17]

FTGT725

While watching the videos, there were valves to defrost the windshields on the engines. My question is did any steam engines have windshield wipers? I've seen many steam engines but I've never seen any with wipers. How did the crews see during inclement weather?

     Rather than windshield wipers a lot of engines were equipped with "clear vision windows", which were sort of a glass awning in the windshield. There was an upper fixed glass pane, then the clear vision pane, which was hinged at the top, then a bottom fixed pane. The hinged pane could be closed or swung out and locked at any angle. The idea was to set the pane at an angle that would allow ample vision without getting too much rain or snow blowing in. If you look carefully at pictures of steam engines you can see them. They were also used on some gas-electric motor cars. Prime Manufacturing Company of Milwaukee made a lot of clear vision windows and other cab appliances for steam locomotives.

[wjstix]

Generally the issue as far as stopping wasn't fuel but water. A steam engine would often run a train from point A to point B without needing coal or oil, but might have to stop once or twice for water. Plus in steam days crews changed on passenger trains or express long-haul freights every 100 miles, so the train would have to stop for that - usually at one of the scheduled stops of course.

IIRC before automated oilers like the McCoy came along, engines could only go like 20 miles before needing to stop for oiling.

[tcox009]

UP Northern's started as coal fired engines and were converted to oil in the post WWII era, supposedly because of strikes in the coal fields

[Deggesty]

wjstix

IIRC before automated oilers like the McCoy came along, engines could only go like 20 miles before needing to stop for oiling.

Stix, I believe he was speaking of taking on fuel oil, and not lubricating the moving parts, especially those that were subjected to steam (which certainly does a good job of cleaning grease and oil off parts). In the twenties, the following lubricators, using steam to move the lubricant to the parts, were often found on locomotives (so often that they are mentioned in the 1922 Locomotive Up to Date): Nathan's Bull's Eye, Edna's Bull's Eye, Detroit Bull's Eye, and Schlack's. Of course, there were parts that were still oiled by the engineer (or fireman),using an oil can that had a long neck. ( I remember from about 1941, an account, telling of Mickey Mouse as an engineer, which had the engineer oiling various parts; it closed with the sentence, "My oil can took me home, goodnight.")

Johnny

[route_rock]

  Didnt NP run a Mike over a huge ( in steam wise) distance? I cant recall where I saw this or what it was about so talk amongst yourselves on that point.

  Water was a bigger problem as noted above.On our Heisler we fill the tank after every trip.Reason being we have a hose with little pressure and we get it about full in 20 minutes of running lol. We have talked about a large tank and spout but who knows.

  Oiling around on her is every trip checking the grease cups above the cylinders.We have one that isnt set quite right that can dump it quick on occasion.Most of the other spots take a grease gun and are just daily lubes( once in the morning thankfully as they are above the guides which is 2 foot from the firebox and one foot from the boiler and you have to crawl up in to get them!)

[selector]

I would think that most engines would run out of water before they ran out of fuel, but I suppose it varied from engine to engine and work type to work type, including the terrain and loads taken over it.

We know that many engines had scoops under their tenders for track pan use.  Notably, the S1b Niagara of the NYC and the K4s from the Pennsy.  The Pennsy's mighty J1 had what was called the "Thousand mile tender", but also with a water scoop, so one would justifiably conclude that the limiting component of power generation in such engines was the quantity of water available over time.

The Norfolk & Western's J and Y classes often ran with auxiliary water tenders.  Not coal....water.

We read that the Challengers and Big Boys would run through something near 20 tons of coal and 25K gal of water in an hour going up (Sherman?) Hill.  If it actually took a whole hour, then.........!!!!

-Crandell

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The tenders on NYC's Hudsons, Niagaras and possibly other power were designed to maximize coal capacity at the expense of water capacity since track pans were available.  PRR's "Coast to Coast" tender first turned up behind M1's but also found its way behind other power, including a few K4's.

[AgentKid]

FTGT725

How far could an engine like UPs 844 go between coaling with an average size freight? How far can it go between pilings?

 

I think the OP is referring to fuel oil refuelings.

On CP on the prairies, the water towers were about 40 mile apart and the coal docks about 60. Why so close you ask?

Railroads never operated in a perfect world. Murphy's Law may have been invented for them. You would set up you railroad in the morning and there were inevitable delays for more reasons than you could count, and you needed that much infrastructure to make sure engines could make it over the line. If you ran out of water while the boiler was hot it would explode, and if you ran out of coal you were just hooped.

If your train had orders to switch along the way, that used fuel as well and you were not making forward progress. Water is not created equal and crews knew how to organize their switching to make sure to get to a place where the water was good. There was a station on the Red Deer Sub. called Carstairs where the local water had a naturally occurring chemical in it that when it was heated it would foam up worse than a freshly opened beer keg after it had just come off a paint can shaker. Dispatchers and crews alike knew they had to arrange things so trains could get water at the next tower in either direction, or they would all get grief from the locomotive shop forces.

The Canadian Pacific Historical Association has an employee timetable for the Alberta region for 1950 posted on their site, and looking at the Brooks Sub. is very interesting. That sub is the transcontinental main line between Medicine Hat, AB and Calgary, AB. At Bassano, at about the halfway point on the sub at Mile 97, every train on the page has its' time at Bassano printed in bold type. This was to signify a twenty minute fuel and water stop. Even the finest passenger train on the line "The Dominion" needed to take on water. The lesser passenger and freight trains took on both as needed.

On a more personal level I can give an example at Hatton SK, 45 miles east of Medicine Hat on the Maple Creek Sub., where we lived when I was born. Hatton was a Division Point for the Hatton Sub. a 17 mile long trip to Golden Prairie SK. There was a mixed train that ran EB from Medicine Hat to Golden Prairie every Thursday numbered 604. It would go out and do its thing and take on water or coal as required and come back to Hatton as #605, a total trip of 45 + 17 + 17 = 79 miles. It then took on all the water and coal it could hold as from Hatton back to Medicine Hat it ran as a WB extra. In the fall during the grain rush it was a real job to get it back the 45 miles to Medicine Hat before the crew went over its' 12 hours of service. It would basically advance one siding at a time, but when it would get low on water the dispatcher would actually get it to move ahead against superior trains to get to a water tower. Of course that sort of thing alway raised a question from the Superintendent, but what could they do?

Water was the real limiting component of steam engine technology. To get back to the original question, an oil burning engine could go considerably farther than a coal burning engine if they had tenders with similar outside dimensions. One of many factors in an oil burners favour.

AgentKid

 

[erikem]

AgentKid

If your train had orders to switch along the way, that used fuel as well and you were not making forward progress. Water is not created equal and crews knew how to organize their switching to make sure to get to a place where the water was good. There was a station on the Red Deer Sub. called Carstairs where the local water had a naturally occurring chemical in it that when it was heated it would foam up worse than a freshly opened beer keg after it had just come off a paint can shaker. Dispatchers and crews alike knew they had to arrange things so trains could get water at the next tower in either direction, or they would all get grief from the locomotive shop forces.

..... 

Water was the real limiting component of steam engine technology. To get back to the original question, an oil burning engine could go considerably farther than a coal burning engine if they had tenders with similar outside dimensions. One of many factors in an oil burners favour.

 

Wouldn't the RR's loved the reverse osmosis technology which would have given near distilled water quality no matter what the source?

The Santa Fe had some excellent steam locomotives with operating costs comparable to contemporary diesels, but the diesels required orders of magnitude less water. Since water was scarce over a good portion of the route through California, Arizona and New Mexico, that made for very persuasive argument in favor of dieselization.

[blue streak 1]

selector

The Norfolk & Western's J and Y classes often ran with auxiliary water tenders.  Not coal....water.

N&W always kept extra water tenders in Bristol because of the long and water consuming run to Roanoke. If the passenger trains were very late into Bristol from SOU or a water tank was out of service  somewhere for some reason then an extra tender was added in Bristol and Roanoke.

[dredmann]

Back in the day, a common practice was that coal-fired locomotives would go two coal stops for every water stop. Oil-fired locomotive often had more like a 3:1 or even 4:1 ratio of water stops per fuel stop. Often, a tender full of water was good for 100 miles. Of course, you don't want to run until you're dry, so the distance between stops was considerably less to preserve a good margin of satety / error. Tenders' fuel and water capacities, and locomotives' fuel and water consumptions, varied greatly. For example, common tenders for main-line locomotives of the 1910 - 1950 era had water capacities in the range of about 7,000 to 25,000 gallons, and coal capacities of about 10 to 35 tons or fuel oil capacities of about 3,000 to 6,500 gallons. A typical freight locomotive of 1920 might consume about 10 gallons of fuel oil and 100 gallons of water per mile. Obviously, literally, YMMV!