Thanks a lot, Overmod!
(pic deleted).
SP #5028
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
OvermodTook some digging, but here we are: PRR 1515, built at Altoona in 1892, in part to test the Lindner system of cross-compounding.
As it turns out, Robert Lindner did not invent a new system of cross-compounding, only an improvement in starting valves for a cross-compound. You can see the patent (404295A) here. Valuable too is the discussion in the Railroad Gazette that starts November 15, 1889 with a description of the original system and then goes through several rounds of 'correspondence' before being taken up here: [url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dkRKzCk5x2gC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=lindner+compound&source=bl&ots=ytbTBw_md6&sig=ACfU3U3C70xnyYrTWOT0QZ4Y9Z-wP4A0JQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjqlu-kyfTiAhUJ5awKHXsrDUk4ChDoATAAegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=lindner%20compound&f=false]in the Friday, March 27 issue of the Railroad Gazette (pp.207-8). Note the number of locomotives started with this system that were supposedly in service by early 1891, and the criticism of comments by von Borries, often considered the major proponent of cross-compound design, toward the end.
Valuable too is the discussion in the Railroad Gazette that starts November 15, 1889 with a description of the original system and then goes through several rounds of 'correspondence' before being taken up here:
[url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dkRKzCk5x2gC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=lindner+compound&source=bl&ots=ytbTBw_md6&sig=ACfU3U3C70xnyYrTWOT0QZ4Y9Z-wP4A0JQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjqlu-kyfTiAhUJ5awKHXsrDUk4ChDoATAAegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=lindner%20compound&f=false]in the Friday, March 27 issue of the Railroad Gazette (pp.207-8).
More pics from the book "The 4-10-2, Three Barrels of Steam"
More than usual of that explosion went forward, possibly due to weakness in the smoke box wrapper due to the three cylinders. Note the piece of wrapper driven into the steps.
Looks as if the saturated steam, laced with levitated char in the front end, was above the ignition point of the cab and stack paint. At least the men wouldn't have suffered more than the victims of Mont Pelee in 1902.
And this with MOST of the explosion being in the usual direction, out and down through the firebox, with the usual rocket effect leaving all the elements hanging off the header like spaghetti...
Ironic, perhaps, that had the glass end been leading, like a cab-forward, the helper crew would likely have survived...
Thank You.
Flintlock76The cab unit crew that hit the tanker truck knew what was going to hit them (figuratively speaking) and there was nothing they could do about it.
Same in spades for the situation with what I recall was an IC E9 in the Sixties, pictured in Trains -- I particularly remember the burned-out numberboards that were little more than a piece of glass to break and let fuel into the nose. My early thinking about properly-armored cabs dates very specifically from this and from a roughly contemporary picture of a PATH collision accident with flames still visible burning through where the center door of the car had been -- something assuredly scary to kids, whether for good reason or not!
Of course this pales with the death-on-wheels that was meted out to the poor engineman at Deans, in 1934, which was no less dreadful for involving gravel instead of fire. Here there was an immediate response, first in working out a solution that became the 'modified' P5s and then, by a commodius vicus of recirculation involving first Dohner and then Loewy, adapting it for the GG1. (Which would later encounter its own dreadful, "unsurvivable" fiery collision, at high speed with track equipment, and bring its crew safely through...)
On the other hand, there are stories of at least one of the early Zephyrs surviving this kind of collision successfully ... and of course the marvelous altercation between the CN test TurboTrain and a whole trailer load of frozen meat.
Great Information once again!
SP engineers had similar qualms when the AM's and AC's were initially placed in service: "I don't want a caboose in my lap someday." To which the RFE replied, "Do your job right and that will never happen."
I agree with Wayne as well. Since there is actually not a place in this world is completely safe, I don't mind to say this openly that I would pick the fastest way to die if I was involved in a fatal accident. (if I had a choice)
The "central cab" design of the Baldwin RT624 looked safe for the crew, but they were some very powerful switchers. EMD's G16c which there were four units sold to British Hong Kong in the 1960s had similar design and they were used to tow mainline passenger trains.
EMD G16c
Certainly, a violent death on the job is no way for anyone to go, but look at it this way, the engine crews that died in boiler explosions never knew what hit them. The cab unit crew that hit the tanker truck knew what was going to hit them (figuratively speaking) and there was nothing they could do about it.
Given the choice, and I know it's not much of a choice, I'd take the boiler explosion.
I can't imagine what it's like being in a situation where you can see your end coming, and you're absolutely helpless to prevent it. Maybe we don't want to know.
BaltACD While having many feet of machinery ahead of the engine crew may have been comforting for steam engine crew vs. diesels in grade crossing incidents - there was an equally dangerous aspect of steam engine operation for those same crews - boiler explosions !!! Also not a good way to go!
While having many feet of machinery ahead of the engine crew may have been comforting for steam engine crew vs. diesels in grade crossing incidents - there was an equally dangerous aspect of steam engine operation for those same crews - boiler explosions !!! Also not a good way to go!
Speaking of the boiler explosion, it is part of the history of SP 4-10-2 #5037: November 11, 1946. SP #5037 suffered a catastrophic boiler explosion at Bosque, Arizona
Quote from the web: "The locomotive had been serviced in Yuma only 2 and a half hours before the explosion, and no faults were found with the injector, feedwater heater, or water glasses. The ICC report found that the engine had just had a boiler wash just 4 days before the incident and that the four fusible plugs were renewed 12 days prior. It was later found that the water level had fallen to 6 and 3/4 inches below the bottom of the water glasses, allowing the top 3 inches of the crown sheet to soften. The "burning" of the crown sheet was found to reach almost 19 rows of staybolts back, almost half of the full length of the firebox. Only the engineer's side water glass was found intact. Analysis of the feedwater heater and injector showed no defects after being put on a sister 4-10-2. The water glass, a reflex type, was found to have the reflective surface on the inside of the glass worn dark, providing the only clue as to what may have happened. (by BDrotarIII)"
Instead of being sent to the torch, SP #5037 was repaired after this incident. She probably kept running until the end of the steam era.
Jones1945 Flintlock76 ...It is a fact that a lot of veteran engineers were nervous about running cab units. Not having fifty to seventy-five feet of machinery in front protecting you against a grade crossing collision took some getting used to, and I can see why. One of my books has a horrific photo of a collision between an F-unit and a gasolene tanker truck that didn't "Stop! Look! And listen!" The cab unit was fried and the head-end crew was killed. Not a good way to go... I really feel sorry for the crews who were killed by the restless drivers! I can't count how many videos I watched about a grade crossing accident. Maybe only the snow plow could protect our railroader from this kind of "accident"......
Flintlock76 ...It is a fact that a lot of veteran engineers were nervous about running cab units. Not having fifty to seventy-five feet of machinery in front protecting you against a grade crossing collision took some getting used to, and I can see why. One of my books has a horrific photo of a collision between an F-unit and a gasolene tanker truck that didn't "Stop! Look! And listen!" The cab unit was fried and the head-end crew was killed. Not a good way to go...
...It is a fact that a lot of veteran engineers were nervous about running cab units. Not having fifty to seventy-five feet of machinery in front protecting you against a grade crossing collision took some getting used to, and I can see why. One of my books has a horrific photo of a collision between an F-unit and a gasolene tanker truck that didn't "Stop! Look! And listen!" The cab unit was fried and the head-end crew was killed. Not a good way to go...
I really feel sorry for the crews who were killed by the restless drivers! I can't count how many videos I watched about a grade crossing accident. Maybe only the snow plow could protect our railroader from this kind of "accident"......
While having many feet of machienry ahead of the engine crew may have been comforting for steam engine crew vs. diesels in grade crossing incidents - there was a equally dangerous aspect of steam engine operation for those same crews - boiler explosions !!! Also not a good way to go!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It would be a mistake to assume enginemen were monolithic on any particular subject, in this case steam vs diesel, than any other group of people are monolithic on any subject.
Some enginemen were sorry to see the steamers go as they didn't think the diesels were as much fun to run, some were glad, and others probably didn't give a damn what they drove just as long as they had a job.
It is a fact that a lot of veteran engineers were nervous about running cab units. Not having fifty to seventy-five feet of machinery in front protecting you against a grade crossing collision took some getting used to, and I can see why. One of my books has a horrific photo of a collision between an F-unit and a gasolene tanker truck that didn't "Stop! Look! And listen!" The cab unit was fried and the head-end crew was killed. Not a good way to go.
And if what I've read is true many of those same veteran enginemen really didn't get comfortable with diesels until the hood units showed up. Even running short-hood forward gave some protection against collisions.
One steam engine type that crews were definately glad to see go were the aforementioned "Camelbacks." The only people that loved those engines were the accountants, on account of the cheap fuel they could burn. Most enginemen disliked them intensely.
I'm sure some enginemen were sorry to see the steamers go, some were glad, and others probably didn't give a damn what they drove just as long as they had a job.
I am quite sure most of the fireman and rail yard engineer preferred the diesels. I never against the idea of dieselization both openly and privately since it wasn't something against the public interest (intentionally), just as the construction of NA's highway network and the development of airplane and automobile which boosted the economy of America (was there any other better choice?). I think different kinds of energy and transportation had their time in NA's railroading history, though I also respect the rights of others to love or hate the diesel or steam engine, or both of them, as long as it is not against the forum's rules.
IIRC, there was at least one marketing research conducted by SP during the transitional era, which its result pointed out that more than half of the customer thought that steam engines were much more appealing to them. But of course, this didn't indicate that people wouldn't ride on a diesel streamliner anymore (they probably didn't ask such question); even though the proposed streamliner Golden Rocket was canceled before launch, and more "dieseliners", named trains of different railroads were canceled afterward due to extremely low ridership. When the LD passenger trains lost their very last "weapon" (attractiveness) to even stay in the competition, RRs were given a chance to rest assure to cancel even more passenger trains and to execute their manpower reduction plan, as well as canceling themselves and pass the whole business to the government.
It is a historical fact that some class 1 railroad purged their steam locomotives like rats. In some steam engine lovers' eyes, it was unwise and unnecessarily creepy. Either steam or diesel engine was merely a cool dirty machine for the folks who never give a damn about railroading or irony, for the people who used to run a railroad.
Oh boy, I'm just jonesin' for a thick sliced pan fried bologna, or commonly called baloney, on toast, and it's late at night. Put some mustard on that too. Sounds good
That'll give me something to 'manger upon' whilst I read the newly arrived July issue of Trains Magazine... oh, wait, what's this.. "Big Boy Lives" in huge print along with the Big Boy itself on the front cover. Well I'll be darned if that don't beat all.
This is going to be some good eatin'.
I just saw an older video about the Big Boy, and they interviewed about ten former BB engineers about their experiences. They said they were great locos, and the last question they asked was about the diesel replacements. 9 out of 10 said that they much preferred the diesels.
Miningman A pox on Diesels.
A pox on Diesels.
Never!! Diesels saved railroading.
The above is not an ad but a creation from a railfan and recent.
It does however capture that very brief window when we all thought this was it, steam has a very long future.
That brief maybe ten year time between the S1 and the T1's when you actually could stand trackside and watch these go by at 120 mph in a certain location was experienced by very few people.
The excitment had just started when they were gone.
It must have been difficult to fathom on those in the know.
Overmod One should not forget that the fastest locomotives in the world at one time were Camelbacks, including the first proper Atlantics. If I remember correctly, the original P&R locomotives using a firebox of this construction tried to perch the cab on top, which required too much clearance in the loading gage. Hence this 'modern' arrangement with low center of gravity and nominally better engineer's visibility, more direct throttle linkage, etc. (That you were constantly at risk of being creamed in a rod failure doesn't seem to have been a major deterrent...)
One should not forget that the fastest locomotives in the world at one time were Camelbacks, including the first proper Atlantics.
If I remember correctly, the original P&R locomotives using a firebox of this construction tried to perch the cab on top, which required too much clearance in the loading gage. Hence this 'modern' arrangement with low center of gravity and nominally better engineer's visibility, more direct throttle linkage, etc. (That you were constantly at risk of being creamed in a rod failure doesn't seem to have been a major deterrent...)
There weren't many designs had the privilege of being banned by ICC! I once thought that Raymond Loewy tired to pay tribute to the Camelbacks with his Cab-above-boiler design of the PRR T1 phototypes, maybe he forgot the ban and the history of Pennsy's Camelbacks. I don't think they looked odd but interesting. If the RRs provided medieval armor to the train crew, we would have had some modern streamlined Camelbacks......
By the way, there are at least four websites wrongly indicate the Southern Pacific SP-1/2/3 as compound steam engine. Steam locomotive dot come hasn't corrected the mistake yet. ( https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=4-10-2&railroad=sp#288 )
Flintlock76 ...The "Camelback," or we should say the Wooten firebox locomotives caught on in a big way with what are called the "Anthracite Railroads," that is, the 'roads that were essentially coal "pipelines" out of the anthracite country of northeastern Pennsylvania. The Wooten firebox was designed to burn the waste anthracite left over from the breakers that wasn't suitable for commercial sale. All that waste called "culm" was a fuel source essentially free for the taking, or available at a dirt-cheap price...
...The "Camelback," or we should say the Wooten firebox locomotives caught on in a big way with what are called the "Anthracite Railroads," that is, the 'roads that were essentially coal "pipelines" out of the anthracite country of northeastern Pennsylvania. The Wooten firebox was designed to burn the waste anthracite left over from the breakers that wasn't suitable for commercial sale. All that waste called "culm" was a fuel source essentially free for the taking, or available at a dirt-cheap price...
Thank you for the concise explanation about the Wooten firebox locomotives, Wayne. It was almost a consensus among railfan that Pennsy had made some peculiar decisions (and many wise decisions). It was just a wild guess of me about their introduction of the Camelback in 1899. The book "Pennsy Power" makes no mention of the reason why Pennsy picked the Camelback. Pennsy had three Class E1 Camelback in total, E1a had a "traditional" cab behind the firebox design.
Miningman Tremendous information. Long gone and forgotten about locomotives along with everyone associated with it. Would be a marvel to be at trackside to witness these. Beautiful and elegant in design too. Looks like all of them had very short service lives foreshadowing the fate of 'modern future' power which was to come
Tremendous information. Long gone and forgotten about locomotives along with everyone associated with it. Would be a marvel to be at trackside to witness these. Beautiful and elegant in design too. Looks like all of them had very short service lives foreshadowing the fate of 'modern future' power which was to come
Indeed, Mr. Miningman. I wish I could feel their power and charm in real life like Loewy, he wrote: "On a straight stretch of track without any curves for miles; I waited for the S1 to pass through at full speed. I stood on the platform and saw it coming from the distance at 120 miles per hour. It flashed by like a steel thunderbolt, the ground shaking under me, in a blast of air that almost sucked me into its whirlwind. Approximately a million pounds of locomotive were crashing through near me. I felt shaken and overwhelmed by an unforgettable feeling of power, by a sense of pride at the sight of what I had helped to create."
The Southern Pacific SP1/2/3 probably had the longest service life among my top 10 favorites steam locomotive. Many steam locomotive constructed during WWII had around 10 to 15 years of life...
Flintlock76The "Camelback," or we should say the Wootten firebox locomotives caught on in a big way with what are called the "Anthracite Railroads," that is, the 'roads that were essentially coal "pipelines" out of the anthracite country of northeastern Pennsylvania. The Wootten firebox was designed to burn the waste anthracite left over from the breakers that wasn't suitable for commercial sale.
The "Camelback," or we should say the Wooten firebox locomotives caught on in a big way with what are called the "Anthracite Railroads," that is, the 'roads that were essentially coal "pipelines" out of the anthracite country of northeastern Pennsylvania. The Wooten firebox was designed to burn the waste anthracite left over from the breakers that wasn't suitable for commercial sale. All that waste called "culm" was a fuel source essentially free for the taking, or available at a dirt-cheap price.
The Pennsy wasn't one of the "Anthracite 'Roads," and although they did haul the stuff it wasn't a major part of their customer base. You're probably right they tried some "Camelbacks" out of curiousity, the Pennsy's main fuel was bituminous coal after all.
Interestingly, the Union Pacific tried some "Camelbacks" to try and utilise low-grade western coal as a fuel. They didn't like the "Camels" either.
Flintlock76 Interesting, that PRR "Camelback." The caption says there was three of them, but I've read elsewhere there were four. No matter, the Pennsy didn't like them, they just didn't care for the separation of the engineer and the fireman at all. They unloaded them on the Long Island, who didn't like them either. I don't know where they went after the LIRR got rid of them.
Interesting, that PRR "Camelback." The caption says there was three of them, but I've read elsewhere there were four. No matter, the Pennsy didn't like them, they just didn't care for the separation of the engineer and the fireman at all.
They unloaded them on the Long Island, who didn't like them either. I don't know where they went after the LIRR got rid of them.
Maybe Pennsy wanted to get the first-hand information of the pros and cons of the camelback design. This reminds me of the design of PRR Q1, Pennsy probably knew the disadvantages of the backward-driving rear cylinders on B&O's Class N-1 (of 1937) but they still repeated the same mistake (in 1940). I think the Q1 was cool though. : P
Took some digging, but here we are: PRR 1515, built at Altoona in 1892, in part to test the Lindner system of cross-compounding. Note how effectively the design hides its 84" drivers, which I suspect are there in large part for the same reason Golsdorf used high drivers in this general era, to restrict machinery speeds.
Was running on the Pennsylvania Limited as late as 1897, so not a 'failure'...
Overmod ......My notes are put away and inaccessible, and for various google-related reasons I can't find search terms that aren't swamped by T1 references, but someone can probably find a description and reference to the original PRR class T 4-4-0, which among other things had low running boards and splashers, a three-axle "British appearance" tender, and ... wait for it ... 84" drivers. If I remember rightly this was built as a kind of von Borries compound, where HP was on one side, LP on the other, and as you can imagine some very clever use of a proportional 'starting valve' needed to get the thing up to speed and balance it. Alternatively, the PRR a bit later (I think by the time of the Columbian Exposition) famously tried an imported de Glehn-du Bousquet 4-4-2, which in theory would have been one of the best approaches to pre-superheat 'compounding' in that great era of the compounding fad in the United States. The accounts I've read basically say that the locomotive was built to contemporary European standards and some of the working parts were far too lightly constructed for American service......
......My notes are put away and inaccessible, and for various google-related reasons I can't find search terms that aren't swamped by T1 references, but someone can probably find a description and reference to the original PRR class T 4-4-0, which among other things had low running boards and splashers, a three-axle "British appearance" tender, and ... wait for it ... 84" drivers. If I remember rightly this was built as a kind of von Borries compound, where HP was on one side, LP on the other, and as you can imagine some very clever use of a proportional 'starting valve' needed to get the thing up to speed and balance it.
Alternatively, the PRR a bit later (I think by the time of the Columbian Exposition) famously tried an imported de Glehn-du Bousquet 4-4-2, which in theory would have been one of the best approaches to pre-superheat 'compounding' in that great era of the compounding fad in the United States. The accounts I've read basically say that the locomotive was built to contemporary European standards and some of the working parts were far too lightly constructed for American service......
I can't find the detail of PRR Class T on the web but some brief information of PRR #2512:
https://locomotive.fandom.com/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad_No._2512
From: http://rrpicturearchives.net/Locopicture.aspx?id=239236
Edit:
PRR D15 (class T, pre 1895) Lindner Cross Compound 4-4-0 Steam Locomotive
https://www.classicstreamliners.com/lo-prr-d15.html
#PRR #Compound steam locomotive #de Glehn Compound
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter