Steam engine mileage

[Anonymous]

There is no way a PRR T1 could run from Harrisburg PA. To Crestline Ohio without several coal stops, they would have taken coal at Altoona, Pittsburg, and Canton before reacing Crestline.

[Anonymous]

On the other end of the scale, I can add some quotes about the voracious appetite of an articulated over a challenging profile (deliberate pun) using low-calorie coal.

First, from Locobase's Z-3 2-8-8-2 articulated compound record:
The 29 August 1913 Railway Age described Z-3 service as follows: "Between Helena and Blossburg a Class W-3 locomotive with a Class Z-3 helper is hauling 1,750 tons with no increase in coal over that formerly used by a Class W and a Class Z-1 handling 1,350 tons. This is an increase of 29.6 per cent in train load, with no increase in coal consumption.
The new Class Z-3 Mallets are used on the Rocky Mountain and Seattle Divisions, four coal burners on the Rocky Mountain Division and six oil burners on the Seattle Division. The grades and trains on the Rocky Mountain Division are described above, these locomotives being used as helpers between Helena and Blossburg.
"The Seattle Division, from Ellensburg, Wash., to Auburn, Wash., is 105 miles long, crossing the Cascade Mountains through Stampede Tunnel west of Ellensburg at an elevation of 2,837 feet above sea level. These locomotives are handling 2,200 tons from Auburn to Ellensburg at a speed of from eight to 14 miles per hour, on a total oil consumption of 2,645 gallons. From Auburn to Lester, a distance of 43 miles, the average grade is one per cent. From Lester to Easton, a distance of 24 miles, there is a ruling grade of 2.2 per cent for ten miles. [A] Class Z Mallet helper ... is used from Lester to Martin. [So eastbound, the average consumption was over 25 gallons of oil per mile.]

Westbound, the Z-3 locomotive handles a time freight of 1,900 tons from Ellensburg to Auburn on 1,726 gallons of oil, having a Class Z (2-6-6-2) Mallet helper on the 2.2 per cent grade." [Westbound, on a less-adverse profile, 16.4 gal/mile.]

See also Railway Age (21 Oct 1921). Drury (1993) notes in a caption that the 40"-diameter low-pressure cylinders, which look like trash barrels on the front of the engine, "signify great tractive effort and little speed." And in fact RA noted that the maximum horsepower was generated at 10.6 mph.

Locobase's Z-6 & Z-8 4-6-6-4 entries draw from The Northern Pacific's Mainstreeter of Winter 1999, which had a long interview with long-time engineer Warren McGee-- (preserved online at http://pw2.netcom.com/~whstlpnk/wrmcgee.html, accessed most recently on 30 Jan 2006) Speaking of the Rosebud coal the railroad used, he said: " It was a coal that on the ...Z-6s, you had about an hour and 50 minutes wide open, or two hours and 20, it depended on the firing capabilities of the fireman, and the steaming qualities of the engine."

Another way to get the picture is McGee's description of firing a Z-8: "...on the run between Bozeman and Townsend, "I've swept the tank with the broom to get every last drop of coal out of that tender...Townsend to Bozeman was 27 tons of coal every time, run through that engine."

McGee explained that the grades had something to do with it: "It's all climbing. You'd never shut off, Logan to Bozeman. Townsend to Logan [the other direction], why you had to shut off and avoid going around those curves too fast, so you didn't work full throttle all the way through there. You had to conserve all the coal you could if you didn't want to stop at Logan."

I don't know the distance between the two, but know it's considerably less than 100 miles.

[Gunns]

I don't know yet, but when we start running water will be a much larger problem than fuel. We carry 7000+ Gals of oil, and 24,500 Gals of water, and club members estimate a 150 mile range between water stops. The 2900s used to run out of Argentine Ks and were ordered with the large tender so they could skip stops, but I'm not shure where they turned them.
Gunns

[daveklepper]

I understood that the T-1's had problems Harrisburg - Chicago, so Crestline was reinstated as an engine change point.

[route_rock]

Maybe I should have clarified . It wasnt NON stop but it is the record for distance for a steam loco in US history. Round trip St Paul to Seattle. Someone asked miles and I missed where hte htread veered into non stop territory > Didnt mean to confuse ( shouldnt be posting late Imake errors well look at the time )

[jimrice4449]

I suspect that 2000 mile run for the NP Mike for two reasons. First to be a non-stop run would require a string of tank cars 40 or 50 cars long to supply water and my highly fertile imagination isn't up to conjuring a method of coaling, and then there's the little matter of there being only 1904 miles from St Paul to Seattle (according to the 1945 Official Guide)

[txhighballer]

Both SP Mikes I have worked on averaged about 10 gallons/mile fuel oil and 100 gallons/mile on water.

[BR60103]

I forget the time for the Flying Scotsman, but 6 hours seems reasonable, 8 hours a bit much.
In that 6-8 hours two guys shovelled 9 tons of coal by hand -- over a ton, possibly a ton and a half each hour.


and welcome, No. 8.

[Anonymous]

Hi everyone, this is my first post

Yes, the Flying Scotsman was non-stop before WW2, but during the summer only. The distance between London and Edinburgh is 393 miles. After the War the service was taken over by "The Capitals Limited" and then "The Elizabethan" from 1953 until the non-stop service ceased in 1961. Two crews operated the train, the second crew relieving the first about half-way. A corridor tender was used, to avoid the train having to stop. The tender held 9 tons of coal, and 5,000 gallons of water. There were (I think) 6 sets of track pans (water troughs we call them in UK) en route, to keep the water supply topped up.

[Anonymous]

Wasn't the Flying Scotsman in the UK non stop? London to Edinburgh if memory serves me correctly. That would imply either track pans for water, or a large tender.

Erik

[route_rock]

Sorry boys a NP Mike has the record for distance.Over 2000 miles if I remeber right.

[PBenham]

QUOTE: Originally posted by sr6498

As an example Southern Railway 2-8-2, # 4501 in excursion service averaged about 13 miles to the ton of coal and approximately 100 gallons of water to the mile. Larger engines such as N&W 611 were probably in the 150-200 gallon range.

1218 was hungrier, and thirstier, 11miles/ton and 130 gallons. Now, NKP 765, was-wait- IS a miser, 15 miles/ton coal, 90-95 gallons. This kind of performance with these engines showed what could be done by top notch engineers and firemen.

[timz]

I remembered wrong-- the item was in Railway Age for 19 January 1924, and said that SP's rebuilt 4-4-2 had shown that it could run 223 miles LA to San Luis on one tank of water. Probably not nonstop, and they weren't necessarily going to try to do it regularly. And doesn't say how big the tank was.

That L&N run was always touted as the longest scheduled nonstop coal-burning run in the country, as if there could have been a longer oil-burning run. Anybody know of one?

[timz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

The record distance for a nonstop run on a steam-powered train was 205 miles on the South Wind between Nashville and Birmingham on the L&N.

The US record, you mean. Even that isn't for certain; the SP claimed to be planning to run the Daylight nonstop Santa Barbara to San Luis Obispo back in the 1920s, with a 4-4-2. No idea whether they ever really did.

[sr6498]

As an example Southern Railway 2-8-2, # 4501 in excursion service averaged about 13 miles to the ton of coal and approximately 100 gallons of water to the mile. Larger engines such as N&W 611 were probably in the 150-200 gallon range.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The record distance for a nonstop run on a steam-powered train was 205 miles on the South Wind between Nashville and Birmingham on the L&N. L&N 295 was a rebuilt streamlined 4-6-2 with a huge tender which was assigned to this run.

[Anonymous]

It depended quite a bit on the size of the tender in relation to the locomotive. The profile of the line being run was important too. On a typical freight run a tender full of coal or oil was plenty to get them to the next terminal. Water was a different story. Some locomotives needed to stop for water every 20 miles or so. And generally speaking most freight locomotives needed to stop for water immediately after a long upgrade. The large tenders on the Norherns, Challengers, Duplexes and such which permitted those locomotives to bypass numerous water towers were a very late development.

If you look carefully at old photos you will find that just about every place that was large enough to have a station, and many interlockings, had water towers and/or water stands.

[Anonymous]

I read that Northern Pacific´s 4-8-4 Northerns handled the North Coast Limited steadiliy between St.Paul and Livingston, Montana, without changing motive power. So one 4-8-4 would be on the train for 994 miles. Refueling (coal and water) took place at Bismark, North Dakota.

[John Krug]

On the Pennsy, the GG-1's would come off at Harrisburg, PA and the T-1's would take the train all the way to Chicago. Water would be picked up from the track pans and there was a single, servicing, coaling stop at Cressline, OH.

[jimrice4449]

Without going into specifics, a frt engine would generally run over a crew district (100 to 150 miles in steam days) and be replaced (frequently along w/ the caboose) when a new crew took over. This, in particular w/ coal burners, so the fire could be dropped w/o an unwieldly accumalation of ash building up. Most tenders had about a 2 or 3 to 1 ratio of fuel to water capacity. The most obvious exception to this was the NYC w/ the PT tenders which could replenish water on the fly from track pans. Most frt trains would have to make periodic stops for water but went between terminals on a single load of fuel (NYC and PRR however both had coal docks on the main)
Passenger engines were frequently Marathon runners. The SP Daylights went about 475 miles between LA and SF (w/ a helper added for the hill north oh San luis Obispo) and NYC engines would run on psgr from Chicago to Collinwood (Cleveland) where they would get electric engines to go into the Cleveland terminal and then get a fresh engine when they left. I believe that those trains that by passed Cleveland ran straight through Chicago to Harmon w/ refueling at Collinwood. Milwuakee's A class Atlantics and Hudsons ran sttraight through Chicago to Minneapolis, about 400 miles.

[Anonymous]

What would be a typical distance a steam engine could travel for a given quantity of coal and water? I know tenders were of many different sizes but basically.....how much coal and water would be consumed in a mile or so pulling a typical train?

Thanks,
Roger