Steam engine question

[wjstix]

FWIW the coal would last much longer than the water, an engine would usually have to stop for water several times before it would need another load of coal.

Of course on the NYC they used water troughs so didn't have to stop !! [;)]

[PBenham]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jimrice4449

A NYC fan might want to correct this but I believe the NYC Hudsons w/ pedestal bed tenders (Centipedes in MRRese) ran from Chicago or Harmon to Collinwood(Cleveland) w/o refueling, where they would either be refueled or changed out. This wasn't a tytpical situation though because those tenders had a disproportionate fuel/water ratio (47 tons & 18,000 gals as opposed to 30 tons & 20,000 gals on a comprable engine w/o access to track pans) due to the NYC track pans that permitted taking water enroute w/o stopping.

They were refueled at a massive coaling tower at Waterport NY about half way between Syracuse and Rochester NY. The location was chosen, since the West Shore line was right next to the NYC main there ,and freights on both lines could refuel and take water and cross over from one route to another as needed. An inspecton of the site in 1980, revealed the coaling tower's supports still intact, the tower having been torn down in the late 1950's to open up overhead clearences for autoracks and piggyback flats and to save on the taxes the town would have slapped on the (otherwise) unused property. During the winter, coal consumption would go up, with the need to make additional steam, so Hudsons,later Mohawks (L3s and L4s) and Niagaras needed to take coal there in the winter, but roll through in the warmer months of the year. Also, there was a re-icing facility for brine tank referigerated cars. This facility closed after the Penn Central debacle/ merger in the early '70s, when the last ice cooled reefers were retired.

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

Andy,

what you have heard or read is most likely wrong. The NYC Hudsons with pedestal tender carrying 46 tons of coal were refueled only one time on the 950+ mile run from Harmon to Chicago. That means we have a ratio of about 10:1, not 1:1.
I cannot say for sure, but I believe that also on the longer run Harmon - St. Louis only one fuel stop was provided.
Please keep in mind that it is nearly impossible to run a locomotive at full throttle until all fuel has been burned - especially on a flat run like Water level route Harmon - Chicago. And also keep in mind that the ratio distance:fuel depends very much on the area where a locomotive is used (flat or mountainious), the kind of train the engine is used to haul and the driver wheel diameter. You will understand easily that the NYC Hudson was a race engine with 79inch drivers designed to run at 100+ mph with 10-15car passenger trains - and because of that it could go far more miles with a given amount of coal as another extreme - for example a Virginian AE 2-10-10-2 with only 56inch driving wheels which will show another ratio (but still far away from 1:1) - may be between 5:1 and 4:1 - but this engine also was far more large than the NYC Hudson and - more important - designed for operation at speeds no higher than perhaps 15 mph - but with very heavy coal trains on grades.

I would guess that the NP Z-7 within that time with 27 tons of coal could go about 120 miles if one supposes the speed being 45 to 50 mph, but may be below 100 miles because most of the high speed 4-6-6-4s were wrongly operated at lower speeds where the appetite for fuel was highest. And here we have to regard that the coal used on NP engines was a low grade coal having about 2/3 BTU than eastern coal.

[jimrice4449]

A NYC fan might want to correct this but I believe the NYC Hudsons w/ pedestal bed tenders (Centipedes in MRRese) ran from Chicago or Harmon to Collinwood(Cleveland) w/o refueling, where they would either be refueled or changed out. This wasn't a tytpical situation though because those tenders had a disproportionate fuel/water ratio (47 tons & 18,000 gals as opposed to 30 tons & 20,000 gals on a comprable engine w/o access to track pans) due to the NYC track pans that permitted taking water enroute w/o stopping.

[rji2]

I really don't know the answer, but I do have the following. L&N engine 295 had a tender capacity of 27 1/2 tons of coal and 20,000 gallons of water. Its regulkar assignment was the South Wind between Louisville and Montgomery. I don't know anything about fuel and water consumption, but 295 had the longest non-stop steam run in the U.S., 205 miles between Nashville and Birmingham.

[sr6498]

SR 4501 a 2-8-2 averaged about 13 miles to the ton and 100 gals of water a mile. I don't think any Hudson type locomotive would have the grate area to burn a ton of coal in 1 mile. Or any locomotive for that matter.

[GN-Rick]

That sounds about right. On the Northern Pacific, their Z-7 class 4-6-6-4s had
tender capacities of 25,000 gallons of water and 27 tons of coal. At full throttle,
without refueling, a run with one would last about 2 hours and 25 minutes. Not
too long a distance.

[Anonymous]

Being 53 years old, I came along just at the end of the steam age. While I did ride a steam engine at the old Rail City in New York, I don't recall any mainline steam, although we had both the Pennsy and Erie in my hometown.
My question is this: how far could a steam engine go on a load of coal and water. I know each type of engine was different, but I once heard a Hudson took 100 tons of coal to go 100 miles, and that seems high. Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks!

Andy