Why is the piping different on different engines of the same type and class? I'm currently building an IC 0-6-0 (254). I have secured a good prototype photo of the left (fireman's) side. I've been unable to find a photo of the right (engineer's) side of that particular locomotive.
I have, however, managed to find photos of IC 250, 252, 230 and others. All of these engines came from the same manufacturer and were built in the same year. But the small visible piping is somewhat different on every one of them.
My question is, why would an engine built by the same manufacturer in the same order and upgraded by the same shops later in life to the same specifications, have different piping?
The only really obvious visual difference is that some of the engines had squared off Paducah sand domes installed and some didn't. That and the small piping.
Probably because a steam locomotive's useful career was spent being torn apart and put back together again, and the guys in the shop likely never did it the same way twice. Even at the manufacturer, the crews probably made small changes all the time. These were in essence hand-made goods.
This is why having a left side photo and a right side photo of the very same locomotive might not tell you all you need to know about detailing, unless those photos were taken on the same day.
And yes this can be very frustrating for the prototype modeler. And the manufacturer, be it in plastic or brass.
Dave Nelson
The JNR 9600-class 2-8-0s, when built in the 1920s, were alike as cookies shaped with the same cookie cutter - very similar, but not identical.
As they steamed into the sunset half a century later, about the only thing they had in common was the wheel arrangement, size and spacing. Some had feedwater heaters (not all in the same place.) All had been retrofitted with air brakes, but the pumps, tanks and plumbing seemed to have been done with whatever was handy, no two alike. They were fitted with at least three different designs of elephant ears. Very late in life they were fitted with stack blast deflectors of several different designs, meant to minimize damage to tunnel linings and overhead structures...
Happily for all concerned, I had taken photos of both sides of several operating examples. When I finally modify my 'foobie' Bachmann consolidations into 'real' 9600s I'll be able to detail them correctly.
Whether or not I'll bother is another question for another day...
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - approximately, not exactly)
JWhiteWhy is the piping different on different engines of the same type and class? I'm currently building an IC 0-6-0 (254).
IC is well known for modifications and rebuilding programs. Their Paducah, KY shops continue to this day (under new ownership) still modifying and rebuilding old locomotives, albeit diesel locomotives. Is it possible that some photos were taken before shoping and some after? Also the some locomotives may have been scrapped instead of rebuilt.
While a fleet of locomotives may have been built to identical plans during a short period of time, during their usually long lives they were upgraded, modified and sometimes victims of wrecks all of which caused variations in their looks. Another factor is different shops maintaining certain engines. Often a shop had a preference on how and where they placed things.
I have photos of an engine with certain air pumps and another taken 2 weeks later with a totally different configuration. I also have the same engine in a builder photo and one taken toward the end of its career and both show variations. That's 4 possibilities from 1910-1956.
As safety appliances became mandatory they were added and could be up to a particular shops interpretation. Even the great Pennsylvania RR, "Standard RR of the World", had plumbing variations among it's huge fleet.
As stated before, the era you model makes a huge difference in what you need to replicate and if at all possible a photo of the same engine on the same date is the best solution to accuracy.
Best of luck with your model.
Roger Huber
Deer Creek Locomotive Works
It seems I misworded my question. I undertsand that these locomotives were continually modified during their service lives. My question is really; What was done during routine maintenance that caused such a great variation in appearance? Basically, why was it necessary to continually change things when the operating specifications (boiler pressure, cylinder size etc.) didn't change?
I am well aware that a model of any steam locomotive is only accurate for the day the photo used was taken. My question is why? When I work on my truck, I don't re-route the fuel injection system, even on a major overhaul. But it seems that everytime a steam locomotive went into the shop, even if the operating specs didn't change, it came out looking somewhat different.
Jeff,
I bet the guys who did that plumbing at the shops were the same ones who put the striping and numbers on the yard diesels later on.
Charlie
Steam locomotives were hand built, not mass produced.
Take the air pump. Let's say it's on the side. There is a gap in the running boards for it.The gap is larger than absolutely necessary, so the position of the air pump varied by a tiny bit from engine to engine. So EACH piece of piping was custom fitted to each engine. Each shop had a substantial number of pipefitters, which job is exactly what it says; when it came time to replace a corroded pipe, for example, they'd grab straight pipe and bend it by eye as needed.
It's one of the reasons General Motors dominated the diesel field; they were all about mass production.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
Bayfield Transfer RailwaySteam locomotives were hand built, not mass produced.
Well, I would not want to sign that off.
Wartime Deutsche Reichsbahn had over 7,000 class 52 Decapods built in a quite a short time in a process quite similar to that of building the Liberty ships. The locos were standardized down to the last bolt, but had a variety of different tenders.
OK. Here in the U.S. many locomotives were essentially exactly alike one another when new, but there were nearly constant improvements and minor changes.
There were, depending upon the railroad, at least 5 different classifications to steam locomotive repairs, with Class 5 being essentially a complete rebuild from nearly the (sandblasted and repaired) frame up. Some engines even received complete brand new boilers, especially if the old one was completely shot, but also if cracking issues were discovered or the design didn't steam as well as desired. Others got brand new frames, etc.
Metallurgy was changing, as was welding. Dramatic improvements in casting and ability to produce one piece frames also occurred. New and improved appliances and valves were coming on the scene rapidly.
John
Do you have any clue how many design changes Henry Ford put into the model T the first couple of years between the cooling system and the transmission? There were even 1 offering designs that were sold to customers.
As much as I hate to say it, sometimes they were just tweeks on a production unit to see if it worked better. The end customer became the tester!
Plus as someone mentioned, I'm sure parts were replaced over time and replacement parts weren't always the same.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
JWhite It seems I misworded my question. I undertsand that these locomotives were continually modified during their service lives. My question is really; What was done during routine maintenance that caused such a great variation in appearance? Basically, why was it necessary to continually change things when the operating specifications (boiler pressure, cylinder size etc.) didn't change? I am well aware that a model of any steam locomotive is only accurate for the day the photo used was taken. My question is why? When I work on my truck, I don't re-route the fuel injection system, even on a major overhaul. But it seems that everytime a steam locomotive went into the shop, even if the operating specs didn't change, it came out looking somewhat different.
The changes you're asking about probably couldn't be done as part of "routine maintenance" but rather work done in a backshop. Steam engines have to be taken apart and re-assembled every so many years per federal boiler regulations. During that process, things that were getting worn out would be replaced, so an engine might get a new feedwater heater or generator or whatever.
Also, in the first half of the 20th century, companies who made parts for engines were competing to make superheaters and other parts that were better made, more efficient etc. This means a railroad might replace an old part with a new, improved part. Sometimes the new part wouldn't fit where the old one had been, so things had to be moved around. An air pump that had been on the fireman's side below the walkway might be replaced with a larger one on the front of the smokebox.
Today those of us in the design community have cadd, which allows extremely fast revisions to drawings, which are then often re-issued under the seal of a licensed professional engineer, who can be held legally responsible and sued if something doesn't work properly, etc.
Back then the engineering drawings were on blueprints or other paper media, would not have been readily available to the shop mechanics and pipefitters at the click of a mouse, like today, and would have taken considerable time and effort to modify to be correct. The railroad might only have a few sets of design drawings stashed away somewhere--not likely working copies for the maintenance forces to access.
Back then in some cases the drawings were only general arrangement drawings. It was understood that the craft trades, which were highly respected, would be able to more than adequately "fill in" the missing details left off the general arrangement drawings.
We are now, in historical hindsight, trying to wrap our heads around a way of rebuilding steam locomotives with techniques and equipment that have nearly gone the way of the dinosaur. For some of us it is just not going to compute. The steam maintenance forces would have constantly been making improvements. Pipe fitters, other trades, and apprentices learned on the job, and would have strived to make the next job, whatever it was, better than the last. It's no wonder the engines looked as different as they did.
JWhiteI have secured a good prototype photo of the left (fireman's) side. I've been unable to find a photo of the right (engineer's) side of that particular locomotive.
.
It's easy to overlook the near certain fact that shops - all mechanical shops of the size and scope found on railroads in particular - used what they had in hand whenever and wherever possible. So a large, if sometimes hard to nail down in specifics, amount of work was done on the basis of economy. That includes repairs, upgrades, additions, substitutions, deletions or adaptations of some components.
Obviously, railroads had an in-hand mode of transporting parts from one site to another, but that always cost labor, time and money. If a Worthington feedwater heater of one specific type needed rebuilding, it made no sense at all to sideline the locomotive waiting for its arrival when another, of at least minimum compatibility, was already laying somewhere in the shop.
It may also pertain to the intended or customary use of the individual engine. If engines of the same class served in separate districts with differing climate, geography or terrain, their repair or enhancement over time would likely tend to reflect best practices preparing individual locomotives for that specific use.
The economics of any railroad will also have significent impact on maintenance, repair and upgrades. Five engines needing new compressors with only two usable sets of comopressors on hand meant something had to give, until later part supplies, not necessarily exact twins but at least useful, were affordable.
Class repair and changes could alter the look of a steam locomotive dramatically. One good example is the swap in location of the headlight and turbo generator on the PRR locomotives. These changes didn't occur the same day and some locomotives went to the scrap yard without the change. Also the addition of different appliances changed the looks and piping. The PRR was adding stokers and a second air pump but not every locomotive of the class recieved them. Even something so mundane as sanding lines to the drivers can drive a modeler crazy.
When detailing a steam locomotive try to get as many photos as possible taken on the same day or week. The picture taken in May of 1937 of the K5s pacific will be drastically different five months later after the stoker was installed and the shroud removed from the stack.
Pete.
navyman636They used what they had in hand whenever and wherever possible. So a large, if sometimes hard to nail down in specifics, amount of work was done on the basis of economy. That includes repairs, upgrades, additions, substitutions, deletions or adaptations of some components.
I think this is completely correct.
Also, I would suppose, that as a locomotive neared the end of a major repair, and some parts were not readily available, they would be cannabalized from another locomotive in the shop not so near to road-ready.
And then that locomotive might itself receive different parts to replace those that became donors.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Back when Proto offered their new steam locomotives, I bought one of their 0-8-0 switchers, but was surprised by the undersized piping.It turned out that the Chinese manufacturers had interpreted the pipe diameters on the locos as the outside diameters, not as the North American practice of using inside pipe diameters.I completely re-piped the entire locomotive, and also extended the loco's frame, (front and back) to better match photos of the real ones.
I had photos of several different locos of the same class, and did note that the piping layout varied on many of them.
Here's my re-worked switcher...
Wayne
[quote user="SeeYou190"]
It certainly was the case here in the U.K..
Plundering items from one locomotive to get another back on the rails.
David
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
Guys who work/worked on the real thing often talk about how steam engines each had their own characteristics or "personalities"; one engine from a group might run better or worse than another seemingly identical engine. So one engine might get a different injector or stoker or whatever than the other engines of it's class and type, to try to improve it's performance.
Not just piping and accessories but major changes to the boiler was done also. A great example is the 2-10-2 USRA N2 class locomotive of the PRR. After a few years the Pennsy shops were grafting in a Bellpare fire box in place of the as built radial stay. These changes made it an N2sa from an N2s. The crews immediately noticed a better ride from the added weight over the rear of the locomotive.
There was a book titled The many faces of the K4s. That showed the many front end changes. From the welded bar pilot to cast to streamlined and headlights. Through the near half century of the life of the venerable locomotive.
I liken these questions to my experience as a submariner in the U.S. Navy. My boat, the 636, was built as a member of one class of ships. It was based on the experience of designing, building and operating one or more earlier class of ships that were alleged to be pretty much the same as the 636. But was it a 'George Washington' class boat, or a 'James Madison,' or something other, in between, or new or old or part this and part that or otherwise? Answer: yup.
All we knew for sure was that the 636 was the 636. We tied up alongside lots of other boomers over the years, and crew members from all the boats always ended up endlessly comparing notes about our various ships.
Some of the conclusions I believe we reached are:
1. They're all members of a specific class because that's how the brass wanted them to be seen because they could tell the world they're all the same. God knows why that made a difference to anyone.
2. Such insistence that they're all the same, or at least all boats in a specific class are, is just plain ridiculous, and it was ridiculous from the day each individual boat was laid down.
3. All boats of the same class are made on what amounts to a production line, and none of them are. Believing otherwise is silly.
4. Parts from one ship in a class compared to another are 100% interchangeable and built to the exact same specifications, except for the 200+ page lists of those that aren't, which is pretty much everything. Add in changes during repair or maintenance and add another few hundred pages to the list.
5. Especially on all the nuclear powered boats, everything was listed, described, dissected, turned upside down and inside out in the six foot shelf of manuals every one of us nukes had to learn by heart and then proceed to forget, ignore, interpret, adapt, argue about with our officers and the shipyard guys who were only there to break more stuff, and figure out how to make it all work together in spite of, because of, and under the guidance of or while ignoring said manuals. Those manuals are, to us nukes, more sacrosanct than the Bible. Except when they're not. Or not exactly. Or whatever. What day is it?
6. Finally, no matter what they tell ya, it ain't like they tell ya. Figure it out. Put all that in your toolbox and shake a stick at it. When does the club open?
Is it any wonder then, that there's just no substitute for knowing your ride? They're all living beings, and sometimes they all have a bad day. Just never on the same day. Or maybe.
Makes sense to me. ;)
Even locomotives of the same class could differ markedly right from the factory. The first six of the Burlington's Class M4 Colorados had Elesco Feedwater Heaters The next six had Worthington units (a duplicate order of six had Worthington FWH's) There was no subclass to differentiate between them.
A big part of differences comes from repair jobs as well - while major upgrades were generally done intentionally, with blocks, some railroads may not have had the capital/parts on hand to keep the modernizations to each class consistent, and may have changed the plans midway through a modernization series if a different foreman was carrying it out.
This doesn't include the differences between upgrades for big railroads at different shops, and of course repairs. One of the PRR T1s lost half of its pistons in a sideswipe incident, and they replaced them with a different style of piston because that was what the closest shop had on hand, meaning there was one "unique" T1 out there.