Hi all!
I've been recently learning about PRR tenders. I've learned that the K4s generally had 110P75 tenders, I1s had 90F82 tenders, and later had 210F82 welded tenders. The M1a had 210F75 riveted tenders with 12 wheels, later replaced with the 210F75 welded tenders with 16 wheels.
1. My question is: the PRR also had 250FXX tenders. What did these look like?
2. What tender does this K4s have? It's different from the 210FXX tender because the coal bunker dosen't extend to the halfway mark of the tender. Is this the 250FXX tender?
Thanks!
Charles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the Santa Fe & Pennsylvania in HO
Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLb3FRqukolAtnD1khrb6lQ
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
Hi,
The T1s had a 180P84 tender while the "Big Engine" the S1, 6-4-4-6 had a 250P84. The S2 turbine had a180P82 that originally came from an I1 that was a 180F82. That tender later went onto the streamlined K4 No. 3768 as a class 180P75. Lots of changing around there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad_class_S1
The 250F82 was 6100s tender after rebuilding for freight service. I'm not sure what engine eventually got this tender, though. After fitting with a Duplex stoker it was re-classed a 250F82a. The J1s had 210F84 tenders.
Ten K4s were fitted with "Coast-to-coast" 250P75b tenders in the late 1930s which is representative of your photo above.
The T1 trust purchased the last remaining 210F75a tender to hopefully be used on the 5550.
https://prrt1steamlocomotivetrust.org/gallery.php?cat=18
I made a model of a PRR water cistern (auxiliary tender) from a 210F75:
IMG_9706_fix_web by Edmund, on Flickr
In later years some of these converted tenders were used with I1s and maybe some L class Mikados as well.
S. Berliner, III has a spec sheet from PRR on his web page:
Regards, Ed
Trainman440My question is: the PRR also had 250FXX tenders. What did these look like?
Please provide me with the specific reference you have to a "250 F XX" tender. That looks suspiciously like someone referring to all the variants of a freight tender with that water capacity but different nominal deck height with the 'xx' convention instead of a range of numbers. Note that when 6100's tender was converted to run with an I1sa the deck height had to change (from 84 to 82). The tender pictured is almost certainly a 250 P 75 (which I'd sorta expect to see more often used on an M1 than a K4). As you have noted this only carries slightly over 25t fuel, and you can compare this to the 'priority' on the NYC, which continued to rely on improved-performance track pans, first in the development of the 'pedestal tender' series and then in the 64T version planned for the C1a duplex, which (take your pick) would theoretically allow Harmon-Chicago without intermediate refueling or very short-turnaround service from either Harmon or Chicago to the engine change required to go through Cleveland stopping at CUT and then 'back' on the next suitable train.
Rather obviously a 250 F tender would have a larger cistern than a 210; what you're looking at is an artifact of desire for water treatment or reduced 'scooping' facilities that requires an outsized water capacity for extended or heavy running. The conversion of other tenders to Very Large Auxiliary Tanks is more evidence of the 'search for solutions'; it should be noted that outsized water rate and accompanying range reduction was the death knell of the V1 turbine project ... regardless of the number of 'water tenders' it might carry. Look up the weight of a gallon of water to see some of the implications...
My bad, what I meant by 250FXX is any 250,000 gallon tender with any deck height. (XX in place of 2 numbers).
Wait so now I've gotten one reply that says the tender depicted in the picture is a 250F75 and another reply that says its a 210F75. Which one is it?
Did the PRR use aux tenders often?
I find it strange that PRR(a railroad that was relatively compressed track span, compared to say, ATSF, which spanned from chicago all the way to the east coast), yet still used massive tenders.
Trainman440Wait so now I've gotten one reply that says the tender depicted in the picture is a 250F75 and another reply that says its a 210F75. Which one is it?
I was quoting information in Al Stauffer's Pennsy Power (1962) where the very same photo of the 5493 is shown on page 186. Sometimes errors creep into photo captions. It certainly looks more like a 250P75. I have seen photos of other K4s with 210P75 tenders. When I have time I'll try to find the particular issues of the Keystone Magazine that have articles about the PRR tender modifications and assignments.
Trainman440Did the PRR use aux tenders often?
From what I gather, only in later years as more steam locomotives were scrapped, freeing up the larger tenders to be reaplied to "lesser" engines, particularly the I1s and other tenders converted to M-of-W service or water tanks. I don't have an exact number of the tenders converted to water service. I've seen several photos of them in service in the mid 1950s. The tender that the T1 Trust bought had been modified to water service.
Often, those engines with auxiliary water tanks were used on work trains that would be out on the road for the whole shift and rather than uncouple and head for a water plug it was more productive to carry extra water.
I'm not sure how much this affected the use of auxiliary tenders but it may be possible that a number of the water tanks and stand pipes were being taken out of service throughout the late 1950s making additional water carried along a good idea.
NYC converted many tenders to diesel fuel service.
Good Luck, Ed
Ah, gotcha, thanks!