Did the PRR ever run their J-1 2-10-4's with shorter tenders? All the photos I see are the engine with the 'Coast To Coast' 16-wheel tender.
I've seen photos of their Decapod 2-10-0's with many different length tenders. Would this be because of different turntable lengths in their service areas?
Thanks
The J's all had the coast to coast tenders; none had tenders taken from H9's or L1's or anything like that (can you imagine Jay-firing those beasts?) The J1's were built in the middle of WW2. The PRR had to get the approval of the War Production Board before they could build them. All 125 of them were built to the same standards because they HAD to be built that way (from engine blueprints provided by C&O; the PRR was able to substitute their own can and tender designs), since that's what the Federal government approved. The only variation in the class was that some had cast engine frames, while others had fabricated frames.
The Pennsy was the "Standard Railroad of the World" but even so it was amazingly versatile in trying out and updating tenders - I have seen rare photos of K4 Pacifics with long haul tenders for example, and the Mountains had many different kids of tenders; Lines West had different ideas about tenders than Lines East. Had steam lasted longer perhaps eventually the J class and T1 class might have gotten different tenders (or even swapped with each other?) but the ones they had were just about as big as can be imagined as it is.
Dave Nelson
Thanks. If the J's kept their C2C tenders for their entire lives, then I guess there were never any turntable length issues.
Thanks.
Tender size was mostly due to run length, not turntable size. Engines assigned to through freight service, particularly interdivisional runs, would have larger tenders so they didn't have to stop for fuel or water as often. Engines on locals, helpers or shorter run freights didn't need as big of tenders and stopping for water or fuel wasn't as big a deal so they could have smaller tenders.
The J1's were all intended for long haul, over the road service, so they all had big tenders.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dknelsonThe Pennsy was the "Standard Railroad of the World"
The irony of that knickname I have found is that the PRR as actually the most "non-standard" railroad compared to the rest of the industry than any other railroad. The PRR had different car designs, different engine designs, different engineering standards, different rules than other US railroads.
The PRR class X-29 is more or less a USRA steel boxcar, except that it has a different side panel design, a different frame design, a different floor design.
What made the PRR a "standard" railroad was volume. The C&O built a couple dozen 2-10-4's. The PRR took that design, modified it and made 125 of them.
The PRR rules differences still survive. Easiest difference to see is the comparison between the GCOR and NORAC yard limit rules.
WestIslandRon Thanks. If the J's kept their C2C tenders for their entire lives, then I guess there were never any turntable length issues.
What is a C2C tender? I've never seen any PRR reference to that class of tender.
oldline1
Sorry - I used a quick abbreviation, thought it would be understood (lol).
C2C = Coast To Coast, the popular (not official PRR) designation for their big, 16-wheel tenders.
Nothing is obvious to the uninitiated.
I should have figured that out. After 55+ years of modeling and reading about Pennsy I hadn't seen that.
dehusman dknelson The Pennsy was the "Standard Railroad of the World" The PRR class X-29 is more or less a USRA steel boxcar, except that it has a different side panel design, a different frame design, a different floor design. What made the PRR a "standard" railroad was volume. The C&O built a couple dozen 2-10-4's. The PRR took that design, modified it and made 125 of them.
dknelson
The Pennsy was the "Standard Railroad of the World"
Heh - the Pennsy was perhaps the "sniffy-ist" railroad and I suspect their view was "we set the standards - not our fault if others are too stupid to follow them." If you ever met someone from one of the wealthy Philadelphia families from the "main line" you'd know where that attitude comes from. They make Manhattanites look very humble.
But the PRR did believe in its own standards and those standards reached deep. There was an article in Trains years ago about the development of one of the PRR's steam locomotives, and one of the challenges is that they wanted a size of wheel for the trailing truck that was not currently a size the Pennsy used. To get a new wheel size developed was a major battle at the "Standard Railroad of the World." As I recall the story the design team searched the archives and found some switcher perhaps o-4-0 which had used that size wheel decades earlier, all now scrapped. So they reason for the rule - to limit how many tire sizes were in inventory - did not apply. But meeting the wording of the rule was enough - it HAD been used and that was all it took to get the OK. Hide bound to be sure.
The X 29 boxcars of which the PRR had thousands did find some acceptance at other railroads including the Chicago Great Western - and their lemming like acceptance was rewarded by all suffering the same design flaw that created a line of rust where sides met floor (so stiffener plates are common on old X29 and clones).
As for the J class the PRR had no choice - the war production boards ordered them to use existing plans if they wanted a new wheel arrangement so they did. That is also why the Milwaukee Road got their S3 4-8-4 Northerns that used the design for basically a Rock Island Northern with elements of other railroads as well. The government was in charge.
I suspect the PRR accepted those orders kicking and screaming although the crews liked them. And at least using an engine already proven on the C&O satisfied the Pennsy's love of thorough testing before final production. I think the crews also liked the Norfolk & Western J when the Pennsy borrowed one for testing but what the crews liked or wanted as not part of the "Standard Railroad" equation. It must have been an odd place to work if you were creative and innovative at design.
WestIslandRon Sorry - I used a quick abbreviation, thought it would be understood (lol). C2C = Coast To Coast, the popular (not official PRR) designation for their big, 16-wheel tenders. Nothing is obvious to the uninitiated.
There were 11 different classes of PRR so called Coast to Coast tenders some with 3 axle trucks and some with 4 axle trucks. The coal and water capacity varied from 20 tons/ 20,000 gallons to 25 tons/ 25,000 gallons.
The J’s used the 24 tons / 24,000 gallon tenders.
The other large tenders were used on the M, I, T, Q and some K4’s.
Rick Jesionowski
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
dknelsonI suspect the PRR accepted those orders kicking and screaming although the crews liked them. And at least using an engine already proven on the C&O satisfied the Pennsy's love of thorough testing before final production.
Of course, the 'development' was infamous because PRR got 'original' blueprints for the C&O T1, not apparently thinking or caring that C&O had a long redline modification history getting the initial bugs out of the AMC design. They certainly got their fill of thorough testing by the time the various issues were worked through!
Little known is that some of the locomotives received the equivalent of 70" drivers (through the expedient of fitting larger-diameter pre-wear measurement tires) and it would be interesting to see whether lightweight rod construction would have permitted even higher running speeds with acceptable augment.
If I remember correctly the J1s had a non-standard deck height, so any 'tender swapping' would have required relatively expensive modification, surely not worth it when the locomotive already merited the largest cistern capacity possible.