In 1927, the L&NE had BLW build it the last five camelbacks, heavy 0-8-0's. Later that year BLW delivered an even dozen end cab heavy 0-8-0's. I have heard that this was due an ICC order banning new camelbacks with others saying no such order was ever issued. Does anyone know the truth?
There is no ICC order 'banning' Camelbacks.
There is a communication recommending that no more new ones be built, on safety grounds, although I could not find an indication that this was a thinly-veiled order to stop making them.
If I am not mistaken the Reading and CNJ railroads also had camelbacks.
One of the railroad historical societies published an extensive article on this question. Can't remember which issue though.
There were hearings on banning camelbacks, and several states tried to ban camelbacks (technically called "deckless engines") but there is no evidence the ICC banned camelbacks and the state laws were overturned because the Federal Goverment regulates interstate traffic and railroad safety. Basically by the time the ICC was moving on banning them they were considered an obsolete design, the railroads that owned them had stopped building them, and the existing engines were going to be grandfathered anyway, so there was no formal action.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
caldreamerIf I am not mistaken the Reading and CNJ railroads also had camelbacks.
RDG, LNE, LHR, LV, LIRR, CNJ, UP, B&O, Ironton among others. Several other railroads, in addition to the UP, tried one or two as an experiment.
The first camelbacks where P&R engines on tour in Italy that were converted to camelbacks there in order to fit through the low tunnels in Italy. When they were returned to the US the P&R liked the idea and purpose built more. The camelback wasn't designed because the firebox was too wide as commonly stated, it was because putting the cab on top of the firebox (the common design in the 1870's and 1880's) was too tall.
Holton's history of the Reading devotes an entire chapter to the exploits of the first camelback in Italy.
By the time that the ICC even vaguely looked at camelbacks as a major negative, most railroads had them on the way out. Between strengthening railroad unions pushing for safety, and the reducing cost of new steam locomotives, camelbacks didn't offer the savings they once did. Like a lot of things with the railroads, it ended before major regulation came in - similar to poling cars, for example.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Camelback engines must have been terrible to work on, from the viewpoint of both the engineer and fireman.
For the engineer, cramped, sitting right on the side of the boiler, must have been a sweatbox in the summer (probably spring and fall, as well). Couldn't see much "to the left" on curves, no way to see what was up ahead. The ride must have been rough right on top of the drivers, as well. Can't talk to your fireman, in most cases.
For the fireman, freezing in winter, no protection of any kind against the elements otherwise. No way to communicate with the engineer, although I understand some of these had a "speaking tube" akin to that used on steamboats, etc. Even if you had enough steam to take a break and ride in the left side cab, you still can't see your engineer and probably had to talk to him in nothing less than a shout.
Still, in pics of those times, the men usually looked satisfied, if not proud.
That was a good job, back then...
I kind of ditto what Ole Engineman wrote. From what I understand for the engineer - it was kinda cramped, hot, and a bit more noisy than in the cab of a regular steam loco.
Ive read alot of complaints of engineers giving worry to working right over top of those fast moving siderods.
The engineer was closer to all the moving, hissing, belching parts. As for the fireman, yep, many complaints about the weather, the dangers of an open cab, etc.
Snow and ice on the swing plate, blowing snow or rain whipping in around behind the loco between it and tender. Roof and curtains be dammed.
From both points of operation, communication was almost impossible. You have to shout more times than not in a regular steam loco across a shared cab. You definately have to shout when shes working hard and your train is nothing more than a deafining roar of steel and metal. So to be seperated, in operation, yeah, comms were almost impossible. Hand signals were more common.
I never heard anything about ICC banning these types of locos, however, I have heard the Unions did give railroads a certain bite in the caboose about them. The above stated reasons seem to be the most important the crews voiced their opinions about.
PMR
IIRC the original reason for the Camelbacks was that those railroad had access to cheaper but lower quality coal, so needed to build engines with very large fireboxes to produce enough heat to create the needed steam. If so, I would imagine as engines got bigger in the "supersteam era", with correspondingly larger fireboxes over four-wheel trailing trucks, at some point a conventional firebox was large enough to generate the needed heat - even with lower quality coal?
The Wooten firebox was originally designed to burn "clum" the waste product from anthracite coal mining, it was wide and flat and burned a very thin layer of coal. The firebox was very wide and low. The cab sat on top of the firebox but otherwise was an end cab engine.
The cab was moved to the middle of the boiler in order to lower the overall height of the engine.
Eventually, in the late 1800's, the fuel was changed to a mix of bitumonous and antharcite coal and they stopped using culm. But anthracite still needed the wide firebox to burn more efficiently. Anthracite was probably the highest quality coal there is. It burns very hot, has a high BTU/ton (why it was a preferred fuel for steam ships) and has very little ash or smoke (why it was a preferred fuel for home heating and cooking). They didn't care about it at that time but it also has a lower sulphur content than some natural gas. The bitumonous was added to make the coal easier to burn and allowed the ame fuel to be burned by both conventional and Wooten firebox engines..
Before WW1 the railroad changed to eng cab engines, on virtually the same boilers, with the same Wooten fireboxes. The RDG had no "super power" engines and only one class with a 4 wheel trailing truck*, the T-1 4-8-4 which was rebuilt from a 2-8-0 (same firebox).
The two most numerous classes of engine on the RDG were the I-7 and I-8 2-8-0's. The I-7's were conventional firebox and conventional cab engines and the I-8's were camelback engines with Wooten firebox a slightly larger and improved boiler. The I-7's were about the last conventional firebox engines the RDG built, before WW1, every thing after that were Wooten fireboxes. The I-8's were succeeded by the I-9's and I-10's which were end cab engines, both with Wooten fireboxes and successively larger fireboxes and boilers. All of those engine burned the same mix of bitumonous and anthracite.
* The RDG also had a 4-4-4 but it wasn't stable at speed so was quickly converted to a 4-4-2.
culm not clum
BEAUSABRE culm not clum
Klum with a K.
In his defense it's a typo; he spells 'culm' correctly further down. But it's 'bituminous', and Wootten has two 't's.