Super Long Vandy Tenders...Is There Really a Necessity?

[Trainman440]

Yes, I agree. Thanks for all the replies!

Charles

[railandsail]

Interesting conversation, particularly since I am a steam fan of B&O, and C&O, and vandy tenders.   Thanks

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

SeeYou190

Basically as I am understanding the responses:

.

A steam locomotive held enough fuel for 3-4 tanks af water. You would fill with fuel, then make water stops along the route.

.

A tender with a larger water capacity would need fewer water stops.

.

Is this correct?

.

-Kevin

.

 

Yes, that is exactly correct. Water could be filled much faster than coal, and balanced proportions of each would have resulted in too many stops for fuel.

Track pans were mainly a passenger train thing to keep tight schedules on high profile runs.

As talked about above, the B&O only used them from DC to Jersey City, only about 25 Pacifics used for that route were equipped with scoops.

Sheldon

[dknelson]

SeeYou190

A steam locomotive held enough fuel for 3-4 tanks af water. You would fill with fuel, then make water stops along the route.

Hence the origin of the insulting term "jerk water town."  Trains would stop at places where nobody got on or got off the train and passengers would snarl that (to them) they were in the middle of nowhere just to take water: a jerk water town.  

Dave Nelson

 

[wjstix]

Basically, yes. A steam engines uses much more water than fuel, so tenders are designed to carry 3-4 times more water than coal or oil. Ideally, especially on a crack passenger train, you would be able to make the run without needing to stop for fuel or water, but in most cases you'd have to get water once or twice - ideally, at a town where you had to stop to pick up and drop off passengers anyway.

I'm sure there were situations where a steam engine had to be refueled en route, but I think if a train's run was that long it probably would be more efficient (again, particularly on a train having to adhere to a strict timetable) to just change engines near the point where the first engine would be getting low on coal. This would probably be done at a division point where you would be changing crews anyway.

[SeeYou190]

Basically as I am understanding the responses:

.

A steam locomotive held enough fuel for 3-4 tanks af water. You would fill with fuel, then make water stops along the route.

.

A tender with a larger water capacity would need fewer water stops.

.

Is this correct?

.

-Kevin

.

[selector]

DSO17

 

 

selector

Steam at pressure = Horsepower.  Modern boilers produced more superheated steam because of efficiencies, so their tenders reflected that...the fuel-to-water ratio changed in favour of the water.  

While the Vandy tender depicted had a massive water capacity, the NYC's tender on their modern steamers had much more coal in a larger bunker on their centipede design, and they relied on track pans and scoops to replenish the water in the much more modest cistern en-route. I have never looked, but I'm not aware that the B&O used track pans....? 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

     The B&O had track pans between Baltimore and Philadelphia on the Royal Blue Route.

 

Thank-you for that.  

[DSO17]

selector

Steam at pressure = Horsepower.  Modern boilers produced more superheated steam because of efficiencies, so their tenders reflected that...the fuel-to-water ratio changed in favour of the water.  

While the Vandy tender depicted had a massive water capacity, the NYC's tender on their modern steamers had much more coal in a larger bunker on their centipede design, and they relied on track pans and scoops to replenish the water in the much more modest cistern en-route. I have never looked, but I'm not aware that the B&O used track pans....? 

 

                                                                                                                     

     The B&O had track pans between Baltimore and Philadelphia on the Royal Blue Route.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

selector

Steam at pressure = Horsepower.  Modern boilers produced more superheated steam because of efficiencies, so their tenders reflected that...the fuel-to-water ratio changed in favour of the water.  

While the Vandy tender depicted had a massive water capacity, the NYC's tender on their modern steamers had much more coal in a larger bunker on their centipede design, and they relied on track pans and scoops to replenish the water in the much more modest cistern en-route. I have never looked, but I'm not aware that the B&O used track pans....? 

 

Track pans require reasonable stretches of straight level track to work. Something easily found along the Hudson River, or on some sections of the PRR, but not so available on the B&O lines west.....

Sheldon

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

wjstix

I forget the exact ratio, but steam engines use a lot more water than fuel (Wikipedia says it's a 6 to 1 ratio, sounds about right) so an engine typically would have tenders with a much larger water capacity than for coal or oil - and would still probably have to stop for water a couple of times before needing to get more fuel. Since this was a passenger engine designed to be used in mountainous territory (presumably using up a lot of fuel and water) I suspect the larger tender was an attempt to limit the number of times the train would have to stop to take on water, thereby decreasing the passenger train's delays.

 

Actually, the B&O used their 4-8-2's for passenger trains at first, but later for fast freight as well.

While the C&O used theirs almost exclusively for passenger service.

Notably the NYC considered theirs primarily fast freight locos.

As noted above by Dave, stopping on a grade to water up could be a real problem, and grades are even more water demanding. So large tenders were common on locos in Appalachia, as were separate aux water tenders on the B&O and N&W.

Sheldon

[selector]

Steam at pressure = Horsepower.  Modern boilers produced more superheated steam because of efficiencies, so their tenders reflected that...the fuel-to-water ratio changed in favour of the water.  

While the Vandy tender depicted had a massive water capacity, the NYC's tender on their modern steamers had much more coal in a larger bunker on their centipede design, and they relied on track pans and scoops to replenish the water in the much more modest cistern en-route. I have never looked, but I'm not aware that the B&O used track pans....? 

[dknelson]

wjstix

I suspect the larger tender was an attempt to limit the number of times the train would have to stop to take on water, thereby decreasing the passenger train's delays.

Not to mention the challenges of having to stop for water on a grade and possibly even needing a helper just to get going again.  That would not make the DS happy.

Dave Nelson

[wjstix]

I forget the exact ratio, but steam engines use a lot more water than fuel (Wikipedia says it's a 6 to 1 ratio, sounds about right) so an engine typically would have tenders with a much larger water capacity than for coal or oil - and would still probably have to stop for water a couple of times before needing to get more fuel. Since this was a passenger engine designed to be used in mountainous territory (presumably using up a lot of fuel and water) I suspect the larger tender was an attempt to limit the number of times the train would have to stop to take on water, thereby decreasing the passenger train's delays.

[oldline1]

gmpullman

The later, T-4 class went back to the rectangular tenders.

Actually the T-4 "didn't go back" and was a second hand locomotive purchased from the B&M. It was built with that tender and the B&O made no change.

oldline1

[SPSOT fan]

Trainman440

I just stumbled upon this best of an engine online, and prompted me to wonder: are these super long tenders really necessary? I mean like, that thing holds so much more water than it does coal! Did the B&O engines historically have less access to water, and more access to coal in their route?

Well I guess the B&O had a lot of access to coal in their route, since there were primary a coal hauling railroad, especially in the eastern part of their lines. I guess a bigger water tank allows for less water stops and refueling time.

It makes even less sense to have a longer tender after reading Ed's post saying it really didn't hold much more water. Well, as a modeler, I can only be certain of the fact that a long lender looks cool and if I was a B&O modeler I'd want one just to provide some variety! 

[gmpullman]

Hi, Charles.

Kind of hard to pin down exactly what the B&O was looking for with the longer (64' 7") Vanderbilt. The water capacity wasn't really all that much greater. 23 tons coal and 22,000 gallons of water. The cylindrical vessel had less volume than a comparitive rectangular tender (21 tons, 20,000 gallons) on the T-3 as built.

There were only two of these longer Vanderbilts initially built and assigned to 5560 and 5582 (thus the reclassification to T-3t) then five more were built in 1951 assigned to 5569; 5570; 5579; 5583 and 5589 for a total of seven. The later, T-4 class went back to the rectangular tenders.

B&O actually tried a Vanderbilt tender with three trucks! It only carried 28 tons of coal and 20,000 gallons of water and was a bit shorter than the one in your photo at 53' 1".

 

Tender_BnO_crop by Edmund, on Flickr

 

Col. George Emerson was B&O's Superintendant of Motive power and Equipment and he was well known for his unique and forward thinking designs. Testing the waters in tender design must have been one of his interests.

In later years many of the B&O steamers were given auxiliary water tanks, especially the Q- Mikados. Saving time at water stops may have been one reason and another may have been that it was far better to run out of coal than to run out of water!

BnO_Q4 by Edmund, on Flickr

IMG_8556_fix2 by Edmund, on Flickr

Good Luck, Ed

[Trainman440]

Hi all! 

I just stumbled upon this best of an engine online, and prompted me to wonder: are these super long tenders really necessary? I mean like, that thing holds so much more water than it does coal! Did the B&O engines historically have less access to water, and more access to coal in their route?

Thanks! Just curious here :P

Charles