From back in the link and pin era, here is a PRR 2-6-0T or 4-6-0T tank engine and her crew at a signal cabin.
Plenty of questions
1) What is the wheel arrangement
2) Number and class
3) Location
I realize it's a long shot, but what the heck...
https://imgur.com/gallery/4hPlScJ
Its a 4-6-0.
Also note that the "P.R.R." is written on the negative or print, not on the engine, although it might be a PRR engine, the lettering is doctored to read PRR.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I can pretty much guarantee if you join prr group.io they will let you know for certain and probably tell you the location. However on the era shown with link and pin couplers I think the PRR would be a spelled out PENNSYLVANIA
ndbprr However on the era shown with link and pin couplers I think the PRR would be a spelled out PENNSYLVANIA
However on the era shown with link and pin couplers I think the PRR would be a spelled out PENNSYLVANIA
Ed
Location who knows.
There was a point where "P. R. R." was on the tenders, way back when, even if this particular locomotive has it written on the picture. Anyhow, the number is quite clear: 258
http://pennsyrr.com/databases/steam/detail.php?q=1248
There.
So the time frame is 1874 to 1880. then making it somewhere east of the Susquehanna river most likely
shane
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
Just curious, but I'm wondering if that thing below the tank and roughly just aft of the leading driver is maybe for sand? It looks like there's a flimsy linkage extending back to the cab, too.
Wayne
At the time that locomotive was in service, the railroad acquired most of their equipment through takeovers of smaller roads. A time before standardization and proper classification of wheel arrangements. That locomotive was built by Baldwin but it doesn't say who it was built for. It could have been ordered by the PRR or another road that was taken over by the PRR. The fact it was rebuilt into a tank locomotive indicates it was rebuilt for a particular service and not a general freight or passenger service engine. Probably a yard service, industrial service, or transfer engine. The tiny coal bunker and small water tank running saturated steam would keep it really close to a service area.
My guess for location would be the Philly area possibly one of the flat switching yards. Possibly a hump pusher. With brakemen riding each car to wind down the brakes.
Interesting time in history.
Pete.
I agree with Wayne about the sand. Note that there's no sand dome up top.
Now, let's examine that building to the right. Note the curious semaphore, with what appears to be holes drilled through. It can drop down into the building through a slot. There also appears to be a great huge light up there. And some semi-permanent ladders for access. I think there's another semaphore blade even higher, with just the bottom showing.
There appears to be the classic bump-out for an operator. And also maybe a landing point for some telegraph wires. It might be, at the top of the upper ladder, a landing covered by a tarp.
And. It's a nice day, because the windows are open.
I get the feeling that this might be a helper engine, assigned to the station. Note the footboards. And the small fuel bunker.
Jeez, look at the size of the headlight?
Did they burn logs in there?
dennis461Jeez, look at the size of the headlight?
Kerosene fuel and that was the standard headlight size up until 1900-1910 or so when headlights changed to arc or electric. If you model that era, its a normal headlight.
Note that it also has a headlight on the rear of the engine for reverse moves.
7j43kNow, let's examine that building to the right. Note the curious semaphore, with what appears to be holes drilled through. It can drop down into the building through a slot. There also appears to be a great huge light up there.
Fairly common for early signal systems, they were all manual block and the building was the signal "mast". Many of the early signal systems had a tower with a signal light or semaphore on top, and they were nicknamed "windmill" signals. Manual block was very common on passeger carrying lines.
The ladders are there because the signal was a kerosene lamp so somebody had to cimb up the ladder to light the signal light.
In that day and age, white was a proceed signal ("clear" was actually clear), green was "caution" and red was stop.
That certainly is an odd duck, but the more you know about the Pennsylvania RR the more you realize that for a railroad that prided itself on standards, it was also an avid experimenter in the steam era, right to the end of the steam era, and the further back you go the odder they could be. And in the early days Baldwin accounted for its share of those oddballs and one-offs. This is the sort of photo and locomotive that Fred Westing or Ed Alexander would have loved to include in their books on the Pennsy. I particularly recall drawings of an experimental 1880s high-drivered 2-4-6T suburban locomotive where it looks as if the tender telescoped into the cab.
I can certainly verify from many photos that the railroad did indeed use the P.R.R. on steam locomotives in that era, including the 2-4-6T referred to above.
While most tank engines were shop goats and the idea was to save space by having no tender so the locomotive could squeeze on a turntable while hauling around a dead steam locomotive (so the water tank could be small since a source for more water was always right there), the size of this truly heroic tank on the boiler and the pilot wheels suggests that the goal here was to increase tractive effort and perhaps go longer distances from a water source than your usual shop goat, and that in turn might suggest the need for pilot wheels. A helper for an extreme grade? - they had their share of those grades too.
This does not prove that the engine is indeed Pennsy but I'd be prepared to believe it.
Dave Nelson
dknelsonWhile most tank engines were shop goats and the idea was to save space by having no tender so the locomotive could squeeze on a turntable while hauling around a dead steam locomotive (so the water tank could be small since a source for more water was always right there), the size of this truly heroic tank on the boiler and the pilot wheels suggests that the goal here was to increase tractive effort and perhaps go longer distances from a water source than your usual shop goat, and that in turn might suggest the need for pilot wheels. A helper for an extreme grade? - they had their share of those grades too.
Take a look at the crew - there's the Engineman, Fireman, Conductor and Head, Rear and Swing Brakemen. That looks like a road crew. Also, an earlier poster showed it was built as a 4-6-0 tender engine that was converted to a tank engine.
BEAUSABRE Take a look at the crew - there's the Engineman, Fireman, Conductor and Head, Rear and Swing Brakemen. That looks like a road crew.
Take a look at the crew - there's the Engineman, Fireman, Conductor and Head, Rear and Swing Brakemen. That looks like a road crew.
When I look at the picture, I see six guys standing in front of a locomotive. I wouldn't be shocked if one or more normally working in the station. Note that there's no caboose for the bulk of the potential six man crew. And they surely didn't all fit in the cab.
Nope. It's six guys and a locomotive.
Also, an earlier poster showed it was built as a 4-6-0 tender engine that was converted to a tank engine.
Well, I don't know that he "showed" it. That's done with dates and builder's numbers and photos and such. But it surely is an unusual wheel arrangement for an American tank engine--a FOUR wheel lead truck, but NO trailing truck?
If I HAD to choose, I'd go with it being "tankified". But I DO agree that it could have been built that way. "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
7j43kIf I HAD to choose, I'd go with it being "tankified". But I DO agree that it could have been built that way. "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
You don't have to "choose". If you read the documentation at the top of this thread, it says it was built as a 4-6-0 and then later converted to a 4-6-0T.
7j43kNope. It's six guys and a locomotive.
Its probably the agent/operator/telegrapher and the crew (engineer, fireman, conductor and two brakemen), a total of 6 people.
Note that there's no caboose for the bulk of the potential six man crew. And they surely didn't all fit in the cab.
And the problem is?
It's a switch engine, They don't use cabooses, it has no more or no less room for a 5 man crew than any other 0-4-0, 0-6-0, or 0-8-0 switcher ever made, and they all used 5 man crews.
Seems perfectly typical of a lot of those early photos.
dehusman 7j43k If I HAD to choose, I'd go with it being "tankified". But I DO agree that it could have been built that way. "It seemed like a good idea at the time." You don't have to "choose". If you read the documentation at the top of this thread, it says it was built as a 4-6-0 and then later converted to a 4-6-0T.
7j43k If I HAD to choose, I'd go with it being "tankified". But I DO agree that it could have been built that way. "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
I am afraid I did not check out that link. Thank you for prompting me to look again and find it.
And thank you to Nittany Lion for posting it.
dehusman It's a switch engine...
It's a switch engine...
How do you know that?