My hometown (and part of where I'm modeling) is Frankfort, Indiana. Frankfort used to be an important hub for the the Nickel Plate Road for trains in particular going to and from St. Louis. From all I have read about steam locomotives in general the range without stopping was based on water in the tender, not coal. Since the NKP didn't use track pans or auxiliary tenders, how far could one of the Berkshires go between water stops? Between St. Louis and Frankfort would they have to make multiple stops? Since the route was basically flat (except at Cayuga) once the train got rolling would they have to stop at all?
Good Luck, Morpar
Morpar) Thats a good question, for which there is no 'real' answer.
A myriad of factors can come in to play while piloting a steam locomotive over the line.
Suffice it to say, if everything was going your way, and you have a good efficient crew, then about 100 miles is the general thumb for an AMC Berkshire with a 22R* tender. Your non-AMC Berkshires a little less.
(* denotes another charactor Railroads used to distinguish tender sizes. Most AMC Berkshires used 22RD and 22RE tenders. [22tons coal - 22,000gals water).
As for the operation of the NKP on the line you asked, It is totally possible stops were made along the way, and not just for water. They may take a siding waiting for a train, and in doing so, may have waited long enough they now need water. Where they wouldnt have if they hadnt had to take the siding. So now a stop would be made.
Its all in the circumstances of operation. Generally, about 100 miles if everything is going your way (rare).
Clear Ahead!
PMR
PM RailfanA myriad of factors can come in to play while piloting a steam locomotive over the line.
Quite true. I was fortunate to have ridden behind the 759 on the maiden voyage after her rebuilding in 1968 from Conneaut to Buffalo and there were no intermediate stops for water. This was with a train of about 14 passenger cars.
There are many reasons a locomotive could use excess water, particularly a heavy train or bad weather, leaky staybolts, bad coal or improper water treatment.
On the Cloverleaf between and St. Louis and Frankfort, there was a crew change point in Charleston, Illinois so water was probably taken there during the stop. On some roads it was common to set off the incoming locomotive and replace it with a freshly-serviced loco to save time.
Railroad Space in Charleston, Illinois by Craig Sanders, on Flickr
Here's a neat article with a photo of a pair of Berks taken in Northeast, Pa. It isn't noted but these two probably took on some water while 'in the hole' for the meet with the train in the distance. Often times sidings were so situated that a water plug was nearby to 'top-off' while waiting.
https://www.trains.com/ctr/railroads/fallen-flags/remembering-the-nickel-plate-road/
Interesting to note, too, that the helper was separated by five cars to alleviate excess weight on some of the tall steel trestles along this lakeshore route.
Regards, Ed
i'll venture an educated guess based on
25.0 mph 4.1 cps 30401.1 te 37.0 cylPsi 9.7 cylCuFt 78.4 cuFtPsec 6.4 lbPsec 23191.0 lbPhr 183480.0 lb tender 7.9 hr 197.8 mi 50.0 mph 8.1 cps 62438.7 te 75.9 cylPsi 9.7 cylCuFt 156.8 cuFtPsec 26.5 lbPsec 95260.7 lbPhr 183480.0 lb tender 1.9 hr 96.3 mi
the faster train has higher resistance, higher TE and cylinder pressure, higher steam density and more steam/water.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
So I guess I didn't really ask my question quite right. I find it hard to believe the Nickel Plate didn't have planned stops along the major routes for through freights to either stop and take water (and coal if needed) or do a complete crew and locomotive change. Yes, each train can vary based upon number of cars, weight, outside temperature, etc. Locals will have different requirements compared to the time freights, but I'm interested in the longer runs.
What were the planned stops between Frankfort and St. Louis for the through freights with the Berks? It sounds like Charleston was one point, but were there others and if so where?
MorparIt sounds like Charleston was one point, but were there others and if so where?
The Nickel Plate was essentially a single track road. There were passing sidings stragecially placed for trains to meet and pass or for passenger trains to overtake freight trains. As shown in the photo of the siding at Northeast Pa. there was a water tank and stand pipes toward the end of some of these sidings.
The Nickel Plate ran several 'hotshot' freights. The Flying Saucer being one of them. They tried to group these eastbound or westbound so that any delays at passing sidings were minimized. The Berks could run the entire division without the need for additional coal or water.
Here is a list of the Nickel Plate's districts and divisions . During a crew change stop the tender could be refilled if needed. Generally the car inspectors would walk the train, too. Most freights also had blocks of cars dropped and picked up at a division point where there was a working yard.
There was a water tank and coal tower at Cayuga, In. if needed.
https://archive.nkphts.org/object/13279-clover-leaf-coal-dock-cayuga-unknown
Good Luck, Ed
gmpullman Interesting to note, too, that the helper was separated by five cars to alleviate excess weight on some of the tall steel trestles along this lakeshore route. Regards, Ed
Ed) Interesting indeed! Whenever I think of NKP Berkshires doubleheading, I have always seen them like this...
I didn't know NKP seperated them. Learn somethin everyday!
Thanks Ed!
A#1 North!
Douglas
I believe this was in the era when a full day's work for a freight-engine crew was fixed at no more than 100 miles, and this would be the greatest division length. Naturally, taking water could be accomplished (with the 'old' fireman starting the flow, and the 'new' one stopping it) in a minimum of downtime.
Of all the roads that would practically benefit from 'coast-to-coast' size cisterns, or A-tank/water-bottle auxiliary tenders, NKP would be at the top of the list (see PRR, B&O, and N&W for some detailed examples of effective use of the practice), and this would have become even more true in the late era of steam (about which Brown's famous paper in the early 1960s was concerned). This was a railroad that understood the value of sustained high speed in merchandise freight traffic, so for them not to adopt larger "cistern capacity" would indicate clear economic and possibly competitive-advantage reasons against it for their particular operating model.
There are reasons why track pans would be unsuitable (in more than a few respects!) for Nickel Plate practice, even for their style of fast-freight service. It would be interesting to have seen if a different method of pan operation could have been made to work...
A rule of the thumb was that there was a planned water stop halfway across the division, with other water points scattered across it (ie: every large station) in case someone had abnormal water usage that day (like more switching for set outs and pick ups than was normal)
OvermodThere are reasons why track pans would be unsuitable (in more than a few respects!) for Nickel Plate practice, even for their style of fast-freight service. It would be interesting to have seen if a different method of pan operation could have been made to work...