Unusual cab forwards?

[msowsun]

Here is an interesting Mantua 0-6-0 kitbash into a 2-6-0 Cab Forward:

http://www.yardbirdtrains.com/ybmantua.htm

 

[markpierce]

   As far as the crews being uncomfortable about grade crossing and other types of collisions, this was a very common concern, and is the reason that early alco RSs were built to run long hood forward, and Norfolk & Western as well as Southern among other railroads deliberately spec'd their diesels to be run long hood forward. As a truck driver, I can appreciate this sentiment, I much prefer having that big hunk of pig iron under the hood in front of me, in a bad situation. I have driven both and I will take the conventional over the cab over any day of the week. I don't even want to think about the possible outcome of the day that a school bus turned left across across my lane of traffic in front of me, it pushed the engine a foot and a half back into the cab, had I been in a cab over I am sure that I would have had injuries much worse than just the seat belt bruises that I had.

                                                                           Doug

SP much preferred their cab-forwards over conventional articulateds because of the superior visibility and air quality offered.  I'm aware of only one (were there more?) front-end fatality incident.  That occurred January 10, 1951 on SP's Modoc Line when the cab of #4107 was crushed by an errant flatcar.  Neither of the locomotive's occupants, engineer Daily and fireman Havickhorst, survived.  (Reference pages 257-259 of Bowden and Dill's Modoc Line.)

Mark

[richg1998]

The only railroad I know that owned cab forwards was the SP.

The only US railroad, you mean?

Cab forwards were common in Europe. Railways in France, Italy, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain all had them.

 

Here is a link to other cab forwards.

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/cabforward/other.shtml

One or two links within the link I just posted have pop ups, "you won", "you have email messages".

Do not play stupid by clicking on them, other wise some good info. 

Rich 

[marknewton]

It wasn't that someone put the boiler in front and every other maker did the same just "because". The reason the boilers were put in front was because the earliest locomotives burned wood,

Not true. The earliest locomotives burned coal, since they were built to run on railways that served coal mines. They burned what they hauled. Wood was a common fuel for US locos, but these weren't the earliest locomotives...

the boiler in front of the firebox was to keep the fuel source in the tender as close to the firebox as was practical.

Better have a look at Blackett & Hedley's "Puffing Billy", built in 1813, the oldest surviving steam locomotive in the world. The firebox leads, the tender trails. It's a cab-forward. That layout was common on locos of the period.

How many firemen would want to run down the running boards of a moving locomotive with every piece of wood or scoop of coal...?

They didn't need to. The coal was carried on the footplate in wicker baskets called "gabions". And at that stage of the game firing technique was very different to what was practiced later. It was heavily influenced by stationary boiler firing methods The most common firing method for any fuel was to fill the firebox up to the gills at the start of a run, and let the fire burn down along the way. If the fire needed attention it would be done at stops in preference to running. When distances were short and speeds were low these methods sufficed.

Cheers,

Mark.

[marknewton]

The only railroad I know that owned cab forwards was the SP.

The only US railroad, you mean?

Cab forwards were common in Europe. Railways in France, Italy, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain all had them.

[challenger3980]

Iron goat: What a great job, It's what they call "imagination"  superb work ! !  Cab forwards always seem to be such a mystery, I would think that the forward cab should have been the standard, it's a case of someone put the boiler out front so every other maker did the same just "because" ask the hoggers with cinders and smoke in their faces and lungs just how great a 60 foot boiler was up front, they also look great. and it's a myth about crashing into vehicles at crossings, by the way have you noticed which end the cab is on a diesel????

   It wasn't that someone put the boiler in front and every other maker did the same just "because". The reason the boilers were put in front was because the earliest locomotives burned wood, then coal, the boiler in front of the firebox was to keep the fuel source in the tender as close to the firebox as was practical. How many firemen would want to run down the running boards of a moving locomotive with every piece of wood or scoop of coal, boiler ahead of cab/firebox was the only logical arrangement until oil fired locomotives became commonplace, and ALL of SP's cab-forwards were oil fired.

   As far as the crews being uncomfortable about grade crossing and other types of collisions, this was a very common concern, and is the reason that early alco RSs were built to run long hood forward, and Norfolk & Western as well as Southern among other railroads deliberately spec'd their diesels to be run long hood forward. As a truck driver, I can appreciate this sentiment, I much prefer having that big hunk of pig iron under the hood in front of me, in a bad situation. I have driven both and I will take the conventional over the cab over any day of the week. I don't even want to think about the possible outcome of the day that a school bus turned left across across my lane of traffic in front of me, it pushed the engine a foot and a half back into the cab, had I been in a cab over I am sure that I would have had injuries much worse than just the seat belt bruises that I had.

                                                                           Doug

[MudHen_462]

I never really gave this anythought before, but did the Engineer and Fireman positions on the cab forward's remain the same as traditional steam lokeys??? It would certainly make sense if they did remain the same.

Bob/IG 

 

 

 

[twhite]

Though everyone has covered the MC, MM and AC classes of SP Cab-forwards, probably the most 'unusual' of all of the classes was the AC-6, which was the last class of AC built with the 'flat face'.  It had the spoked drivers of the AC-4 and 5 classes, the same semi-Vanderbuilt tender, yet the TE was increased from 116,000 to the 123,000 of the later AC classes, and the famous SP 'talking pumps' were installed on the boiler face instead of the fireman's side of the boiler, while the newer Worthington FWH system was installed on the boiler 'front' just ahead of the twin stacks, instead of the earlier, larger pump on the engineer's side.  This was the true 'transitional' loco between the AC-4/5 class and the later 'streamlined' AC-7/8/10/11/12, which came with the Disc Drivers and the larger rectangular tenders.  

IMO, they were the handsomest AC's ever built. 

Tom  

[MudHen_462]

Iron Goat I like your version of a cab forward.  Figured I do something to pull the maintence train around with.

Mine is based on Bachmann's 2-8-0.  So far I changed out the front steps (yardbirds) to make this.

and found this cab and another engine at a swap meet last week and figured to cut it up and see if it fits.

 

Side view

Of course the guys in the roundhouse were only to happy to chop/channel and start on the project, but said it would be a winter project.

 

 

FredK.... For a possible source for parts you may need in your project, take a look at this site:

www.yardbirdtrains.com

Dan Bush is the "Yard Master", and is a good guy to do business with. In my case, the little 0-4-0 dockside that I bashed was a Mehano/Rivarossi model, and the Varney cab forward part fit it like a glove.... so cruise Dan's site, and see if anything might work for you.

Another friend has just finished bashing a Mantua 0-6-0 and has made it into a very neat looking "cab forward". I think your 2-8-0 will look great as a C/F!!!

 

God luck...  Bob/Iron Goat

 

 

 

[jfallon]

  A camel-back could be considered a "cab-forward" locomotive, as could some of the early B&O Winan's steam engines. The cabs were located over the center of the boilers on both types, behind the smoke stack.

[Anonymous]

Iron Goat I like your version of a cab forward.  Figured I do something to pull the maintence train around with.

Mine is based on Bachmann's 2-8-0.  So far I changed out the front steps (yardbirds) to make this.

and found this cab and another engine at a swap meet last week and figured to cut it up and see if it fits.

 

Side view

Of course the guys in the roundhouse were only to happy to chop/channel and start on the project, but said it would be a winter project.

 

[Isambard]

I know the Canadian Pacific considered building cab-forwards for use in the Rockies, but it never got off the drawing board.

See http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/selkirk.html for an interesting article on what would have been involved in converting a CPR 2-10-4 Selkirk to a cab forward.  

[markpierce]

Having the smoke stack very near the tender frequently made for very dirty tenders, so dirty the tender lettering was virtually invisible.  It got so that on some divisions the paint shops stopped putting the lettering on.

Mark

[R. T. POTEET]

The Varney 0-4-0 "cab forward" has a very long history in the hobby. The original was the work of a hobbyist in either the late 40's or early 50's, whose name escapes me just now. As I recall, John Allen also had one of these on the G&D layout. During the 50's Kemtron created a kit to build this engine from a stock Varney Dockside and in later years the conversion kit or parts thereof were listed in Walthers. Eventually this dwindled to availability of just the cab front from Walthers. Nowadays, Yardbird has some very similar castings to convert several different Mantua locomotives in a similar fashion.
CNJ831

Informative! Thanks a lot.

[tatans]

Iron goat: What a great job, It's what they call "imagination"  superb work ! !  Cab forwards always seem to be such a mystery, I would think that the forward cab should have been the standard, it's a case of someone put the boiler out front so every other maker did the same just "because" ask the hoggers with cinders and smoke in their faces and lungs just how great a 60 foot boiler was up front, they also look great. and it's a myth about crashing into vehicles at crossings, by the way have you noticed which end the cab is on a diesel????

[Trynn_Allen2]

I thought that the Italian State Railroad had a whole class of cab forwards.

[wjstix]

I know the Canadian Pacific considered building cab-forwards for use in the Rockies, but it never got off the drawing board.

[CNJ831]

 I am putting together a Docksdide cab forward (certainly not prototypical...) to serve a small mining operation on my layout. I am waiting on some more detail parts before I can finish the project. It is DCC with sound...

Bob/Iron Goat

The Varney 0-4-0 "cab forward" has a very long history in the hobby. The original was the work of a hobbyist in either the late 40's or early 50's, whose name escapes me just now. As I recall, John Allen also had one of these on the G&D layout. During the 50's Kemtron created a kit to build this engine from a stock Varney Dockside and in later years the conversion kit or parts thereof were listed in Walthers. Eventually this dwindled to availability of just the cab front from Walthers. Nowadays, Yardbird has some very similar castings to convert several different Mantua locomotives in a similar fashion.

CNJ831

 

[R. T. POTEET]

. . . . . . . . . . the only prototype cab forwards that I'm aware of are the SP AC## "backward Yellowstones" and AM# "4-6-6-2 . . . . . . . . . .

Forty-nine of Sufferin' Pacific's first sixty-one Cab-forward locomotives - Classes MC-1, MC-2, MC-4, and MC-6 - were 2-8-8-2 Mallet types built 1909-13; their Class MM-2 were initially built as 2-6-6-2s in 1911 coincidental with the Class MC-4s but stability problems soon forced the railroad to modify them into 4-6-6-2s.

Espee did not enter the land of Backward Yellowstones i.e. 4-8-8-2s until the advent of the Class AC-4 in the late '20s. By that time the railroad was upgrading the MCs to simple articulation and they were being reclassified as Classes AC-1, AC-2, and AC-3s.

[tomikawaTT]

The only prototype cab forwards that I'm aware of are the SP AC## "backward Yellowstones" and AM# "4-6-6-2" classes (# indicating omitted numeral) and the NPC narrow-gauge one-off 4-4-0.  The 4-4-0 was the only one with a "backward" boiler/engine frame arrangement (cylinders under the firebox, drivers under the smokebox.)  The SP articulateds were conventional locomotives running in reverse, with the controls rearranged accordingly.

Tank locomotives operating bunker first may look like cab-forwards in photos, but, with one glaring exception, they really aren't.  Only locos deliberately modified with "SP-like" cabs are meant to run in that manner, and that modification is confined to models AFAIK.

The glaring exception?  The JNR E10 class 2-10-4T, which had its cab controls set up with the throttle on the opposite side from all other modern JNR steam.  It pushed upgrade bunker first, then drifted back down smokebox first.  (Only five were built, in 1948, for pusher service on a severe grade between Kyoto and the North Coast of Japan.  Electrification of the line put them out of service after a comparatively brief career - their low drivers and comparatively gigantic cylinders combined with rather small tanks and bunkers made them too slow and short-ranged for reassignment.)

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[MudHen_462]

 I am putting together a Docksdide cab forward (certainly not prototypical...) to serve a small mining operation on my layout. I am waiting on some more detail parts before I can finish the project. It is DCC with sound...

Bob/Iron Goat

[dinwitty]

SP is about the only major line to do cab forwarding. many tunnels putting the smoke behind the engineer.

[richg1998]

From time to time, I've seen "unusual" cab forward steam locomotives.  These would be other than the 4-8-8-2s that were owned by Southern Pacific(?).  But my question is were there other cab forwards based on much smaller engines?  Or are these just kind of dreamed up versions?

Thanks.

dlm

Here is a link to a 4-4-0 narrow gauge cab forward. A unpowerd HOn3 model is for sale on eBay for $199.

http://www.ironhorse129.com/Projects/Engines/NPC_21/NPC_No21.htm 

I am building a 2-6-0 oil forward cab forward using a Mantua 0-6-0T with a Vanderbuilt oil tender. I admit it is a wimsy project. It rattles some geezers. I enjoy the project.

Some years ago I saw using a project like this using a Varney 0-4-0T locomotive. the below links give you some idea of the project. I posted photos in another forum as they allow direct uploading to the forum. Too much trouble in these forums.

http://yardbirdtrains.com/YBVspecs.htm

http://www.yardbirdtrains.com/YBDetailParts.htm 

rich 

 

[lilivalley]

There was an 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 before the SP locomotives, I seen a picture of it in a railroad book, but I cant remember what railroad that had it.

[cwclark]

The only railroad I know that owned cab forwards was the SP. The very first SP cab forward was actually a mallet class mc-2 and it was peculiar looking. It was a 2-8-8-2 but later was rebuilt into articulated and designated an AC-1. SP also owned a narrow gauge railroad named the North Pacific Coast  which also took a wreaked 4-4-0 and turned it into a cab forward. They also had some 2-6-6-2's which had tracking problems so were rebuilt to 4-6-6-2's...chuck

[danmerkel]

From time to time, I've seen "unusual" cab forward steam locomotives.  These would be other than the 4-8-8-2s that were owned by Southern Pacific(?).  But my question is were there other cab forwards based on much smaller engines?  Or are these just kind of dreamed up versions?

Thanks.

dlm