Steam can operate in water quite deep.I have seen them going through water half way up to the drivers in floods.I'm sure modern steam locomotives would not operate in water that deep as many items on a steam locomotive(such as the firebox)are very hot and subjecting them to very cold water could crack the hot steel.It's probably a good not to operate a train or locomotive over flooded rails because you have no idea what is under that water.Could be a rock or a log or the track could be out of aliment.Water could also get into the bearings and journal boxes and contaminate the oil.If the water is only a foot or two deep you could probably get away with no problems as long as you knew what condition the track was in and stayed at a slow speed.
Why would they operate locomotives on flooded rails?There are many reasons one of them probably being a ongoing rain storm that has flooded the banks near the tracks and will take many days or weeks to get back to normal.Some states have tracks near rivers that have major flooding problems that are typical every season.Maybe at that time the railroad was having flooding problems and wanted a locomotive that could be a sort of insurance policy to go through flooded rails.
A railroad that dealt with flooding more than anyone else is the Everett & Monte Cristo Railway.They had their rails swept away by floods so many times that they actually set their rails and ties in concrete.
http://wasteam.railfan.net/emcr/emcr.html
Diesel locomotives on the other hand can not take deep water as the traction motors will fill with water and short out.If I remember right the rule book says you can not operate diesel electric locomotives in water if it is over 6" over the top of the rail.If a locomotive did get caught in a flood it would be expensive to repair it as all the traction motors would have to be taken apart and dried out.The axle journals and bearings would also have to be removed,cleaned,and re-oiled.
Sawtooth500So on page 98 of the 10 year Classic Trains special issue, they talk about a USRA 2-8-2 being leased to run in high water instead of diesels. 1. What advantage did steam have in high water? 2. If there's high water that covers the rails, doesn't common sense say don't operate over it?
Diesels have traction motors that sit just above the railhead that (I can only imagine) don't take kindly to being submerged.
Thomas 9011 Diesel locomotives on the other hand can not take deep water as the traction motors will fill with water and short out.If I remember right the rule book says you can not operate diesel electric locomotives in water if it is over 6" over the top of the rail.If a locomotive did get caught in a flood it would be expensive to repair it as all the traction motors would have to be taken apart and dried out.The axle journals and bearings would also have to be removed,cleaned,and re-oiled
The current rule is 3 inches over the rail head. You wouldn't need to disassemble the motors, it would be the better repair, but not necessary, just let them dry over time, or fire the unit up and let the TM blowers encourage the water out.
As far as Journal boxes. it would be the same for steam vs diesel. only most steam J-boxes I have seen are much much higher over the rail.
Here's a link to a pic of a steam loco going through a flood.
http://archives.luketan.com/sc/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/train-portland-flood.jpg
Here's a thread where I found it
http://www.modelrailroadforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15954&highlight=flood
Springfield PA
True, also keep in mind that modern rolling stock is much heavier than steam era equipment and in a flood situation often the ballast/track structure can be weakened...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
For an example (of both) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk84SjqiyPU - the steam is rather more spectacular!
Steam was mainly used in back water and not running water. Running water can and does wash out the roadbed. The TP bought a 2-8-2 from the CB&Q to haul train in flood area in Texas. I don't know if they used it more than one year. The Santa Fe used steam in Kansas City, Ks. 1950? to move stuff out before the water got too deep.
BRINGS BACK MEMORY OF WADING KNEE DEEP WATER LINING SWITCHES TO TAKE ENGINE
INTO YARD IN CAIRO,IL AT END OF RUN (MAIN LINE WAS IN NORTH CAIRO WHICH
WAS HIGHER FOR ENTRANCE ONTO OHIO RIVER BRIDGE MID 1945
FUSE-
There was a picture in our paper from sometime in the 1960's of CB&Q #4960 being called out to help pull trains through floodwaters. My parents and I often rode steam excursions pulled by this engine. The article said #4960 could get through when the diesels could not. Dad said steam engines rode higher and didn't have all the electronic wiring to short out.
I was reunited with #4960 in 2005 when a friend and I rode the Grand Canyon Railway and she pulled the train. It was like seeing an old friend and remember all the fun times we had on trips with her at the head end.
Yes the 4960 was taken to Savannah IL on the Mississippi River during flood stage. It would take trains through the flooded part of the yard -- diesels were kept at either side to take over. Trains magazine had photos at the time. The water might have been a foot or two high -- too high for traction motors but not high enough to get to the firebox. The main concern was undermined track.
That same flood caused the Empire Builder (or was it the Zehphyr?) to leave the CB&Q main just weet of Rochelle at Flagg, take the branch heading to Rockford, switch over to the Chicago Great Western at the tiny town of Holcomb, and take the Great Weedy's rickety track to the river. That must have been some ride.
That might have been the last "revenue" freight use of steam on the CB&Q although an engineer told me that one time in the 1960s they were so short of power for the Galesburg to Peoria run that they pulled 4960 out of the roundhouse and used it -- totally unremarked, no railfan photos.
They also had an old Doodlebug that they pressed into similar service now and then. I think Jim Boyd captured that use on film.
Dave Nelson
Sawtooth500It must have been the Empire Builder. Flagg Center was on the CB&Q main to Minneapolis, not the main to Omaha. I would have loved to been there!
At that time the Twin Cities Zephyr, the Empire Builder, and the NP's North Coast Limited all took CB&Q tracks to the Twin Cities where they then went their separate routes. In this particular flood of 1965, at first the North Coast Limited and Builder detoured via Milwaukee Road. According to the Burlington Bulletin of May-June 1965 (reprinted in John Kelly's fine book "Freight Trains of the Upper Mississippi River") it was actually the North Coast Limited that on Saturday afternoon May 1, 1965, was the first passenger train to take the detour route I described above: west to Rochelle on CB&Q, then to Flag Center on the line to Rockford, north to the tiny town of Holcomb where it detoured on the CGW to Galena Junction, back on the CB&Q to Lytle, then onto a branch of the Chicago & North Western to a specially built junction at Winona Junction were it got back onto CB&Q rails to St Paul. But I am sure this odd route did not prevent the passengers on the North Coast Limited from enjoying their big baked potato in the dining car.
That Bulletin also clarifies that the 4960 was going through a foot of water and was pulling freight and passenger trains. It says water more than 4 inches above the tracks shorts out a traction motor.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.