It, to answer the first subject, probably is out there: the UP Challenger....fast, agile, not huge, oil-fueled....tho' esthetically, I vote for the totaly impractical C&O 2-6-6-6.
BEDT's 0-6-0T's had 1-man engine crews in the mid-fifties, and were oil-fired. BEDT: 'cross the river from the UN Bldg, the Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal RR, about 4 engines....to answer the second thread subject.
Third subject: yes, to my recollection, the last commercially built engines for a Class 1 were the 2-6-6-2's for the C&O.
But the last built for a Class 1, new, were some 0-8-0's replicating a C&O type, built by N&W at Roanoke.
I read in the book "Pennsy Power" by Alvin Staufer, that the PRR converted at least one E6s #13,based out of Baltimore, 10 L1s mikados, whish were based out of 46th street in Philly ( I guess I should have read a little more before posting my earlier dispatch ) and there is a photo of a 1939 conversion of a B6sb tender. Don't know for sure of others, guess I'll have to dig a little deeper. As for the Santa Fe engines, they were giant 2-10-4s.
Schuylkill and Susquehanna thomas81z remember the bigger stuff & new stuff had stokers , but still oil would have been easier It's a misnomer that stokers meant that firemen didn't need to shovel. The stoker sprayed the coal out in a fan shape, so the fireman still needs to shovel the corners to keep the fire even. Thus the size of the firebox is still limited because of needing to shovel coal into the back corners. Naturally, an oil burner doesn't require any shoveling.
thomas81z remember the bigger stuff & new stuff had stokers , but still oil would have been easier
remember the bigger stuff & new stuff had stokers , but still oil would have been easier
It's a misnomer that stokers meant that firemen didn't need to shovel. The stoker sprayed the coal out in a fan shape, so the fireman still needs to shovel the corners to keep the fire even. Thus the size of the firebox is still limited because of needing to shovel coal into the back corners. Naturally, an oil burner doesn't require any shoveling.
I was under the impression that in many of the big "last of steam" locomotives there were steam jets installed in the firebox to spread the coal evenly?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 ... I was under the impression that in many of the big "last of steam" locomotives there were steam jets installed in the firebox to spread the coal evenly?
...
You are not wrong. However, The nozzles were not exactly steerable. They were fixed on the cab side of a distribution plate over which the pulverized coal was thrust by the stoker. The jets could not properly fill the corners, for example, and most certainly were horrible with the two closest corners on either side of the stoker and distribution plate. At some point, the fireman had to open the clamshell and fire coal sideways into each close corner.
Crandell
So all big US locomotives had to carry shovels? The stokers couldn't do all the firing on any 4-8-4, for instance? How about 4-6-4s and 4-8-2s? Did Hiawatha firemen have to shovel those 4-6-4s up to 100+ mph?
how about the AC-9 ?/ THEY DIDNT GET MUCH LOVE BUT THEY WERE THE BEST LOOKING ARTICULATED EVER BUILT
AC-9---yes until the mass, height and wheelbase of the trailing truck is viewed from an "Engine Picture" broadside shot.
The truck is too small in proportion (esthetics only) to the rest of...the whole engine.
I'm a fan that sticks with the 2-6+6-6.
timz So all big US locomotives had to carry shovels? The stokers couldn't do all the firing on any 4-8-4, for instance? How about 4-6-4s and 4-8-2s? Did Hiawatha firemen have to shovel those 4-6-4s up to 100+ mph?
Stokers were pretty much standard by the 30s and 40s and I believe they were popular in the 20s. And the shovel was really more for shaping the fire, not for feeding the engine.
On the basis of esthetics only, I'd also go with the Alleghenies. Unfortunately, they seemed to be used more for their tractive effort than their horsepower. It would have been interesting to see how they would have performed with a produce block on Union Pacific or Santa Fe.
efftenxrfe AC-9---yes until the mass, height and wheelbase of the trailing truck is viewed from an "Engine Picture" broadside shot. The truck is too small in proportion (esthetics only) to the rest of...the whole engine. I'm a fan that sticks with the 2-6+6-6.
With the Cab forwards the trailing tuck would have been the pilot truck on a conventional "cab-to-the-rear" design. It wasn't designed to support the firebox like the trailing trucks of almost all other articulateds (the exception that proves the rule is the DM&IR Yellowstones which had extra large all weather cabs that required the four wheel trailing truck, on any other road they would have been built as huge 2-8-8-2s) so it's no wonder the AC-9's looks markedly different...
Yes, all coal-fired steamers, including those in Canada, carried shovels, but only for initial dressing/preparation of the fire prior to the work to be done, and only to correct minor problems in the distribution of the coal bed inside the firebox due to rocking, clearing the grates, engineer's idioscynchracies in the use of throttle and reverser, etc. IOW, the shovel was a useful tool in a limited way once the locomotive had a mechanical stoker. I just finished doing more reading prior to answering, and it seems that on British steamers, at least, there were five jets, one for each rear firebox corner, one for each close firebox corner, and the line jet for the middle of the firebox. So, it was undertaken from the outset to engineer and use a reasonable appliance that could meet every demand placed upon the firebox by the engineer. That's the theory. In practice, it seems the fireman had to stand up on occasion, take a closer look, heave a sigh, turn and reach for his scoop, retrieve some coal, open the clamshell, and throw in some coal in certain spots by hand.
One problem to be avoided was piling coal near and under the distributor plate. If it were not kept bathed in air and steam, it could heat and warp with the intense heat in the firebox, particularly during heavy demand and the commensurate heavy stoking.
So it seems to be to my read. Maybe others will have another take on it all.
Had those bitter Minnesota winters not required that the Missabe M-3/4 Yellowstones have an all-weather cab, the locomotives would have looked exactly like the Western Pacific 251 2-8-8-2's,(save for a slightly smaller coal-burning vs. oil-burning firebox) as that's the locomotive on which Baldwin based the M-3/4's. And the M-3/4 locos were not just relegated to ore trains, as they proved during the winters of WWII when they did yeoman service on the Rio Grande, Northern Pacific, Great Northern and (reportedly) Western Pacific hauling all kinds of freight. In fact, engineers on the Rio Grande said that the big Yellowstones were the best locomotives they'd ever fired.
I don't know if they're the 'best' articulated ever built (is there such an animal?), but hands down, those 18 M-series Yellowstones are certainly MY favorite articulated.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
It is my understanding that you are quite wrong about that. The steam men I worked with told me that the first thing a fireman would do to prepare his fire bed was to turn off the stoker jets and run the stoker to get what was called "a good Heel" in front and beside the stoker plate.
.
Big Jim, I may be wrong, but so would the person suggesting how to fire an engine with a stoker at this site:
http://www.southerncape.co.za/history/transport/railways/locomotives/the_standard_mechanical_stoker_1956.php
See the section further down on 'Suggestions to the Fireman", the first warning given.
One of the overall best book on firing and running steam is John Orr's "Set Up Running: The Life of a Pennsylvania Railroad Engineman, 1904-1949" (ISBN-13: 978-0271027418.) This is the son's tale of his father's work on the Pennsy. You'll learn some of the art of firing from 40+ yeats in the cab. Well worth reading twice as there is lots of details and afterwards you will understand why the shovel was the Fireman's tool.
carnej1With the Cab forwards the trailing tuck would have been the pilot truck on a conventional "cab-to-the-rear" design. It wasn't designed to support the firebox like the trailing trucks of almost all other articulateds
Well, I wasn't aware there were cab-forward AC-9s.
In part, they were 'good-looking' because of their styling. I don't recall the trailing truck being insignificant compared to, say, the ones on the PRR T1, which has a tiny wheelbase compared to the room provided for it, or the N&W A (which started a great way back from the rear drivers)
I'll grant you that the lead truck under the firebox on cab-forward AC locomotives looked a bit small, but it certainly supported the weight it needed to, and guided at least adequately enough for main-train speeds in WWII...
selector Big Jim, I may be wrong, but so would the person suggesting how to fire an engine with a stoker at this site: http://www.southerncape.co.za/history/transport/railways/locomotives/the_standard_mechanical_stoker_1956.php See the section further down on 'Suggestions to the Fireman", the first warning given. Crandell
If I'm not mistaken, there is a passage in "Apex of the Atlantics" that tells of an engineer that did just this and saved a lot of coal over the run or something to that effect.
carnej1 efftenxrfe AC-9---yes until the mass, height and wheelbase of the trailing truck is viewed from an "Engine Picture" broadside shot. The truck is too small in proportion (esthetics only) to the rest of...the whole engine. I'm a fan that sticks with the 2-6+6-6. With the Cab forwards the trailing tuck would have been the pilot truck on a conventional "cab-to-the-rear" design. It wasn't designed to support the firebox like the trailing trucks of almost all other articulateds (the exception that proves the rule is the DM&IR Yellowstones which had extra large all weather cabs that required the four wheel trailing truck, on any other road they would have been built as huge 2-8-8-2s) so it's no wonder the AC-9's looks markedly different...
The DM&IR M3/M4 didn't need the 4 wheel trailing truck for the all weather cab, they needed it to help support the large 750 sq.ft. firebox. As a reference to how big the firebox was on all the Yellowstone type locomotives, the N&W Class A firebox was only 580 sq.ft. and it needed a 4 wheel training truck just to support that. The final two types of Yellowstones built (the M3/M4 and EM-1) had fireboxes equal in size to the C&O Allegheny - they were simply huge. There is no way you could support a firebox that size with a 2 wheel trailing truck.
Some of you may find the following interesting and counter to some of what has previously been posted here. This is from the C&O Fireman's Manual and about the "Standard HT Stoker.
GP40-2The DM&IR M3/M4 didn't need the 4 wheel trailing truck for the all weather cab, they needed it to help support the large 750 sq.ft. firebox. As a reference to how big the firebox was on all the Yellowstone type locomotives, the N&W Class A firebox was only 580 sq.ft. and it needed a 4 wheel training truck just to support that.
This is a specious comparison; the Yellowstone, like the various Challengers and the Big Boy, carries its firebox partially over the rear-engine drivers. It might technically be possible to move the boiler and firebox forward, along the general line of a "big 2-8-8-2" but then the weight on drivers (already just about maxed-out on a Yellowstone) might be too extreme, or the swing of the smokebox over the forward engine too extreme. (In defense, air access to the grate might be better with a 2-wheel. trailer... )
The A, on the other hand, like the Allegheny or, in the 2-8-8-4 world the EM-1, has a deep forebox, which gives better combustion efficiency, or a 'lazier' response to draft at high power (much of the "fuel" in a Big Boy was ignited and burned without ever residing on the grate at all... just the opposite of what is desired in a fire for a coal-burning engine...) By the time you get this up to the 135' of the Allegheny, in a deep firebox, you may be talking six-wheel truck, and designs intended to add additional radiant surface (like Lima's proposed Long Compression/double Belpaire eight-coupled engine from 1949) might need six wheels under there, too. On the gripping hand, of course, there's always the argument that the three axles aren't so much needed for weight bearing as to span the greater longitudinal distance under the firebox with less structural difficulty for the truck frame itself...
I would argue that it's better in a comparison like this to compare grate area rather than heating surface. GA of a Yellowstone was somewhere around 125 square feet. I'll grant you that there are other efficiency concerns (such as extended surface of a longer chamber, or firebox and chamber syphons) but the tone of that "750 square feet' is more suited to a pissing contest than coherent locomotive discussion. In my opinion, there are too many other variables for you to quote HS numbers as though other factors are not as, or more, significant, even if only discussing the degree to which the firebox overhangs the rear driver.
BigJim selector Big Jim, I may be wrong, but so would the person suggesting how to fire an engine with a stoker at this site: http://www.southerncape.co.za/history/transport/railways/locomotives/the_standard_mechanical_stoker_1956.php See the section further down on 'Suggestions to the Fireman", the first warning given. CrandellAnd did you read this above? " Ensure that the portion of the grate under the distributing table is well covered with coal. " Like I said, every steam man I ever worked with (and there were many) said the same thing. You needed a good heel. If I'm not mistaken, there is a passage in "Apex of the Atlantics" that tells of an engineer that did just this and saved a lot of coal over the run or something to that effect.
Okay, this sounds like a terminology thing. I would agree that the area directly under and close to the distributor plate must be addressed. When first starting out, it must have a suitable covering of the grate area in question to ensure no holes. If you and others call that the heel, yes, it must be covered. As the site I quoted said, do not allow that same area to get heavily piled because it causes inordinate heat stress to at least one design of distributor plate, or more. I would guess the flues handling the gases from that area would be differentially heated as well, hardly ever a good thing for a flue sheet.
Getting a "good heel"? Sure, if it means what he said about ensuring adequate coverage. He goes on to caution about negligent piling and inattention to that area later.
Crandall, Operating manuals (and web sites) don't tell you everything, so don't let this web page close your mind. Tricks of the trade are developed over time by the people who work in their chosen arena every day. Putting a heel in the firebox seems to be one of these ( I don't think the NYC or the C&O manuals even tell how this was done). It doesn't mean that coal was stacked to the top of the distributer plate. It is about forming the coal around the bottom in a type of upward slope toward and around the bottom of the distributer plate high enough and in a way that helps shape the way the fire burns. Read "Apex of the Atlantics" and how one engineer discovered how a "heel" helped his fire to an amazing degree. And, this was on a PRR loco without a stoker. It also supported what every steam man has told me. They used the stoker, with the jets turned off, to supply the coal instead of using a shovel. I haven't read my copy of "Set Up Running" in a long time, so, I don't know if he has anything to say on this matter or not. I do know that it is an excellent book, the best I have read on real life experiances on the RR.
BigJim Read "Apex of the Atlantics" and how one engineer discovered how a "heel" helped his fire to an amazing degree. And, this was on a PRR loco without a stoker. It also supported what every steam man has told me. They used the stoker, with the jets turned off, to supply the coal instead of using a shovel.
Read "Apex of the Atlantics" and how one engineer discovered how a "heel" helped his fire to an amazing degree. And, this was on a PRR loco without a stoker. It also supported what every steam man has told me. They used the stoker, with the jets turned off, to supply the coal instead of using a shovel.
Yes, I just got a copy of Apex of the Atlantics and read the part of that one engineer training his firemen to prep the fire starting out.
It may not have been as easy as simply jamming the firebox full of coal. On the other hand, the description of how this system promoted smokeless combustion, do you suppose that this was an independent discovery of Porta's Gas Producer Combustion System (the GPCS)?
I have also seen the local operator of "zoo gauge" steam locomotives stuff their fireboxes with coal and get smoke free operations, but I need to talk to someone in-the-know to find out what they are doing. So maybe the "light and bright" thin firebed is not the optimal system of stoking?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I am certainly not as knowlegeable about steam as many posters on this thread, However:
I have read that Yellowtone design was based of the Western Pacific's M-137 class 2-8-8-2s which had even larger fireboxes than the Yellowstones (although the WP engines were oil burners). I have read multiple sources(like this:http://www.steamlocomotive.com/yellowstone/?page=dmir) that state that the longer frame on the Yellowstone was in fact, due to the extra large all- weather cab designed for the harsh winter weather of Minnesota rather than the firebox size.
IINM, there were coal burning 2-8-8-2s that approached the Yellowstones in size and firebox dimensions, the D&RGW L-131s would be an example.
Jim and Paul, I agree that not all printed words amount to the best wisdom found in the real world, and that was made clear to me in a counter-intuitive way in the latest edition of Classic Trains where they talked about the valve pilot. It taught many frustrated engineers how to get the most out of locomotives they swore would never lift a train over a grade where they had failed countless times without helpers. Later, with the valve pilots, they found that they could!
Running any one steam locomotive was at least as much an art as science.
Paul MilenkovicOn the other hand, the description of how this system promoted smokeless combustion, do you suppose that this was an independent discovery of Porta's Gas Producer Combustion System (the GPCS)?
No.
Keeping the 'heel' and filling the back corners had little to do, overtly, with smoke-free operation. It had to do with maintaining consistent combustion-gas mass flow without opening up spots in the bed, or overheating ash to clinker... things like that. Remember too that some of the heel slides down as the locomotive rides, and this would open up free air spots toward the back of the grate if not attended to, and who has the time to keep checking while firing, calling signals, etc.? (There is an amusing article somewhere on the Web, I think from the old Railroad Magazine, about 'bright college boys' dictating that all locomotives should be fired smoke-free... and what the problems with that approach could be!)
GPCS involves a sealed firebox, with a bare minimum of primary air mixed with steam. This gasifies the coal, rather than combusting it outright, and then the resulting CO and hydrocarbons are burned to produce most of the radiant heat, ostensibly more cleanly and completely. A moment's reflection will tell you what considerations for secondary air (and even tertiary air in some cases) would require in such a system... guns of conventional type NOT being a particularly helpful or healthy solution.
May I humbly suggest that the discussions on (1) firing technique and (2) valve pilot and the like be taken to their own threads? They have little to do with the subject of this post, and the thoughts they contain might be lost to future searchers...
Just an aside concerning my remarks about the AC9 and that size does matter.
A couple of posts indicated that it was because the firebox truck was the leading truck that made it proportionately different.
Well, the AC9 was the only class that was not a "Back-up Malle(y)."
AC9's were the....NP Yellowstones, DMIR's 2-8+8-4's....the third conventional 2-8+8-4's. Maybe the last?
Nomenclature and characteristics weren't paramount to SP's eng. class identities. A GS4 spotting an industry on a branch....but SP 4449 was a General Service (GS) and like-wise, (AC) followed standing in for Articulated Consolidation, logically a 2-8+8-2, as in PRR's GG1.
Historically recollected, early on the family of Cab-forwards included 2-8+8-2's, the justifying factor to let SP confuse people to confuse wheel arrangements.
Overmod This is a specious comparison; the Yellowstone, like the various Challengers and the Big Boy, carries its firebox partially over the rear-engine drivers. It might technically be possible to move the boiler and firebox forward, along the general line of a "big 2-8-8-2" but then the weight on drivers (already just about maxed-out on a Yellowstone) might be too extreme, or the swing of the smokebox over the forward engine too extreme. (In defense, air access to the grate might be better with a 2-wheel. trailer... ) The A, on the other hand, like the Allegheny or, in the 2-8-8-4 world the EM-1, has a deep forebox, which gives better combustion efficiency, or a 'lazier' response to draft at high power (much of the "fuel" in a Big Boy was ignited and burned without ever residing on the grate at all... just the opposite of what is desired in a fire for a coal-burning engine...) By the time you get this up to the 135' of the Allegheny, in a deep firebox, you may be talking six-wheel truck, and designs intended to add additional radiant surface (like Lima's proposed Long Compression/double Belpaire eight-coupled engine from 1949) might need six wheels under there, too. On the gripping hand, of course, there's always the argument that the three axles aren't so much needed for weight bearing as to span the greater longitudinal distance under the firebox with less structural difficulty for the truck frame itself... I would argue that it's better in a comparison like this to compare grate area rather than heating surface. GA of a Yellowstone was somewhere around 125 square feet. I'll grant you that there are other efficiency concerns (such as extended surface of a longer chamber, or firebox and chamber syphons) but the tone of that "750 square feet' is more suited to a pissing contest than coherent locomotive discussion. In my opinion, there are too many other variables for you to quote HS numbers as though other factors are not as, or more, significant, even if only discussing the degree to which the firebox overhangs the rear driver.
Overmod,
I pretty much agree with what you said.
My only point was that the M3/M4 had a very large firebox/cumbustion chamber, about 100 sq.ft. larger than the WP 2-8-8-2 it was reportedly based on. A steam locomotive cab is a light weight, flimsy affair, even in an extended weatherized version. They certainly were not built with the gauge of steel as modern locomotive cabs/short hoods that have FRA mandated collision ratings.
The point being, even with the slighly larger cab, it would not add enough weight to need a 4 wheel trailing truck. It needed the additional trailing axle to help support the long firebox/cumbustion chamber that was cantilevered back past the drive axles.
I have some additional thoughts on the depth of firebox designs and grate area that I will discuss when I have more time.
efftenxrfe Just an aside concerning my remarks about the AC9 and that size does matter. A couple of posts indicated that it was because the firebox truck was the leading truck that made it proportionately different. Well, the AC9 was the only class that was not a "Back-up Malle(y)." AC9's were the....NP Yellowstones, DMIR's 2-8+8-4's....the third conventional 2-8+8-4's. Maybe the last? Nomenclature and characteristics weren't paramount to SP's eng. class identities. A GS4 spotting an industry on a branch....but SP 4449 was a General Service (GS) and like-wise, (AC) followed standing in for Articulated Consolidation, logically a 2-8+8-2, as in PRR's GG1. Historically recollected, early on the family of Cab-forwards included 2-8+8-2's, the justifying factor to let SP confuse people to confuse wheel arrangements.
AC-9s were conventional with the cab in the rear. However, they were built in 1939, and were not the last 2-8-8-4s. The B&O EM-1 was the most modern version of the 2-8-8-4, designed and constructed in 1944-45.
I don't pretend that it's the best articulated, but in Germany there are these spiffy little 0-4-4-0T Meyenberg locomotives, little jobbies that run on the Harz narrow gauge and many others. I'd post a picture if I could but have a look at the Harz films and you'll see. I was at a NG railway near Trier a few years ago and in the back of a shed was one, sitting there like a 53 Corvette, just waiting to be restored.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.