Other than PRR and GN, which railroads used Belpair fireboxes?
Recently saw a photo of the Pacific with a Belair, headlight centered, spoked pilot, Delta trailing truck, regular inside-bearing pony truck. I assume it is Great Northern. Correct?
daveklepperOther than PRR and GN, which railroads used Belpaire fireboxes?
I presume for the moment you mean United States prototypes.
American-rails.com says this:
"Notable other roads (or their predecessors) that fitted the Belpaire to at least one of their steamers included the Burlington (0-10-0s, 4-6-0, 0-6-2s, 2-6-0s, 2-6-2s and 2-6-6-2s), Soo Line (4-6-0s, 2-8-0s), Chesapeake & Ohio (4-4-0s, 2-8-0s), Union Pacific (4-8-0 Mastadon/Twelve-Wheelers), Louisville & Nashville (2-6-0s), Toledo Peoria & Western (2-8-0s), Pere Marquette (4-4-2s, 2-6-0s, 2-8-0s), Spokane Portland & Seattle (4-4-2s, 4-6-2s), Grand Trunk Western (4-6-2s), Southern (2-6-0s), Minneapolis & St. Louis (2-8-0s), Illinois Central (2-8-0s, 4-8-0s), Pittsburgh & West Virginia (2-6-6-2s), Rock Island (4-4-2s), Richmond Fredericksburg & Potomac (2-6-0), Buffalo Rochester & Pittsburgh (4-8-0s), Monon (4-8-0s), and the New York Central (4-6-0)."
Unaccountably to me, they left out the Norfolk and Western class T. Their firebox design was significant enough to be mentioned in a technical discussion at the 1896 Master Mechanics meeting...
Do the N&W E-3 Pacifics count? (they were PRR K3s...)
SP&S's Belpair Pacifics were probably identacle to those of GN? From my description of the pix, does it seem like GN/SP&S?
When N&W got the K3's,did they reposition the headlight?
It wasn't just the railroad. Around the turn of the 20th Century, Brooks built a number of locomotives with a special design of curved Belpaire for locomotives with narrow fireboxes. New York Central had a number of fairly big 4-4-0s with these fireboxes from Brooks, and a lot of NYC subsidiaries had a range of types with these and other Belpaire fireboxes.
daveklepperWhen N&W got the K3's,did they reposition the headlight?
.
So they were K3s on the PRR and E3s on the N&W. Did their construction for the PRR start in 1914, the same year as the prototype E6? I assume they were not superheated originally. Correct? When did this occur? Did they remain hand-fired on the N&W? And yes, this was the locomotive I wished to identifiy!
I note the N&W did not change the valvegear.
K3 was one of the classes derived from the Alco K28. IIRC built 1913 (I think for 'Lines West'), and superheated 'at birth' (hence more correctly K3s). Sold USED to N&W in the early Depression ... I think 1930. The date was given in one of the common books on N&W 'later power' but I don't remember which one.
I doubt the locomotives received stokers on N&W. Likely if so it would only have been in response to the ICC mandate in the latter part of the '30s. I don't think the K3s was part of the PRR flirtation with Crawford (underfeed) stokers, but those things would have been long gone by the time N&W got the locomotives. Can someone check Pennsy Power and see what's there?
Doubt there would be any point in changing to Baker for a small class of engines bought cheap and in non-critical service...
BigJim or other N&W maven -- what's the word on the tender? The locomotives would have come with the "unusual" Lines West tenders, and I see the ones in your pictures with the N&W tender design with the weird high short bunker and long low water tank on six-wheel trucks (this is familiar from some other N&W class, but I don't remember which one).
The stoker question might be addressable by looking at preserved E2 class #578 in Ohio. This supposedly has a stoker-equipped tender off one of the 4-8-2 classes, but this is a different design from what the E3s got. It's at least plausible that if the ICC mandated stoker installation on a locomotive that size, that might have contributed to what appears to be their short subsequent life on N&W...
According to Pennsy Power, they were equipped with Crawford underfeeds. Any idea how long the E3s lasted on the N&W?
WizlishI doubt the locomotives received stokers on N&W.... BigJim or other N&W maven -- what's the word on the tender?
It seems almost cheating to mention the Long Island RR as using Belpaire fireboxes.
Dave Nelson
Of course, and after the tank engines were retired nothing else in steam.
also, of course, PRSL Two types there, Belpair and Wooten.
PRR K3s 7075 blt. BLW 5/1913 sold to N&W as 501 8/1930
PRR K3s 7095 blt. BLW 5/1913 sold to N&W as 502 8/1930
PRR K3s 7308 blt. BLW 5/1913 sold to N&W as 503 8/1930
PRR K3s 8657 blt. BLW 7/1913 sold to N&W as 500 8/1930
PRR K3s 8658 blt. BLW 7/1913 sold to N&W as 504 8/1930
All PRR K3s were built as superheated engines for various PRR Lines West. 7075, 7095, and 7308 were originally numbered for the PFW&C (Fort Wayne) line; 8657 and 8658 were originally numbered for service on the PCC&StL (Panhandle).
It should not be forgotten that B&O acquired Belpaire boilered 2-8-0's and 4-4-2's when that road was under PRR control in the early 1900's. A number of the 2-8-0's continued to serve the B&O into the 1950's, some as 2-8-0's, and some converted to 0-8-0's.
Tom
ACYAll PRR K3s were built as superheated engines for various PRR Lines West. 7075, 7095, and 7308 were originally numbered for the PFW&C (Fort Wayne) line; 8657 and 8658 were originally numbered for service on the PCC&StL (Panhandle).
I found my copy of Norfolk & Western Steam, The Last 25 Years. This has some interesting things regarding the E3s.
The diagram provided has a revision date of 11-16-41 and it shows a high-mounted headlight, suspiciously square with a high-mounted number glass like the original 1913 headlight. The accompanying photograph (of engine 500) shows a high-mounted headlight of much smaller diameter than most other N&W headlights (particularly headlights on the E1 and E2 classes), with a prominent visor, looking almost like a Lackawanna headlight. There is a round N&W number plate. The caption reads "This photo reveals a few alterations made by the new owner. The much larger tender [20T, 15000 gal] is readily apparent. The new pilot, headlight, number plate, spoked pilot wheels, and low-water alarm are much more difficult to spot."
Do we have dates for the pictures with the centered headlights, and is there a revised diagram for them?
PRR class K3s was basically a K2s with larger cylinders. As far as I know, all K3s were built with a high headlight; but many K2s were operated with a centered headlight in service on Lines West. See Pennsy Power pages 153 and 157.
ACY ... many K2s were operated with a centered headlight in service on Lines West.
At least some of this is, I believe, due to actions taken while the PRR was under Government control in the WWI era. "Standardization" extended to having the centered headlights in a number of cases on passenger power, probably as a matter of general policy, although I have not seen this specific point raised in the literature. Outside of that period I have not seen a PRR K3s with centered headlight, and K3s were supposedly built to be Lines West engines. I will ask around and see if any of the PRR people have a better answer.
Pennsy Power page 37 shows a builder's photo of PRR H10s 2-8-0 9710 (numbered in the series of the Lines West subsidiary Toledo, Columbus & Ohio River; Baldwin, July, 1915) with a centered headlight. Page 52 shows L1s Mikados built in 1917 by different builders with centered headlights. These were definitely pre-USRA. Some Lines West K4s and N1s engines also had centered headlights, but I don't know whether this could have been due to USRA influence or not.
This is not intended to contradict Wizlish's point. I honestly don't know whether the USRA had any influence on Lines West's choices re. headlight locations.
I thought I had made the point that I was referring to passenger power, and more specifically the K3s class, concerning the centered headlights. As Tom says, there were many locomotives on Lines West that had the centered headlights. I just don't think the K3s were among them.
I've really developed an interest in British steam lately. From what I've seen in the MANY videos on Youtube, the vast majority of British locomotives has Belpair fireboxes. Was there an advantage to them, especially since they were hand-fired??
Mike C.
[quote user="wobblinwheel"Was there an advantage to them, especially since they were hand-fired??[/quote]
One advantage was equal-length staybolts across the crown and in other areas. This came at the price of sharper rolled bends in the outer wrapper and more complex forming and fabrication at the front of the outer firebox. Many British classes had copper fireboxes, which would have been a consideration.
What advantages did GN & PRR see in Belpaire fireboxes on their big steamers? Was it really "better" than a "normal" firebox?
ChuckAllen, TX
As I understand it, the main issue was increased heating surface for a given firebox size/grate area. Maybe others can tell you more.
ACY As I understand it, the main issue was increased heating surface for a given firebox size/grate area. Maybe others can tell you more. Tom
ACY's response is correct as to the reason for the PRR using the Belpaire design. An example to further his point was the standard boiler USRA class N2s that the PRR aquired. The N2's that were later modified with a Belpaire increased the heating surface by 252 sq ft, while the grate area remained the same. For a mountain railroad a Belpaire design enabled them to increase the heating area without increasing the size of the locomotive's length. These modifications reclassed the N2s to the N2sa.
The PRR began using the Belpaire in 1885 with their Consolidation freight locomotives, the passenger engines started seeing them by 1890.
Until WWII, steam development on the PRR was cut short because of wide-spread eastern electrification, which left a surplus of then fairly-modern steam power. Only two k-5s were built, and the modern lightweight Atlantic to haul lightwieght streamlined trains was designed but never built. Regarding the added efficiency of the Belpair firebox, can anyone come up with a good comparison of tractive effort and horsepower between the NYCentral J1 Hudson and the PRR K5 Pacific? How about the M-1 Mountain and a contemporary, early Northern? Was the Belpair the reason for PRR avoidance of a four-wheel trailing truck?
daveklepperRegarding the added efficiency of the Belpaire firebox, can anyone come up with a good comparison of tractive effort and horsepower between the NYCentral J1 Hudson and the PRR K5 Pacific? How about the M1 Mountain and a contemporary, early Northern? Was the Belpaire the reason for PRR avoidance of a four-wheel trailing truck?
I seem to recall that Juniatha wrote extensively on the K5 Pacific, and now that I see she has posted over on the 611 thread she may care to comment on these questions. Personally, I'd suspect that the difference in steam-generating performance between radial and Belpaire firebixes would be comparatively small compared to many other performance determinants of a given pair of locomotives being compared. We can certainly observe that PRR gave up two-wheel trailing trucks quite readily when firebox size ... Belpaire or otherwise ... demanded. Arguably, so did NYC (although Dr. Leonard has an essay indicating this wasn't strictly necessary and that two-wheel trailing trucks might have suited NYC's actual power needs on 8-coupled power quite well, especially if 'modern' innovations in drafting, feedwater and air heating, etc. had been implemented).
In a sense, the Q1 was PRR's answer to Dave's question, as it was intended as the logical 'follow-on' to the M1. I'd also like to see any data behind the "PRR" 4-8-4 turbines illustrated in that Westinghouse annual report...
I wonder why PRR had Belpaire Boxes only on their small and midsize steamers. Why did it quit with this tradition on the J1, S1, S2, T1, Q1 and Q2?
De LuxeI wonder why PRR had Belpaire Boxes only on their small and midsize steamers. Why did it quit with this tradition on the J1, S1, S2, T1, Q1 and Q2?
How's that again?
T1 -- Belpaire. S1 -- Belpaire. S2 -- Belpaire. Q1 -- Belpaire, unless I'm missing something. Q2 -- Belpaire. (Picking up a pattern here...)
J1 - no Belpaire because built to C&O design, courtesy of the War Production Board.
(I've heard some argument that the staybolt-popping problems on the S2 turbine might have been lower in a different type of firebox, but I can't say for sure ... I've never even looked carefully at the patterns of differential expansion when that firebox was brought up to service heat and pressure. Some of the necessary data are probably preserved in the Hagley collection.)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.