Trains.com

NKP 765 Expanded Coal Bunker

6908 views
10 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,623 posts
NKP 765 Expanded Coal Bunker
Posted by kgbw49 on Monday, July 20, 2015 10:26 PM

The expanded coal bunker gives the NKP 765's tender a "Norfolk & Western-ish" look. Perhaps this is a glimpse into what might have been had mainline steam lasted on N&W and NKP through 1970 or so.

  • Member since
    November 2006
  • From: NW Pa Snow-belt.
  • 2,216 posts
Posted by ricktrains4824 on Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:57 AM

From the 765 app, via twitter feed on it, the extended bunkers are to allow longer trips, without the need of a diesel assit unit.

If it works, I'm all for it.

 

Ricky W.

HO scale Proto-freelancer.

My Railroad rules:

1: It's my railroad, my rules.

2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.

3: Any objections, consult above rules.

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: US
  • 460 posts
Posted by JimValle on Monday, July 27, 2015 11:07 PM

That expanded coal bunker may be practical but it is too tall for the locomotive!  For me it spoils the classical look of what was an exceptionally well proportioned original design.  Sorry for the negative tone!

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,623 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Tuesday, July 28, 2015 5:49 PM

I am surmising that if steam was still alive in 1964 when N&W took over the NKP, an expanded coal bunker might also have been accompanied by an expanded (raised) water compartment as had been done on many of the original tenders for some classes of N&W steam power. If you look at the construction of 611's tender and coal bunker, there are similarities to the expanded coal bunker of 765.

 

Mr. Jensen's GTW 5629 had a very large tender applied, almost larger than the locomotive, and if I recall correctly, some classes of NYC Hudsons and some M1 Pennsy Mountains had tenders applied that were longer than the locomotive itself. In this instance, though, if the added coal capacity allows 765 to run unencumbered and rack up more unassisted ton-miles of service, just one opinion, it is a small price to pay. After all, to borrow a phrase from The Boss, Bruce Springsteen, 765 was born to run!

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 48 posts
Posted by stdgauge on Wednesday, July 29, 2015 11:31 AM

JimValle

That expanded coal bunker may be practical but it is too tall for the locomotive!  For me it spoils the classical look of what was an exceptionally well proportioned original design.  Sorry for the negative tone!

 
On first look, I was not exactly thrilled with the looks.  But, after seeing her in person, I think it looks OK, better than my first look from a picture on the net.
 
You have to admit, though, that it is A LOT better than having to use a diesel to stretch the coal on long runs.  After all, this is 2015, and you have to do the right thing to "fit in" on the railroads.  If it means a removable coal bunker extender, then so be it. 
 
The only other option is to throw a ton of money at it and make a more permanent change, like Ross did with the 614's tender.  Again, that is not how 614 tender looked as built, but it was necessary for her to operate like she did.
 
FWRHS did the right thing!
  • Member since
    August 2004
  • 2,844 posts
Posted by dinwitty on Tuesday, August 25, 2015 8:05 PM
if this goes on they'll install a daisy chain channel thru all them coal hoppers, add some water tanks behind and they can run non stop coast to coast and back....8-D
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,159 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:16 PM

 

Of interest might be to show a couple of photos of PRR " Long Distance Tenders" ( occasional referred to as 'Coast to Coast' (?) 

a later version @ http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_prr999401.jpg

and this: applied to a Pennsy K-4 in the 1930's

http://prrsteam.pennsyrr.com/images/k4-5453.jpg

 

 


 

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,623 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:52 PM

That is a unique setup for a K4! It looks pretty good, actually! One wonders if it was used in a run for the Pennsy west end where the distances stretched out, such as Indy to St. Louis perhaps?

It made me think of the huge tenders on those late-model Omaha Road Pacifics - pretty big and sort of "Norfolk & Westernish" with the high coal bunker and tall water tank.

http://kohlin.com/omaha/cstpm&o602.jpg

But I think that Pennsy job just might have the Omaha Road unit beat capacity-wise!

 

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,476 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 7:07 AM

That Omaha Road tender looks like it was borrowed from an H-1.  I was surprised that the Coast-to-Coast tender looked pretty good with a K-4.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 24,931 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 11:21 AM

The tenders used with the B&O's Cincinnatian streamlined engines were configured for 25 tons of coal and 20,000 gallons of water

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,623 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 8:39 PM

Wow! The streamlining is deceptive. 20,000 gallons of water, if I recall correctly, is the same water capacity as ATSF 2-10-4 Madame Queen and probably as much or more coal (prior to 5000's conversion to oil firing). That streamlining conceals the brawn beneath! The boys at Mt. Clare done good! Thanks for the great photo, too!

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy