Two injectors. There was originally one injector, and the pump/feedwater heater was replaced with a second injector.
This is claimed in Wardale's "Red Devil and other Tales of the Age of Steam" account of the operation of the 614.
On the other hand, some Web sources suggest that some of that class of locomotive never had a feedwater heater but instead had an exhaust-steam injector, a poor-man's feedwater heater in that it provides some degree of energy and water recovery. Whatever 614 had, whether a "shell" (heat-exchanger) type or "mixing" (open) type feedwater heater or an exhaust-steam injector, it got replaced with a second (live-steam) injector.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
RMERoss Rowland has had little problem running 614 without a formal feedwater heater, so it's not exactly a mandatory device to make a modern engine workable.
.
BaldwinguyIt's true that Pennsy was very stingy about adopting such devices as stokers and feedwater heaters, feeling that, at least in the case of the latter, the Belpaire firebox and boiler design was free-steaming enough that maintaining the FWH wasn't worth the expense for the benefit produced. Speaking more generally, whether this was the right viewpoint is questionable, since I know from family sources that when the K4s were equipped with stokers in the 30's, they achieved sustained speed and efficiency levels the railroad had never dreamed of.
The FWH is less important on engines with lower pressure, and on a 205psi K4 would be a fuel-economy device, not a performance enhancer (like a stoker) or a 'safety enhancer' (like a power reverse). One thing about feedwater heaters on PRR was that apparently they stopped feeding on many occasions, with many points of failure but one common result -- all the boiler feed being thrown on the one injector. (Isn't there a description or discussion of this in Set Up Running?) We won't go into the Turbo-Inspirator issues on the T1s again, although to me that's an interesting discussion...
Ross Rowland has had little problem running 614 without a formal feedwater heater, so it's not exactly a mandatory device to make a modern engine workable. However, I think it is relatively easy to establish that both water rate and boiler maintenance are positively influenced when a working FWH is present.
Images of the New York Central "Hudson" NYC 5315 wrecked at Gulf Curve, NY in the spring of 1940. Whose rear engine truck was never recovered from the Mohawk River.
Images of the New York Central "Hudson" NYC 5313 locomotive given to Toronto Hamilton & Buffalo the NYC subsidary that crosses Canada between New York and Detroit, MI. According to Al Staufer the Central considered NYC 5313 to be an unlucky number "13" and handed it off. Photo of NYC 5313 aka TH&B 503 headed for the scrapper in Canada and a photo of the surviving tender from NYC 5313 which is at Steam Town USA property of the National Park Service? Guess it wasn't such an unlucky number as its the only part of a surviving NYC "Hudson."
If the rear truck of NYC 5315 was located and the tender of NYC 5313 were gathered would this constitute enough of a New York Central "Hudson" to make one surviving locomotive - with a few reproduction parts?
-----------
Doc
None of the 425 PRR K4s locomotives ever had a feedwater heater. This device was first adopted by the Pennsy on the second (1922-23) batch of I1s 2-10-0's, partly at Baldwin's recommendation. The M1 4-8-2's didn't have them for clearance reasons, but from then on (K5, M1a, etc.) all PRR steamers had them.
It's true that Pennsy was very stingy about adopting such devices as stokers and feedwater heaters, feeling that, at least in the case of the latter, the Belpaire firebox and boiler design was free-steaming enough that maintaining the FWH wasn't worth the expense for the benefit produced.
Speaking more generally, whether this was the right viewpoint is questionable, since I know from family sources that when the K4s were equipped with stokers in the 30's, they achieved sustained speed and efficiency levels the railroad had never dreamed of.
Pennsy's viewpoint on these subjects went 180 degrees in the mid 30's when the old guard locomotive designers retired, hence the much more liberal application of such items on later locomotives like the S1, Q1, Q2 and T1.
As for 1361, according to what I've heard, she was, like most of the remaining K4s's in 1957, pretty well worn out and sitting dead, along with others at the 52nd St. Engine House in Philadelphia when the word went out from Headquarters that they wanted to put a K4s out on the Horseshoe Curve. Since that engine was to be simply a static display, the crew at 52nd St. simply grabbed the last engine in the dead line, which just happened to be 1361, and shipped her off to Altoona.
RME,
You and I are true HUDSON fans! And well met!
About 15 years ago I was on a business trip to up-state New York and got off the Interstate with Staufer's book. Using the photos I went to Gulf Curve to explore the sight of the famous wreck.
Of course the NYC main line - now Norfolk Southern - is still located in about the same area as it was in 1947. The area is quite overgrown compared to the old NYC photos. I walked about a mile of the track eventually finding the aproximate location rock retaining wall where NYC 5315 went off the track right into that immovable object at speed some distance from the track.
The New York Central Railroad knew the "Gulf Curve" was a dangerous curve and always had a speed restriction on that sight. But for some reason that train, heading west, went into that curve, on that day, running about 20 mph too fast - and would have stayed on the rails.
For some never discovered reason the locomotive throttle was suddenly shut - at the critical moment - causing the engine to slow down and the slack "run in" from the following passenger train to pile into the tender coupler and shove the NYC 5315 hard - lifting it off the tracks and right into the rock retaining wall. It was a disaster!
For some other strange and unknowable reason the Road Forman of Engines was riding in the cab that day - and survived the accident - and the boiler explosion.
He could never did credably account exactly what transpired - but the alarming fact was that the throttle never should have been shut at the critical moment! Something went very wrong - and in the way the story is told makes one wonder if the Road Forman - who felt the engineer was not obaying rules - went over himself and suddenly shut the throttle himself causing the wreck? And over riding the engineer's control of the train? Whatever caused the accident - it was the reason for the disaster.
NYC 5315 went headfirst into the rock wall on its right side which uncovered the firebox shell from the protective cooling water. The fire apparently still raging went onto the right side of the firebox wall. When the hot steel of the uncooled firebox quickly melted - the boiler then "blew up" and out through the funneled shape of the firebox and the grates, ash pan and trailer truck of the engine.
Laying on its side the explosion blew through the trailer truck and booster engine bending the frame of NYC 5315 back under the drivers - bending the locomotive side rods and blew the rear driver loose to a position underneath the front two drivers. That's one hell of an explosion!
The entire trailer truck and booster engine flew off like a huge steel missile - and it was never found.
When the wreck was cleaned up the ICC report stated the rear truck was assumed to have gone into the Mohawk River which runs along the main line 30 feet below grade, past several buildings several hundred yards away.
Where it likely still is! And on a bright sunny day if it went far enough away into the part of the river that is still unchanged it could be seen by air - a magnometer would be another way to find it - so would side scan sonar with a boat. I mean depending on the force of the explosion, just how far could it go?
---------------------
The passenger train behind NYC 5315 then piled into the Gulf Curve engine wreck with fairly large loss of life creating one truely catastrophic New York Central passenger train wreck in 1940.
-------------------
Complete details and the ICC report are available on the internet.
My peaceful visit to the Gulf Curve in 1998 saw a sleepy New York community that used to be astride the mainstreet of America! Daily many multiple passenger trains like the 20th Century Limited carried American travelers to their appointed destinations.
Today only the heavy freight of America travels through there instead - and a few lucky Amtrack passengers. A two lane New York state highway winds along the main line at Gulf Curve and there was a long highway overpass right at the sight. If one hunts along the shoulder of the road they come across - a commerative bronze plaque on a stone boulder maker - placed some years ago after the time of the wreck - now long forgotten and weed covered, noting for all history the events of that tragic day in 1940.
No I didn't see any signs of NYC 5315 lost Delta trailer truck with Franklin Equipment supply booster steam engine. I hadn't read the ICC report and did not catch that it was still there. But I am sure it could still be there among the weeds of the river where it came to rest.
They found the RMS Titanic on the bottom of the trackless Atlantic Ocean 3 miles down. How much trouble can a 2 ton steel truck be to find if it was never located - it's not the kind off thing scrappers or scavengers could make off with in a pick-up truck.
Now the problem is that in 1947 the New York Central did a track re-alignment moving the main line tracks into the north shore of the Mohawk River. It appears they filled the area with a heavy rock grade cutting off the sharp river bend making the trapped water into a kind of pond. For this reason the resting place of the rear engine truck of NYC 5315 could have found a number of fates.
(1) It landed far enough into the river where the curve re-allignment did not disturb it. (2) It landed on the river bank part of the river - now pond area - where it would be in the water not covered by the new 1947 railroad grade. (3) It is buried under the 1947 new main line of the New York Central now the Norfolk Southern. (4) In the process of relocating the new line it was discovered, not reported and junked.
----------------
Anyway RMC - I am game to go look as I am sure some residents might already have done - wouldn't be hard to charter a small aircraft for a fly over on a sunny days to look into the water of the Mohawk River. Yes, I am game to go look! To look for enough parts to restore long ago wrecked NYC 5315 - that is if you think a Delta trailer truck and the remnants of a locomotive tender from NYC 5313 would do it!
It sure would be a more original locomotive than a reproduction Pennsy T1 - and a lot less expensive one too!
Dr DThe third series of engines, the J3 were built starting in 1938 and were fully streamlined designs ... They also had Boxpok or Scullin Disc drive wheels and full roller bearing side rods.
Only a few were streamlined, and the designs were much more for esthetic reasons than actual reduction of aerodynamic drag.
Note that only five of the locomotives had the roller-bearing rods, and from what I have been able to find these always used the Scullin drivers (perhaps these were the only ones cored to take roller-bearing-compatible main pins). Quite a bit of weird driver swapping occurred on the J3s (there are numerous examples in Staufer's book on the Hudsons, and an interesting example in the video provided (a Scullin main and Boxpok leading and trailing, with conventional rods).
Piston bore was reduced by 2.5 inches and the stroke was increased by 1 inch. Boiler pressure was raised about 50 psi to 275 lbs. Engine weight was reduced by about 75,000 lbs. I believe a power increase of about 10% was achieved with these modifications and speeds over 100 mph were achieved.
There is a comparative table in Staufer that covers both the numbers and the percentage change, and I will provide some of those data later. It might be noted here that one of these engines was slip-tested up to a cyclic rpm equivalent to 161mph (described in Kiefer's 1947 book on motive-power testing) which is likely to be the limiting speed for the J3 design; at that speed there was 'no appreciable wheel lift'...
The engines were equipped with either ELESCO closed feed water heaters or Worthington SA open systems and kept these distinctive variations throughout their lives.
If Staufer and I remember correctly, most J3s were built with Elesco and were retrofitted with open FWH 'programmatically' starting in wartime. The J2s had Coffins; there's probably a story about why. Some of the J1s got experimental installations - one of the two that went to TH&B had a coil heater with a distinctive silhouette.
By the time the NIAGARA 4-8-4 engines were introduced the HUDSONS lost their locomotive booster engines when they were shopped.
And they missed them! The booster essentially worked as an additional coupled axle at low speeds, but could be almost completely disconnected both in terms of machinery drag and balance. Remember that as late as the mid-Thirties Baldwin was convinced there could be no such thing as a high-speed eight-coupled locomotive, and fairly sophisticated engineering was necessary to produce the successful designs (with the original UP FEF class being perhaps the first) so a booster was a useful appliance even on the Water Level Route - one of its principal benefits being better acceleration of the train, rather than just starting the consist. It might be interesting to study NYC's logic in removing them (not to second-guess their decision).
Some HUDSONS randomly received a large high speed long distance tender similar to that used by Union Pacific on their 4-8-4 locomotives.
The PT deserves more credit than that - it might be argued that these were the apotheosis of centipede tender design; they certainly represented the finest flower of track-pan water pickup development!
Just about all the large steam locomotives on the Central were given "valve pilot indicators" which was an advanced speedometer system which incorporated a mechanical computer which determined the optimum setting for the adjustment of locomotive valve "cut off." This accessory also had an internal paper tape real recorder with pencil trace showing the compliant use of the "cut off" adjustment. This system must have contributed greatly to the power and economy of the locomotives.
You can see a few clips about this in the video provided, I think right about 13:10. It helps to know a bit about the system and how it worked to understand what you see; note in particular the example 'trace' that is provided. The system was notable for a direct 'user interface' which required a hard-working engine crew only to 'match needles' to keep cutoff reasonably optimized.
The tender for one engine NYC 5313 was modified into a work car that is the only survivor of this famous series of locomotives.
Water car, actually - it's at Steamtown, where I think it startles railfans on a fairly regular basis. I'm tempted to note that if anyone with access to a magnetometer can find the 'missing' trailing truck from the Gulf Summit Curve accident, and makes Steamtown a proper offer, they'll have a big leg up on restoring a Hudson...<vbg>
BaltACD,
Nice company film on the New York Central Railroad steam fleet featuring the HUDSON 4-6-4 passenger engines - over 200 locomotives were owned by the Central.
The HUDSON was always a highly accessorized locomotive and the NYC equipped them with just about everything you could hang on an engine. Called the J1 model these early locomotives had 79" drive wheels with 81 sq foot of grate area, and were feed water heat, stoker, and booster engine equipped.
A second series of engines called the J2 were built with smaller drive wheels and tenders for the Boston & Albany Railroad which was a subsidiary of the New York Central System.
The third series of engines, the J3 were built starting in 1938 and were fully streamlined designs and included among other things a combustion chamber in the firebox. They also had BoxPok or Scullen Disc drive wheels and full roller bearing side rods. Piston bore was reduced by 2.5 inchers and the stroke was increased by 1 inch. Boiler pressure was raised about 50 psi to 275 lbs. Engine weight was reduced by about 75,000 lbs. I believe a power increase of about 10% was achieved with these modifications and speeds over 100 mph were achieved.
The Central eventually evolved a more or less standard upgrade for the HUDSON design for all the variants from J1-J3 replacing the parts and accessories on the early engines that did not get what the later engines had. The ones that had built up frames of steel members riveted together eventually got the solid cast steel frames. The engines were equipped with either ELESCO closed feed water heaters or Worthington SA open systems and kept these distinctive variations throughout their lives.
The early J1s had the Walschaerts valve gear design with sliding block motion but the later ones came with Baker valve gear. The early engines got this change to Baker when they were shopped in the late 1930's. The Baker design featured no sliding block parts, only pivot bearings and shafts and so were easier to repair and service.
About the time the NIAGARA 4-8-4 engines were introduced the HUDSONS lost their locomotive booster engines when they were shopped. The booster steam engine drove the rear axle of the trailer truck with a two cylinder geared steam engine that could be de-clutched at about 30 mph. This 300 horsepower auxilliary steam engine started heavy trains easily providing about 10,000 lbs of additional tractive effort.
The streamline J3 locomotives and the one streamlined J1 - NYC 5344 lost this attractive covering after WW II. Some HUDSONS randomly recieved a large high speed long distance tender similar to that used by Union Pacific on their 4-8-4 locomotives.
New York Central wore out the HUDSON fleet and the locomotives lived out a long service lives - only one NYC 5315 was wrecked so badly it was scrapped. The tender for one engine NYC 5313 was modified into a work car that is the only survior of this famous series of locomotives.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Dr DFurther, there seems to be a geat deal of misunderstanding about PRR 1361, it famous history, its long life, and its very misguided restoration condition. America needs to not loose this locomotive. Futher, because so much has been done to already restore it, IT NEEDS TO BE FULLY AND PROPERLY FINISHED!
Many of the difficulties with 1361 involve a 'full and proper finish' to full operating condition. It would be comparatively simple just to perform a cosmetic job, as was done for the 'Lindbergh' 460, and stuff and mount the pieces. But that would be, in my opinion, both a terrible lost opportunity and a crime against having one of the most famous locomotives in the world ... more famous even than a Mohawk, but I'm not going to digress ... in fully operable condition. Note the 'fully'.
(Be aware that there is a quiet effort to work on 1361 and get as many pieces either in workable shape or temporarily 'stored-serviceable' condition; one overly-optimistic estimate had the locomotive operable by last December. There is intentionally as little publicity as possible about this, and I am not going to contribute (much) more. But 1361 is far from ignored and forgotten.)
Two principal difficulties involved Government involvement in the process of restoration (which involved all sort of things involving costs, work rules, paperwork, etc. and impaired the quality of a working steam restoration done by traditional methods) and -- more importantly -- the discovery that PRR boiler practice does not meet currently applicable safety standards with respect to the staybolting. Interestingly, it appears that it is not possible even by building a new historically-accurate boiler to PRR specs to have it meet the required standards (without double-nutting some of the bolts), and as I recall there are some other issues with the particular design details of the Belpaire firebox (radius of some of the corners, but I don't remember which) that don't meet our currently-defined strength standards.
The discussion was repeatedly raised, and I suspect still continues in some circles, whether the locomotive should be restored to run at a lower pressure (whatever pressure lower than 205 psi the 'legacy' boiler structure can handle at the required factor of safety). This is not necessarily an issue that implies severe derating of the locomotive's pulling capacity -- as Tuplin, for example, kept saying to anyone he had not given MEGO syndrome on the subject, you can trade mass flow for pressure at typical service speeds by using longer cutoff -- but it does imply a less efficient water rate, which shows up both in the cost of boiler treatment chemicals and in the need to stop more often for water. Probably less tendency for priming and carryover of water, too, and within most operating regimens unlikely that steam flow would exceed the capability of the superheater elements. So the issue can be framed: do you want an operating locomotive that looks like a historic K4 but does not quite perform like one, or shoot the moon to get a not-quite-historic K4 that does, involving much more time and money?
We used to have someone on the forum whose greatest preservation credential turned out to be that he had stamped the fake rivets in the stainless sheets that turned out not to work well in the "restored" tender structure. He would be able to tell far better stories than an 'outsider' like me about what actually went on in the 1361 saga, and the things that happened to produce both the current state of affairs and the bad taste so many people have in their mouths whenever 'that number' is mentioned.
BigJim,
I agree with you about the un-intended inference concerning PRR 1361, rather its the way in which the different texts came together that implies the venting plume and the Worthington Feed Water Heater Diagram lead to the observation - especially for those readers not intimately familiar with the details of steam locomotive design and appliances. It was an un posted fact that large rosters of steam engines could have a great variation in their equipment.
Further, there seems to be a geat deal of misunderstanding about PRR 1361, it famous history, its long life, and its very misguided restoration condition. America needs to not loose this locomotive. Futher, because so much has been done to already restore it, IT NEEDS TO BE FULLY AND PROPERLY FINISHED! Sometimes it is easier to go ahead than to go backwards and staying still won't do either! PRR 1361 needs a friend a serious bunch of friends with commitment and pockets. Such a famous locomotive should be able to generate this on the interest level of the Pennsy T1 project.
-------------------------
My experience with the Nathan Lubricator was on 2-8-4 Pere Marquette 1225. A large mechanical pumping mechanism attached to the left front side of the locomotive and driven by the crosshead valve gear on the left front cylinder. The Nathan was a fine piece of equipment that worked with wonderful reliability and distributed lubricating oil through many feet of .50 to .750 copper piping all joined with compression fittings. It was amazing the lubrication points that were covered by the system.
When we were restoring the locomotive of course we removed the boiler jacketing and all the lubrication lines which ended up in a very large copper pile. Most of this tubing was work hardened and at the time we wanted to return to use the original piping. Late one summer day, I was assigned to use the acetylene torch to heat this copper tubing foot by foot to a dull red color then to quench it continually with a water hose to provide the annealing. Working out of doors the late afternoon light allowed the "red glow" of the hot copper to stand out clearly.
It was quite a job to re-run all of this lubrication piping matrix into position on the engine, and of course the soft copper was much easier to work with and to re-attach and also less prone to crack and leak. Filling the Nathan lubricator was a responsible task also.
------------------------------
Interestingly PM 1225 had been equipped with oil lubrication of the driving wheel boxes. For some reason the PM 1223 used grease cake lubrication of the drive axles. Our club took the trip to Grand Haven, MI and got permission from the city to remove the grease cake system from PM 1223 and install it on PM 1225. All we had to do was flash our Michigan State University Trust For Railway Preservation title and the city fathers fell right into line!
The oil lubrication of the driving axles required the continued oscillating movement of the locomotive chasis to oil the engine and the Trust at the time felt the lack of continual locomotive operation might lead to problems so they desired the grease cake lube system.
Other parts retrieved with permission from PM 1223 were the entire set of firebox grates. Seems when PM 1225 was on display on the Michigan State University campus that one of the fraternities decided to set a prank fire in the locomotive firebox. The Univesity was alarmed and concerned about the vandalism so removed and scrapped the original fire grates!
------------
Yah, it was high times for 23 year old collage students bent on restoring a great steam locomotive in the 1970's!
Dr DI believe it would be mistaken to think that Pennsylvania Railroad K4 1361 has a Worthington SA feed water system as seems inferred.
selectorRME, not all lubricators use oil. Some are called cake lubricators that use caked grease
No caked lubricators I know of would use steam, or for that matter be called 'mechanical lubricators'. I'm familiar with them being used (e.g. in spring cellars) for driver axles (the Hennessy lubricator being something that "fits" in place of grease-cake lube with the idea of converting to oil without the need for a mechanical lubricator pump - it uses lateral motion to generate its "pumping action")
Likewise, specialized hard grease (Alemite being the most familiar) is used in some applications; I'm most familiar with its use on rods, where it is injected under high pressure into spring 'cellars'. It then acts very much the way a cake would. Again, I don't know of any onboard system that would provide a variable or external-power feed of hard grease from a reservoir to different points, which is what a 'mechanical lubricator' would do.
The lubricator with 'steam oil' will, as you note, only supply the valves and pistons, which need lubrication but are exposed to superheated steam flow. This cylinder oil, if you have seen it, is much more viscous than the lubricating oil used for bearings and so forth (look on steamenginelube.com for some MEGO information on cylinder-oil tribology). Advanced practice does not just 'fog' the oil into the steam path, but injects it near the 'point of use' through dedicated lines (see discussions of Wardale's Red Devil for detail pictures of this) - in some cases feed to multiple points around the circumference of each end of each cylinder is desirable, plus feed to the metallic packing on the piston and valve rods and any tailrods that might be used, which share in elevated surface temperature.
Ask him to TRACE the line from the lubricator to any exhaust point the next time you see him. It does stand to reason that a cylinder-oil lubricator requires elevated preheat, especially in cold weather, but I'd expect on an engine of that vintage that any steam not used for atomization would be spit out through a condensation trap when 'spent'.
I think we are jumping to conclusions here about our accessory exhaust!
The NYC 4-6-4 Hudsons exhausted their turbo generators from a short stack on the generator. This is also the case with the two surviving Mohawk 4-8-2's The NYC was also famous for exhausting their booster steam engines from a small stack ahead the regular smoke box stack. The Central also equipped the Hudsons with a variety of feed water equipment both open and closed - Worthington, Elesco designs, so the accessory piping all varied and was done on an engine by engine basis.
I believe it would be mistaken to think that Pennsylvania Railroad K4 1361 has a Worthington SA feed water system as seems inferred. The posted diagram of the system shown with stack vent is indeed the Worthington system which is exhausting in the diagram ahead of the stack. However, there is no such system on PRR 1361 - no heat exchanger ahead of the stack and no water pump system mounted on below the running boards of the engine. Likely the plume of steam in evidence is from the electrical turbo generator mounted ahead of the locomotive headlight - this is expecially likely as the headlight is on and there is no plume from the turbo generator where is is located.
I see that K4 1361 is equipped with a cross compound air compressor mounted above the drive wheels, and also a Nathan lubricator mounted below the running board above the cylinders on the right side of the engine. On the left side the engine is a power reverse cylinder. Likely these and the turbo generator are the only accessories PRR 1361 ever had.
K4 1361 is a very old locomotive - probably first had a kerosene headlamp - it is disassembled now enabling a modern post-mortum examination of the engine both disassembled and running - and NO feed water heating systems are in evidence - likely among the many Pennsy K4 passenger locomotives this engine never had one.
A Worthington open system would have a huge square hole cut in the smokebox near the stack for the heat exchanger. If it had the ELESCO closed system there would be a huge bundle heater carried ahead of the stack or on the pilot beam of the engine. If it had the Coffin open type system it would have a large horse shoe tank with piping inside of the smokebox or on the outside of it.
PRR 1361 shows none of the requisite piping for any of these systems.
The Pennsylvania Railroad was always characterized by its great austarity aka "cheap in the spending department" who wouldn't equip their engines with coal stokers, power reverse mechanisms, boosters etc no matter how hard it was on the engine crews. My guess is that among the many steam locomotives they never put any money into PRR 1361 until they decided to save it. Even then it's worn out - the reason it's not repaired! Most railroads saved the best condition steamers like N&W 611 freshly overhauled!
An examination of other PRR K4 photos shows PRR 1734 with no feed water heat, PRR 3807 with no feed water system, however, the photo of PRR 5689 does indeed have the full Worthington SA feed water heater treatment.
Also worth noting is that there is a Pennsylvania RR engine with the full Worthington SA system surviving today, its Mountain type 4-8-2 M1b 6755 which is so equipped as an example of plumbing of the system.
-------------
The nice video shots of PRR 1361 running show steam escaping from poor drive cylinder and valve piston packing on the back of the cylinders. Also the cross compound air compressors show the puffing exhausting of steam from their operation. In my opinion the trail of steam ahead of the stack is the electrical turbo generator.
------------------
Odd that Pennsy was so cost conscious on the condition of its many locomotives yet went in for the ultimate costly experimental 6-8-6 steam turbine engine, the 6-4-4-6 streamline "one of a kind" Worlds Fair - American Railroads steamer, the other Duplex Drive 4-4-4-4 T1 high speed designs, all equipped with "poppet valve gear" - all the toys! So lavish and so cheap a Pennsylvania Railroad all at the same time - yah, that was Pennsy! Who else would also have done such wonderful and elaborate and externsive rail Electrification - and built and designed the GG-1 electric locomotives in mass! Yes, like the K4 Pacific 4-6-2 designs and the T1 Duplex 4-4-4-4 steamers which were all timeless classics of American rail power!
RME, not all lubricators use oil. Some are called cake lubricators that use caked grease. That has to be heated. I was informed that, since there are two lubricators on the Baldwin 2-8-2T that I know, one supplies steam oil to the steam chest and the other lubricates the engine and trailing truck support bearing and the crossheads.
Who knows, he may have been feeding me a line...
Couldn't find a pacing shot but this shows a trickle of steam exhausting just behind the stack.
If the Altoona folks were ever serious again about restoring a K4s, if 1361 is as messed up as it supposedly is, I wonder if it would be possible to swap it for the 3750 with the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, since they have made the decision not to be an operating organization. (Although the Altoona folks would have to prove that those with the prior 1361 track record would not be involved.)
It would actually be nice to see a 4-8-2 restored also, such as the Pennsy M1b 6755. One could argue that the Mountain/Mohawk was a much more ubiquitous fast freight locomotive for the Northeast when one considers New York Central, Pennsylvania, Baltimore & Ohio, New Haven, Lackawanna, Boston & Maine, and New York, Ontario & Western.
With all due respect to the magnificant Nickel Plate S class 2-8-4 Berkshires, if one was to see a merchandise fast freight headed for Chicago in the late 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, the odds were very high that a 4-8-2 would be at the head end, bringing revenue to the bottom line for the company as intended.
Watching the M1b roll on its 72" drivers would also be a sight to behold.
Wow. What a sight! Talk about a no-frills, no-nonsense, all-serious-business locomotive, as subtle as a fist in an iron glove! Thanks for posting that video!
I know it's been explained many times before, but I STILL can't understand how 1361, up and running in 1987, got FUBAR'd into the situation it's in today.
NDGHe DID know how to Push, and Release the Separator Blow Down button by the steam gauge in front of his seat on an A Unit in psgr service.
Now that's HARSH!!!! (but )
I too often wondered about the thin stream of steam in front of the stack in old films.
That's almost certainly not going to be from a 'mechanical-lubricator heater.' (We presume this is for the lubricator feeding steam oil, as the ones for 'chassis' lubrication wouldn't involve substantial heating to keep their oil fluid.) Remember that most of the steam to one of these is used for atomizing, and of course goes into the steam passages and is essentially inseparable from any other steam in the visible exhaust. The volume of heating steam required for the necessary preheat in a Nathan DV can be gauged from a source like N&W drawing B46315 (which in part shows an arrangement that eliminates the Nathan throttling heater valve control) and I do not see a separate arrangement for 'exhaust' of this steam; it certainly would not merit its own separate exhaust line up the boiler, nor even if supplied with exhaust steam (rather than supply from the 'air pump' as indicated on the generic N&W mechanical-lubricator connection drawings) would I expect such an 'exhaust' to show pulses visibly in phase with the stack exhaust.
As noted in a previous thread on the forum from 2015 (started by the same user who started this one, and I think for the same purpose), a common place to route the stoker exhaust was at the top of the boiler just BEHIND the stack. I'd expect steam here to be intermittently changing with the speed and demand of the stoker engine -- if anyone can find the URL of the 'pacing' shot of a PRR M1 at speed, it should show this very well over time. I think we clearly see it in this clip:
where atmospheric conditions are 'just right' to keep the superheated (by mixing with combustion gas) exhaust plume invisible close to the lip of the stack, while the condensing stoker-engine exhaust stays clearly visible.
With specific reference to NDG's comment: The NYC Hudson, among others, was notable for having the turbogenerator exhaust piped in front of the stack, with very visible plume possible when the generator was running -- one reference (was it in Staufer's Thoroughbreds?) likened it to a tilting knight's plume. I'd expect many PRR locomotives (either 'original' or with the generator relocated to the smokebox door for maintenance) to show the same sort of effect often (see for example the start in Tyrone from the 'steep steel and slipping stalling steam' video...)
The 'Engineer' and the Empress.About ten years ago, the Corporate steam engine and train arrived in town and was spotted in the old Freight House Spur outside the Main for the town to come and view.The Pensioners showed up like flies ( even more Pensioners than rail fans!! ) to show off for their Grand kids, to trade lies with their Union 'Brothers' and announce to the amassed all and sundry their proficiency with Steam.One true 'Brother' had on his Engineer's striped jacket and overalls from 'back in the day' and was strutting around like Foghorn Leghorn the Rooster in the old cartoons, pointing out the various Appliances and their function to the gathered masses."This is the Air Pump" he trumpeted " for compressed air to operate the air brakes on the engine and train, dispense sand on poor rail and even ring the BELL!"The crowd gobbled it up, and his aura expanded to Dimensional Shipment parameters.One Problem!The 'Air Pump' had a polished sheet brass plate affixed which screamed 'Elesco' upon it.Air seemingly inhaled from a large pipe thru a large hose from the bottom left front of the Tender, compressed thru the 'Air Pump' and up to the Main Reservoir atop the smoke box ahead of the stack.The true air pump was pounding and drooling away right along side.I did not P on his parade, as what did I know?It appears he had seen steam service back in the day, but, not as an Engineer, as too junior when the Diesels Came, spending much of his 'steam' career on the left hand side of a 539 on nites in the Yard, Sun/Mon off.He DID know how to Push, and Release the Separator Blown Down button by the steam gauge in front of his seat on an A Unit in psgr service.His wife had left him for some reason, but, came back, as it was better than working nites at the Truck Stop, and, after all, there WAS the Pension to think about.Thank You.
BigJim selector One other steam exhaust not mentioned is that of the mechanical lubricator heater. It is often the thin short plume you see that seems to accompany the emissions from the smokestack. I believe that is actually the exhaust from the SA Type feedwater heater. A small vent pipe frequently exits the top of the FWH and runs to the front of the stack.
selector One other steam exhaust not mentioned is that of the mechanical lubricator heater. It is often the thin short plume you see that seems to accompany the emissions from the smokestack.
One other steam exhaust not mentioned is that of the mechanical lubricator heater. It is often the thin short plume you see that seems to accompany the emissions from the smokestack.
I believe that is actually the exhaust from the SA Type feedwater heater. A small vent pipe frequently exits the top of the FWH and runs to the front of the stack.
Big Jim, it might indeed be the case with locomotives that have feedwater heaters. In the case of the tank engine locally with which I am most familiar, the firemen told me that the plume on that locomotive is the exhaust from the mechanical lubricator heater.
-Crandell
JOHNSON BAR
Johnson Bar - aka "manual reversing lever" that controls the valve gear forward - neutral - reverse of the locomotive steam engine. By fine tuning the position of this lever from forward to the middle to reverse, the valve gear stroke and the length of travel of the valve is changed - there by effecting steam admission to the locomotive piston stroke.
This adjustment - forward to neutral to reverse setting - is also known as aka the adjustment position of "valve cut-off" so effects steam usage and exhausting of the steam engine cylinders.
The full forward position gives also a full stroke of valve and uses boiler steam in quantity. The return of the lever towards neutral gives the "cut off" position which effects economy of operation. And at high locomotive speed this "cut-off" also effects the economy of steam forcing the engine to in effect run by "utilization of steam" - by the expansion power hidden in the HOT steam.
This in effect makes the engine perform in an entirely different manner. Both speed and power and economy are accomplished at "cut-off" - TO A POINT.
Because with the standard locomotive valve gears - Walschaerts and Baker designs - cause a STEAM RESTRICTION. They restrict the use of steam with "cut-off" economy and ALSO so effectively restrict the ability of the engine to EXHAUST also. It runs out of breath to speak - in effect achieving this economy - by a sort of a law of diminishing returns.
SO there happens to be a valve gear setting for steam engines - a setting of the degree of adjustment between forward and neutral and reverse position - of valve gear "cut off" which just cannot be passed over.
AND SO it took a very skilled engineer to perform this exacting adjustment of the Johnson Bar running at high speed in the great old 1890's.
Personal Injury - Also noted about being a steam locomotive railway engineer - was that if in the performance of his duties, this Johnson Bar valve gear setting was so unlatched and adjusted by squeezing the lock lever attached to its upper handgrip - that there was the possibility that the moving engine parts COULD effectively seize the Johnson Bar linkage and throw it violently against the person of the locomotive engineer.
So it was with this knowledge that such "cut-off" adjustments to the operation of the engine were performed delicately and with anticipated knowledge of how the engine could and would react.
The Wreck - Imagine the courage it would have taken Casey Jones heading to his death in the famous railroad accident in Vaughn, Mississippi on that fateful night of April 30th 1900 - seeing the freight train stalled ahead of his speeding locomotive The Cannonball Express to - set the engine and train brakes to full emergency position - close the throttle - and to then seize the Johnson Bar and throw the locomotive engine into full reverse position - then open the throttle to spin the drive wheels backwards and attempt to brake the train and prevent collision on the blocked track!
Steam Power Reverse - This modern locomotive appliance was developed to eliminate the JOHNSON BAR and its quadrant mechanism - and was basically a steam powered cylinder which did the moving of the valve mechanism.
This formerly man sized adjustment was then controlled with a small "hand wheel" which the engineer would crank effecting the same movement of the engine valve gear.
Violent forces generally could not effect the person of the locomotive engineer. We might consider it as we would "power steering" in a car today.
--------------------
However, it still remains that moving the "Johnson Bar" was a man sized job in the steam locomotive times of yore - JOHNSON BAR - hence its entrance into the language of popular slang!
aka - use of the term "Johnson!"
"Is there an honest to god MAN in this town with a full set of balls!" To quote the Clint Eastwood movie "High Plains Drifter."
Also the slang meaning attributed to the - aka - "Johnson!"
-----------------------
Shtick - No doubt giving RISE to the famous comedian Ray J. Johnson.
"My name is Raymond J. Johnson. Now you can call me Ray! or you can call me J! or you can call me Johnny, or you can call me Sonny, or you can call me Junie, or you can call me Junior; now you can call me Ray J! or you can call me RJ, or you can call me RJJ Jr. - but you doesn't hasta call me - JOHNSON!"
------------------------
thought this last might be worth including,
Paul Milenkovic Me and others here weren't talking about injury from overexertion. We were talking about engine crew members being maimed when an unlatched "Johnson bar" snaps back or a screw-reverser wheel suddenly starts spinning opposite to how you are turning it. Under adverse conditions, the forces can be large enough to break an arm, a wrist, or worse.
Me and others here weren't talking about injury from overexertion.
We were talking about engine crew members being maimed when an unlatched "Johnson bar" snaps back or a screw-reverser wheel suddenly starts spinning opposite to how you are turning it.
Under adverse conditions, the forces can be large enough to break an arm, a wrist, or worse.
In the live steam world you have to be careful as well, really make sure that locking mechanisim falls into place on the johnson bar.
I had a johnson bar snap back because it hadn't "locked" in place and it bruised my hand pretty good. I can't imagine (or maybe I don't want to) what could happen with a 4 foot johnson bar that has 50 or 60 times the force behind it.
Blackcloud 5229 Paul Milenkovic RME Harder to believe is that none of the K4s had power reverse, either, until the Government required them (as a "safety device" under the Boiler Inspection Act, which is to put it lightly something of a 'stretch'), and it took a Supreme Court decision to make that 'stick'. And then there were the K5s, built as hand bombers, which made really no sense at all by then for a locomotive with 70' GA... Power reverse as a safety device? Well, at least safety to the crew as even screw-type reverse (actuating the reverse through a reduction gear offering mechanical advantage along with reduction in back forces) has been known to injure crews when the thing "runs away." Yes the power reverse is a safety device, aka you don't throw your back out like you can with a manual. whole lot easier to hook up a steam engine with power reverse instead of the original Armstrong method. Say your engineer on a yard switcher, figure you'll have to throw the reverse lever at least 300 plus times at a minimum On a single 8 hour shift. power reverse? Apply about 10 to 15 pounds of pressure to a much smaller lever which controls an air valve that moves the piston rod that moves the reverse gear. Having worked on manuals and power reverse from 0-4-4T 2 foot gauge to 4-8-4 ( reading T-1) gimme power reverse any day.
Paul Milenkovic RME Harder to believe is that none of the K4s had power reverse, either, until the Government required them (as a "safety device" under the Boiler Inspection Act, which is to put it lightly something of a 'stretch'), and it took a Supreme Court decision to make that 'stick'. And then there were the K5s, built as hand bombers, which made really no sense at all by then for a locomotive with 70' GA... Power reverse as a safety device? Well, at least safety to the crew as even screw-type reverse (actuating the reverse through a reduction gear offering mechanical advantage along with reduction in back forces) has been known to injure crews when the thing "runs away."
RME Harder to believe is that none of the K4s had power reverse, either, until the Government required them (as a "safety device" under the Boiler Inspection Act, which is to put it lightly something of a 'stretch'), and it took a Supreme Court decision to make that 'stick'. And then there were the K5s, built as hand bombers, which made really no sense at all by then for a locomotive with 70' GA...
Harder to believe is that none of the K4s had power reverse, either, until the Government required them (as a "safety device" under the Boiler Inspection Act, which is to put it lightly something of a 'stretch'), and it took a Supreme Court decision to make that 'stick'.
And then there were the K5s, built as hand bombers, which made really no sense at all by then for a locomotive with 70' GA...
Power reverse as a safety device? Well, at least safety to the crew as even screw-type reverse (actuating the reverse through a reduction gear offering mechanical advantage along with reduction in back forces) has been known to injure crews when the thing "runs away."
Yes the power reverse is a safety device, aka you don't throw your
back out like you can with a manual.
whole lot easier to hook up a steam engine with power
reverse instead of the original Armstrong method. Say your engineer
on a yard switcher, figure you'll have to throw the reverse lever
at least 300 plus times at a minimum On a single 8 hour shift.
power reverse? Apply about 10 to 15 pounds of pressure to a much smaller lever which controls an air valve that moves the piston rod that moves the reverse gear. Having worked on manuals and power reverse from 0-4-4T 2 foot gauge to 4-8-4 ( reading T-1) gimme power reverse any day.
selector One other steam exhaust not mentioned is that of the mechanical lubricator heater. It is often the thin short plume you see that seems to accompany the emissions from the smokestack. Thank you! I have often wondered, and the thought that it was a feedwater heater exhaust just didn't quite fit.
Thank you! I have often wondered, and the thought that it was a feedwater heater exhaust just didn't quite fit.
Dad was a stoker (fireman in RR parlance) and later an engineer on steamboats for many years. Generally a very, very quiet man, you could get him to "blow his safety valves" by referring to a powered stoker as an automatic stoker. The steamboats he worked were on the river almost 24/7 so if a stoker jammed, the engine room crew had to fix it themselves and immediately. Particularly on the larger boats, there was no way all of the stokers and engineers working together could keep steam up with scoops.
ChuckAllen, TX
In case anyone needs an example reference, see "Blue Peter".
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.