Thanks for that Mod-man, it was very enjoyable!
If you like "Photo-Realism," (Which sometimes can be more "real" than a photo!) you should check out John Baeder's diner paintings. Just amazing! And not just the renditions of the diners, but of their surroundings. And let me tell you, they really get the nostalgia juices flowing!
Let me help everyone out:
John Baeder Fine Artwww.johnbaeder.com
Look under "Oil" and "Watercolor" for the diners.
54light15... and in the case of the Hudson, it's almost a work of art.
Almost?
These included at least some used by the Delaware & Hudson, partly because of the admiration of longtime D&H president Leonor F. Loree for the styling of many English locos. The prime good example, not built until after his retirement and death, was on the D&H's 4-8-4's , which I think looked much better than the conventional Rock Island Northerns on which they were based. The welded tender helped, too. I'm less fond of ridiculously small smoke deflectors on very big locos, such as the Boston & Maine's 4-8-2's. Steve Wagner
I consider the GS4 and J1 and I5 all works of art and like them more than the Dryfuss J3.
I think the GS-4 as well as the Dreyfuss streamlined J3 Hudsons embrace the running gear. Neither tries to cover it up and in the case of the Hudson, it's almost a work of art.
I don't like deflectors, skirting or streamlining. I know, blasphemy. While I'm at it, I think the GS4 is ugly as sin. Seriously. People talk about the mechanics of steam locomotives with all their visible moving parts and then immediately talk about coverning it all up.
The Russians have a far less restrictive loading gauge and have made use of the external dry pipe for separation for a long time, I think well pre-dating the little visit by the Russian engineers in the late '20s
While this is true, the implementation looked quite different from that involving the skyline casing. This is best seen on an Su class 2-6-2 as a small black painted projection from a steam dome near the front of the boiler to the smokebox.
The version I described was on most post WWII Russian designs and usually had the dome behind the sandbox, the steam pipe passing under the sandbox, possibly helping to dry the sand. to an external throttle valve above the smokebox.
It is this latter version that appears to be influenced by the 1931 Alco 2-10-2s.
Strangely, the later versions of the E 0-10-0 built after WWII had internal steam pipes, the earlier locomotives having an arrangement very like that on the Su illustrated above. In fact, a batch of E class were built with Su boilers during WWII when it was vital to get freight locomotives built.
Peter
M636CThey were not decorative but contained an external main steam pipe from the dome forward to a regulator valve mounted above the superheater header.
This external pipe deserves more discussion, as Woodard considered it one of the important aspects of true Super-Power.
Any locomotive using a large mass flow of steam out of a Stephenson boiler has to address the issue of steam separation. By far the best way to accomplish this is with vertical separation between the effective top of the boiling-milk froth under the dome and the mouth of the dry pipe. Woodard recognized that carrying the dry pipe right at the outside of the clearance diagram would give ultimate vertical separation; it follows that keeping the run to the front-end throttle wholly external makes good performance sense for a number of reasons. Woodard did not see the lagging requirements as 'that' severe, and evidently thought that any added condensation in the saturated steam would be rapidly eliminated soon after starting.
The Russians have a far less restrictive loading gage and have made use of the external dry pipe for separation for a long time, I think well pre-dating the little visit by the Russian engineers in the late '20s (probably before the wrecker-trial engineer's debacle, but I am too lazy to check).
Given Russian winter conditions (and those in a number of parts of China!) it is unsurprising they would use as much insulation as possible to lag an outside dry pipe and to trap any radiated heat from the boiler shell below. For structural reasons the casing for this is best made like a 'hood' on diesel-electrics, fastened and sealed at its bottom edge and easily removed from above for inspection or service; it does follow that the steam-dome cover be integrated in this construction...
Niagara churning up a grade.
I think this one steamer, big blouse and all, is magnificent.
Good explaination Peter, and thanks!
But they still look lousy!
Wayne
UP's 844 looks alright with the smoke deflectors, but those Chinese 2-10-2's Iowa Interstate owns look lousy with them. If I owned those engines I'd yank 'em off!
I'd yank the skyline casing off the Boone & Scenic Valley's Chinese 2-8-2 as well! Looks terrible and ruins the lines of that American-pattern engine!
The Iowa Interstate 2-10-2s (QJ type) and the Boone and Scenic 2-8-2 (type JS) both had skyline casings as built. This was a feature that came to China from Russia, where it featured on the Class L 2-10-0s, LV 2-10-2s and P36 4-8-4s all had them.. They were not decorative but contained an external main steam pipe from the dome forward to a regulator valve mounted above the superheater header.
This feature was adopted by the Russians from the Tb class 2-10-4 built by Alco in 1931. The NYC H-10 2-8-2s and some early Berkshires also had external main steam pipes. The enclosure in a casing was a Russian development. presumably to improve insulation in cold weather. You could remove the casing but the steam pipe would still be there. Some Chinese JS type had a dome style casing, stopping just behind the stack.
Peter.
54light15Not to change the subject, however.
No problem!
Those large "balloon" smokestacks on wood-burners were there for a reason, the interiors were loaded with spark arrestor screens and baffles. Originally wood-burners had straight stacks but sparks went straight up through them starting lineside fires.
When coal became the preferred fuel those balloon stacks weren't needed anymore and the straight stacks returned.
I like the balloon stacks myself, but then I love the look of 19th Century steamers anyway!
On European engines, fine. On American engines, nope except for the 8444. One thing I don't like are those huge funnel shaped smokestacks on wood burners- I much prefer the straight shotgun style. Not to change the subject, however.
Do I like smoke deflectors? Esthetically?
Well, it depends. If they look like they belong there and were always there I don't have a problem with them. If they look like after-market ad-ons then no, I don't like 'em at all.
And the less said about those Coffin feedwater heaters the better! Ug-LEEEEEE!
I, too, find a little pang of regret when I see them on anything except mebbe an S-1b. On a Hudson type, definitely ixne, and I guess it would be very small 'o' okay on the FEF...I've gotten used to it. The smaller versions on European steamers seems to be acceptable to my sensibilities, again maybe because that's how I have always seen them.
To me, they have an appeal all their own in very limited cases, not unlike the Elesco, flying pumps, all that tubing running from a tender to a low-slung feedwater pump and onward up to an inlet, and so on.
Now a Coffin water heater, the cowled type...meh....actually, I don't like 'em at all.
I agree with you LO, I don't like them.
I also don't like it when they paint the outside edge of the runningboards white.
Just in terms of aesthetics, and how much it warms your heart when you see a steam locomotive, how much do you like smoke deflectors?
This is probably blasphemy, but, for example, when I see a photo or video of UP 844, part of me registers a tiny bit of disappointment. An internal voice says, "I wish it didn't have the blinders." Or, "I'd like to see what they're hiding."
I think it's because while I totally accept (emotionally) smoke deflectors on engines in Europe, China, South Africa, etc., I've just never felt that they "belong" on American engines. Despite their existence on a few great domestic engines, to me part of what makes American engines special is the general lack of of smoke deflectors. Does anyone else feel the same way?
I love seeing the business-like naked front end of most North American locos. If I had a choice of seeing (particularly running) a Reading T1 or the 844, I'd take the T1. Between a T1 and Santa Fe 3751, I'd choose the latter. I like my engines kind of gritty. (Not that I have anything against a beautiful showgirl!) If I am going to see a restored engine run, I guess I prefer to see a more typical-looking American locomotive.
What say ye all?
Still in training.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.