CSSHEGEWISCHSome of the later 2-8-0's were built with one cab but still had the Wootten firebox.
As an aside, if you're looking for anthracite, and there's a Tractor Supply Co. in your neighborhood...
https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/premium-nut-coal
Flintlock76As an aside, if you're looking for anthracite, and there's a Tractor Supply Co. in your neighborhood...
Overmod Flintlock76 As an aside, if you're looking for anthracite, and there's a Tractor Supply Co. in your neighborhood... What's the price per ton ... delivered. (I'm afraid to look.)
Flintlock76 As an aside, if you're looking for anthracite, and there's a Tractor Supply Co. in your neighborhood...
What's the price per ton ... delivered. (I'm afraid to look.)
Me too! Although I imagine the more you buy the better the price gets.
Anyway, if I was restoring a Camelback to operation, and I doubt anyone is seriously thinking of the same, I'd investigate oil firing. It's certainly a lot less of a hassle.
OK, curiosity got the better of me. Doesn't look too bad, at least from this outfit:
http://www.direnzocoal.com/
pennytrainsIf you can find it, there's a DVD set called "America's Railroads, The Steam Train Legacy" put out by Timeless Media Group that has these under the tilte "Early Steam Trains" and they're a lot cleaner than that YouTube version.
I think I've got that, it's somewhere in the pile. I'll have to look!
Hard and Soft Coal Mix
Camelbacks were originally built to burn culm, essentially waste anthracite -- it was cheap. Railroads across the nation used Camelbacks; they included engines on the Union Pacific, Maine Central, Missouri Kansas & Texas (Katy), Midland Valley and Western Maryland, although the so called anthracite roads were the major users. By the 1920's the economics had changed. Culm became more expensive as industry learned to use it. The last Camelback was built for the Lehigh & New England in 1927. The ICC had discouraged new construction in 1918 for safety reasons but it was the economics that ended production.
Good expensive anthracite can be burned in a narrow firebox and bituminous can be used in a wide firebox. The fact that in later years some locomotives burned a mix of anthracite and bituminous is reflected in an official Central New Jersey memo in my collection dated April 4, 1941 regarding failure to use proper percentages of the types of coal on the CNJ. Following are excerpts:
Investigation at Communipaw ( the CNJ's major engine terminal in Jersey City ) -- "...... found they were loading proper percentage of 15% on stoker fired engines and 40% on hand fired road engines, except 'G' type passenger hand fired locomotives, which are listed at 30% and are only receiving 15% anthracite which is due to there being no available bin in which coal can be stored with a 30% mixture."
"..... since the guide sheet was made up the percentages of various mixtures to total coal dumped has changed as more coal is being loaded on stoker and less on hand fired engines and guide sheet should be revised."
At Nesquehoning "..... crews are not securing percentage of anthracite coal and there being no one at Nesquehoning Junction to police this situation" .... a laborer was assigned "to see that proper quantities of anthracite are dumped."
"At Ashley barley and buck coal has been supplied for that point, and engine house has been dumping proper percentage ...... They have now requested the yard to place rice coal for use at that point in accordance with the guide ......" ( barley, buck and rice are sizes of anthracite coal.)
Thanks Mr. Rand, very informative!
nhrandThe last Camelback was built for the Lehigh & New England in 1927. The ICC had discouraged new construction in 1918 for safety reasons...
Where did CNJ source their anthracite? Is it possible to distinguish 'using a percentage of anthracite because cheaper' from 'using a percentage of anthracite to optimize firing'? The explicit mix of anthracite sizes is also highly interesting... as is the fixed low percentage on 'stoker-fired' engines, which I presume were steam-jet-and -table type, not underfeed or 'flinger'.
1918 ICC CAUTION
George H. Drury, on page 59 of his Guide To North American Steam Locomotives wrote, "Railroad books and magazines occasionally refer to various Interstate Commerce Commission regulations outlawing Camelbacks or mandating protection for fireman. I have been unable to find documentation of such regulations in either Railway Age, the trade magazine, or the Locomotive Cyclopedia."
Although I am sure my comment about a 1918 statement was not a figment of my imagination I long forgot nor can I find the souce of my note. It was probably somthing I read in railfan publication which I'm afraid are sometimes difficult to verify. Since I used the word "discourage" possibly there was an ICC action short of a regulation.
Sometimes statements are made that just take on a life of their own, possibly because there's a grain of truth, or a perceived grain of truth to them.
For example, I remember reading and taking as gospel a statement that the ICC suggested in 1914 that no more Camelbacks be made, and when the Lehigh & New England bought some new ones in 1927 the ICC said "This time it's not a suggestion, it's an order!"
Who knows where these things come from?
Well, I have it on good authority that a lump of coal half the size of a child's fist could be worth fifty dollars! Who told me that? My 8 year old brother when I was six. He told me that when we found some bits of coal near where the house chute used to be. He knew! And then I asked my father how much coal was worth and he said for 50 bucks you could get a couple of tons. I was disappointed.
54light15Well, I have it on good authority that a lump of coal half the size of a child's fist could be worth fifty dollars!
Flintlock76 Sometimes statements are made that just take on a life of their own, possibly because there's a grain of truth, or a perceived grain of truth to them. For example, I remember reading and taking as gospel a statement that the ICC suggested in 1914 that no more Camelbacks be made, and when the Lehigh & New England bought some new ones in 1927 the ICC said "This time it's not a suggestion, it's an order!" Who knows where these things come from?
FIRING ANTHRACITE
A good article about firing can be found in the Fall 1978 issue of the Railroadians of America's Train Sheet. The title is "Experienced Firemen on Hard Coal as a Locomotive Fuel" written by Warren B. Crater, a fireman and engineer who wrote the definitive work on Central New Jersey steam locomotives. The article is too long to try to summarize but I'll try to capture a few of his points.
Crater started with the New York Central in 1924 where he learned to use hard coal at West 72nd Street in New York City where freights on the West Side Line were supplied with some egg sized anthracite coal in addition to the regular soft coal -- "forty or so bags of egg coal on the back of the tank were dumped over the pile to be within reach of the firemen at Harmon." (Soft coal was the main fuel but a hard coal fire was used in NYC to keep down smoke.)
What may be surprising is that when he began to fire on the CNJ the firedoor was never opened when the engine was using steam. Anthracite is very hot but slow burning. Opening the fire door when there was a draft would knock holes in the fire. A good fire using egg coal was prepared at the engine terminal taking about an hour but the fire was apparently partly ignited coal which slowly burned during the trip largely untended. On a Philadelphia express from Jersey City, the fire would not be touched until a station stop 82 miles out. Then it require only a few shovel fulls. If a hole opened in the fire bed it would be difficult to get hard coal to ignite to fill the hole so some soft coal was kept on the tender even when hard coal alone was being used because it ignited faster. (This may explain why the fireman had a seat in the cab astride the boiler of Camelback -- he didn't have to be on the firing deck during most of a run. Aso keep in mind that many Camelbacks didn't even have a shelter at the fire door)
Crater seems to have fired mainly egg sized hard coal, or a mix of soft and buck (buckwheat) but apparently not pure culm. He wrote, "The mixtures of soft and hard coal, later used in all of these engines cannot be considered as hard coal firing. Methods used were almost identical to firing soft coal alone."
Crater had one sarcastic story to tell about an experiece in 1942 when he was on the engineer's extra list and working for five weeks with a Speno Ballast Screening machine. The contractor initially sold the screenings as fill but it proved unstable due to a large content of fine hard coal, Number 4 buck which was called snake eye. The contractor then sold the screenings to be used as coal at Cranford even though dirt was included. Regarding the fine Number 4 buck coal -- it was said to give off heat by friction as the exhaust pulled it through the flues, unburned.
nhrandOn a Philadelphia express from Jersey City, the fire would not be touched until a station stop 82 miles out.
Angus Sinclair's book has some fairly detailed discussion of early anthracite-firing attempts, and while the replies don't involve thermodynamics or stoichiometry concerns, it is possible to extract from them just what works and what doesn't in firing for gas plume generation, and what does and doesn't smelt parts of the boiler structure. Unheated secondary air, in general, is not helpful in anthracite combustion...
That is pretty funny about the heating by friction.
To my knowledge the USGS high-gas-speed firing tests in 1910 did not involve either hard or 'mixed' fuel. I'd expect the results to be mixed, as there would be several effects simultaneously present with little physical correlation. The tests indicated that heat transfer to the tubes was vastly increased with higher gas speeds (up to ~10x normal speed if I recall correctly) and this might have carried over to 'hot' carbon or hard-coal particles. But the combination of primary and secondary air to produce the needed gas mass flow at the higher speed would have to be rather dramatically preheated to prevent early quench of the carbon even if enhanced 'scrubbing' kept inherent CO2 blanketing low.
cx500 actually being outlawed
Bobber cabooses are illegal in Ohio.
Same me, different spelling!
Interesting. I know the Lehigh & Hudson River had one they used on work trains (And Santa trains) least as late as 1971, possibly as late as 1976 when the L&HR became part of Conrail. The bobber was built in 1909. Whether bobbers were ever banned in New Jersey or New York, the L&HR's stomping grounds, I don't know. I'm not aware of anyone else in the area who used them at that late date.
Flintlock76Whether bobbers were ever banned in New Jersey or New York, the L&HR's stomping grounds, I don't know.
Little light minimalist bobbers are cute to watch and model, but I doubt anyone would enjoy working on one. They were a sort of proto-PSR economizing on costs and safety -- and I'd bet that if the Portager-style underframes had actually succeeded in some kind of service, or the Aerotrain 'final design' suspension had actually been recognized as workable, we'd have had someone "recommend" that caboose design be 'revolutionized' with Wickens-style 100mph, air-bag-suspended, modular-accommodation (to "personalize a crew's work environment") crew-dorm podded, cushion-underframed super-bobbers -- even today it sort of makes the go-go early '60s designer's palm itch.
"Overmod" Quote - "Westing has some similar stories about PRR practice with good soft coal: a well-built fire might go a considerable distance without either 'stoking' or mending."
FIRING ON THE PRR
nhrand
Overmod Flintlock76 Whether bobbers were ever banned in New Jersey or New York, the L&HR's stomping grounds, I don't know. I believe banned both places, around the same time they were banned in Ohio -- I found the actual range of dates but have forgotten them, I believe in the range of 1910 to 1912. The original ban involved pusher-service safety, and was twofold: it required "two trucks" (which got rid of the four-wheel monstrosities that would cock sideways when pushed just as in British practice.... and on model railroads) and a steel underframe (as in then-new transition passenger-car design, a stage before all-steel that led to its own kind of 'telescope'-style accident hazards). What I recall is that one state passed this legislation, a state in 'Northeast coal country', and other states followed suit with similar legislation very quickly. It was not difficult to find this; I'm just too lazy to follow it up again now. Little light minimalist bobbers are cute to watch and model, but I doubt anyone would enjoy working on one. They were a sort of proto-PSR economizing on costs and safety -- and I'd bet that if the Portager-style underframes had actually succeeded in some kind of service, or the Aerotrain 'final design' suspension had actually been recognized as workable, we'd have had someone "recommend" that caboose design be 'revolutionized' with Wickens-style 100mph, air-bag-suspended, modular-accommodation (to "personalize a crew's work environment") crew-dorm podded, cushion-underframed super-bobbers -- even today it sort of makes the go-go early '60s designer's palm itch.
Flintlock76 Whether bobbers were ever banned in New Jersey or New York, the L&HR's stomping grounds, I don't know.
I believe banned both places, around the same time they were banned in Ohio -- I found the actual range of dates but have forgotten them, I believe in the range of 1910 to 1912. The original ban involved pusher-service safety, and was twofold: it required "two trucks" (which got rid of the four-wheel monstrosities that would cock sideways when pushed just as in British practice.... and on model railroads) and a steel underframe (as in then-new transition passenger-car design, a stage before all-steel that led to its own kind of 'telescope'-style accident hazards). What I recall is that one state passed this legislation, a state in 'Northeast coal country', and other states followed suit with similar legislation very quickly. It was not difficult to find this; I'm just too lazy to follow it up again now.
Walthers - 21' Heavyweight "Oscar" & "Piker" Set Ready to Run - Pullman - 932-37
In the "take this over to the MR Forum" category, I once more bring up the Walthers "Oscar" and "Piker" abbreviated passenger cars, each riding on a single 6-wheel heavyweight-era passenger truck.
"Piker" refers to an entrepreneur whose ambitions and boasts exceed in large measure the amount of working capital at hand, and I guess the "back story" of the Piker HO model is that its prototype is a the largest business car that said business person can afford.
Aside from this "yarn", I think the real purpose of the Piker was a low-cost abbreviated passenger car kit that Walthers could sell to a budding "piker" of a model railroad empire. This silly model was actually a "good way to get experience" building a passenger car kit before spending one's hard-earned lawn-mowing money as a teen train lover on a full-length kit. The models were actually kind of cute, owing to scaling laws, the Piker didn't have the hunting instability of its pretend prototype, and someone starting out with HO on a 4 by 8 sheet of plywood could run the Piker around 18" radius HO curves. The prototype Piker may work on a tourist line with slow speeds, too.
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 built a long wheelbase Portager intermodal car-style model in HO. Not very detailed at all on my philosophy that imagination fills in for tedious detailing, painting and weathering along with the absence of all but vestigal scenery on my "pike."
What I found is that on 18" radius curves, the departure from "radial steering" put the models wheels in a perpetual slide-skid on curves, and the rolling resistance of this model was rather high. My more recent revamps of the Electrotren Talgo models (the prototype for the passenger-train enthusiast with not much space and 18" radius curves!) have full mechanical linkage axle steering -- even on the outside axles on the end cars, just like the prototype.
Spring steering by deforming thin Delrin plastic struts and being told not to park your Electrotren Talgo or Rapido Turbo Train on a curve, meh! Only MR wouldn't run my how-to article on a really simple cam-based steering for the Turbo Train model.
Paul MilenkovicOnly MR wouldn't run my how-to article on a really simple cam-based steering for the Turbo Train model.
And with all the strikes against the Bobber's....the industry came along a little over 1/2 a century later with the TTOX 2-axle intermodal car.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDthe industry came along a little over 1/2 a century later with the TTOX 2-axle intermodal car.
Even the lessons of Wickens and the HSFV were partly ignored by BR when it tried implementing advanced four-wheeler suspensions a couple of years later... with decidedly mixed results.
I still haven't seen an account of the definitive improvements on that last Aerotrain car built, which was said to have fixed most of the deficiencies in the original suspensions. I am well acquainted with early flops made very workable with intelligent responsive redesign: long-distance telephony, the de Havilland Comet, the Corvair, and the Osprey are some notable examples. It would be interesting to find that proper redesign made the lightweight equipment ride and track correctly over jointed rail ... not that I expect to find it was 'better enough' to be an alternative when the HSGTA money came in after 1965 (GM being a little prominent in its absence in the following developments)
The actual approaches to very low tare weight (after the stillborn Fuel Foiler sets) did not involve either four-wheel cars or small-diameter wheels, and it is perhaps a good thing that there was so little perceived success for the pathetic little Portagers (and their little inside-bearing brethren!) that none of them proliferated.
Concerning the Ohio "bobber ban", I first read about it in "Reflections; The Nickel Plate Years; Lake Erie & Western District" by Bruce K. Dicken, Eric E. Hirsimaki & James M. Semon published by The Nickel Plate Road Historical & Technical Society, Inc., second printing 1985.
On page 15 it says: "By 1909 the road (LE&W) had 71 cabooses on it's roster, presumably of both the four and eight-wheel varieties. This became a problem in April, 1913 when the Ohio State Assembly passed a state law making it illegal to operate the 'bobbers' in the Buckeye state after July 1, 1919. This meant the LE&W would have to restock its caboose roster though it appears that the 'new' cars were often little more than rebuilt 'bobbers' riding on two trucks. This was done in the Lima shop in the late 'teens by lengthening the car body, placing a new steel underframe under it, and adding a pair of new trucks. Apparently the car then re-entered service with its original number."
pennytrains Concerning the Ohio "bobber ban", I first read about it in "Reflections; The Nickel Plate Years; Lake Erie & Western District" by Bruce K. Dicken, Eric E. Hirsimaki & James M. Semon published by The Nickel Plate Road Historical & Technical Society, Inc., second printing 1985. On page 15 it says: "By 1909 the road (LE&W) had 71 cabooses on it's roster, presumably of both the four and eight-wheel varieties. This became a problem in April, 1913 when the Ohio State Assembly passed a state law making it illegal to operate the 'bobbers' in the Buckeye state after July 1, 1919. This meant the LE&W would have to restock its caboose roster though it appears that the 'new' cars were often little more than rebuilt 'bobbers' riding on two trucks. This was done in the Lima shop in the late 'teens by lengthening the car body, placing a new steel underframe under it, and adding a pair of new trucks. Apparently the car then re-entered service with its original number."
Unintended consequences of rule-making?
The loco used in the movie, the Long Grey Line was CNJ 4-6-0 #774
Lithonia Operator I'd seen photos all my life of them, but only realized a few years ago that they were passenger engines. I guess I should have known from the driving wheel size. Being a fireman on one of those in winter must have been extra brutal. Cruel an unusual punishment.
I'd seen photos all my life of them, but only realized a few years ago that they were passenger engines. I guess I should have known from the driving wheel size.
Being a fireman on one of those in winter must have been extra brutal. Cruel an unusual punishment.
They were built as fast freight engines, but became commuter engines when the CNJ adopted the 2-8-2 starting in 1920. The 4-8-0's were demoted to local freight, and almost all the 4-4-0's, 4-4-2's, 2-6-0's and early 4-6-0's were scrapped. The CNJ had only about two dozen "modern" 2-8-0's which joined the Mastpdons in local work
[
Flintlock76At its retirement the CNJ offered to sell it to anyone interested, but there weren't any takers
I remember reading back around 1970 in Railroad Magazine's "Interesting Railfans" series an article about Don Wood where he said he wanted to buy #774. but couldn't afford it and thought he'd be thrown out of any bank as a lunatic if he tried to get a loan for wanting to buy an "old steam engine" , not to produce revenue ton-miles but as something that should be preserved. Fifteen years later he still regretted it and, looking back, thought it might have been the biggest misteak of his life.
In recognition of all he had done to try to preserve the loco, CNJ gave him the number plate from the front of her smokebox
RailPictures.Net Photo: CNJ 774 Central Railroad of New Jersey Steam 4-6-0 at Jersey City, New Jersey by Bob Krone
"And to think, all the fans in the New York metropolitan area, couldn’t come up with $5,000 to buy her from the CNJ....with flue time!!! (I was 11 years old at the time). The CNJ said they already did enough by donating an early diesel and an Atlantic Camelback to the B&O Museum. Say...how about the bigger NYC coughing up a Hudson AND a Niagara. Nope, they donated 4-4-0 #999. That’s enough, along with the freight 4-8-2 in St. Louis. Don’t get me started. Think Erie, think DL&W."
To put the price in perspective, $5,000 is worth about $45,000 today. How many of us have that to throw around....
By the way, the Pride of my fleet is a Howell Day (Red Ball) model I got for Christmas 1967.
DSC09873.jpg (1600×1200) (sirv.com)
Yes, I know it needs a turbo-generator on the tender and I've thought about mounting an O-scale version there, but can't bring myself to do it to a fifty year old model (I had wonderful parents....my Dad's father was a railroad machinist and dad had fired for three years after high school to save up funds to pay for college. His particular love was the GG1. He commuted on the CNJ, but when he went on business to Boston, Philadelphia or Baltimore behind Pennsy's Finest...that was red letter day!)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.