Flintlock wrote "Never having heard of SCP5850 I just used the "Google Machine" to look it up."
Me too. And now what? Where is a mystery? A-n-y-t-h-i-n-g Mysterious? Anywhere? Dunno ...........................................................................?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKh-oGdBkAc
going over the country roads in France in a Renault 4 on a nice sunny day - looking for the last of steam ...
Yet for the camelback: this is about as much as can be threaded on it's back? No more camels, no more backs up? Next maybe the camelbag, an entirely unexplored, so far rarely known species of the mystery of early steam for shopping, or was it ?
=J=
nhrand,
Thank you for your answer.
I have deleted the paragraph that had disturbed you and
believe we should drop that issue and go on with steam.
0S5A0R0A3
(double posting deleted, see next)
Overmod Sara T Let's all remain friends... And we can all get some advice on jokes, too!
Sara T Let's all remain friends...
And we can all get some advice on jokes, too!
I'm good. I've got "The Soupy Sales Joke Book!"
Sara TLet's all remain friends...
Sara TSorry, nhrand, but I have a suspicion really this is only because for you it is not appropriate for a woman to make jokes, we should sit back and behave, no?
Oh please.
Sara -- I hope you don't believe I would attack women during National Women's History Month. I have faults but thinking badly about women is not one of them. Some of my favorite engineers are women, not to mention the CEO of the BNSF who I admire greatly. I admit I think women should behave but I think men are the ones who mainly need to behave. ------ your friend --- Ed
nhrandForgive me for misunderstanding the purpose of this forum.
Hey, I'm just trying to figure out the purpose of this thread!
Bravo, nhrand, that's much better!
Now let's close this chapter and go on with the historical discussions.
Let's all remain friends, all about the same general subject
SARA 05003
Aftermath To Tragedy
Juniatha's tall tale about the enginemen falling out the cab window of a fast moving passenger train did not reveal the full story. The following may provide readers with insights into the results of an unfortunate accident. The first response of the NYC was to appoint a task force to counter the possible bad publicity of a NYC train runing for some distance with no one at the controls. It turned out to be a moot point since the story was carried on the back page of a local news paper and no one seemed to question why a train was delayed for so long because an engineer had to be found. The NYC's explanation that the enginemen probably leaned out the window and door a bit too far to investigate an odd sound in the running gear was accepted without question. The Central representative said that "those big engines often lurch unexpectedly even on the ultra-smooth roadbed of the New York Central".
The family of the engineer and fireman who broke their necks were generously compensated after signing a non-disclosure agreement. The lawyers convinced them that there were no witnesses or evidence to prove negligence on the part of anyone other than the engine crew. The police and coroner who investigated the deaths also agreed that it was accidental and consequently little attention was given to the matter since railroading is known to be dangerous. Weeks later the NYC CEO was asked in an interview about the event and he responded, "It was just one of those things. Steam is dead on the Central and my men don't fall out of cab windows on diesels."
The only problem for the NYC was the Brotherhoods. In contract negotiations they used the event as a wedge to obtain concessions. The threat was that they demanded that all steam locomotives should be equipped with a "dead man foot pedal" that would set the brakes if not kept depressed. They made other demands and management was forced to take an easier stance on the issue of "featherbedding" by diesel fireman. The ICC also got involved at the urging of the Brotherhoods and drafted a rule that would require all locomotive cab windows be reduced to two square feet or be equipped with bars. They also said that all steam locomotive tenders had to be clear vision tenders -- one commissioner said "I never want to see an engineer backing an engine while sitting on the arm rest to be able to see to the rear". The ICC eventually tabled the motions for lack of support.
The details of the event first described by Juniatha are now lost in the attic of history. This recounting is based on an unreliable source so should be read with caution since research has not uncovered any truth to the story.
Flintlock76 Overmod Now as SCP5850 is often described as "That Hell-Bound Train", and as having been reported since 1924 but now its advent is usually presaged by a 'horn', it has had some spectral power switch over the years... Never having heard of SCP5850 I just used the "Google Machine" to look it up. O-kaaaaaaay.... Got to admit that's a new one for me.
Overmod Now as SCP5850 is often described as "That Hell-Bound Train", and as having been reported since 1924 but now its advent is usually presaged by a 'horn', it has had some spectral power switch over the years...
Never having heard of SCP5850 I just used the "Google Machine" to look it up.
O-kaaaaaaay....
Got to admit that's a new one for me.
Sounds like it is constructed of unobtainium in mass quantities.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Meeiinnee Güüüteee! I am sorry to say, but nhrand you are such a dreary head, no insult intented, but: unbelievable!
Now Juni for one time invented a tall story to pick up on that one the other user had told before (why don't you attack him?) and I have read it now and I found it both humorous and also quite clearly a story from which not to draw the date of this and that and other historical data. Then there was this remark about the driver weighing as much as the boiler pressure is, now this was obviously making fun of the habitual growing fat of men when they get elder? Ok, perhaps you didn't like it, sorry then. But it is also well written, readable and flowing - do you criticise this? If someone does think this is dead ernest he should get the wake-up ringing when he reads the closing lines, no?
But, ok, if it is not your thing, why don't you just go on and read something else? There are so many postings ... The forum is very informative, I believe it will stand a little fun from an otherwise really knowing and wise person. It also brought up some interesting details, like the gabarit vehicle profile is so closely approached that things standing next to the line may come within inches to a moving locomotive - something that is not at all acceptable in Europe because of the dangers described by some members. That you cannot see a passenger behind his window glass in a curve also points towards this is not a fully serious a story. Interesting again, at least to me, was to learn the cuttings of the curves on the Hudson river banks are also left to stand so close to the train that you cannot look back and see the cars. Again: on European railways you could! Even on the Brenner Pass in most curves you can see at least half of the train or more. It makes me think that if railways over here would fill their free space so closely as did the NYC then they could perhaps have an equally large profile or an even larger one. It is only the safety margin is so much wider!
05003 SARA
OvermodNow as SCP5850 is often described as "That Hell-Bound Train", and as having been reported since 1924 but now its advent is usually presaged by a 'horn', it has had some spectral power switch over the years...
Supposed To Be About Fun
Forgive me for misunderstanding the purpose of this forum. I will try to lighten up as recommended and try not to believe everything I read here. I promise that in the furure I will assume what I read could be written to make me laugh and not inform. I may have the weakness of sometimes being too serious and sometimes fail to see that nonsense is really humor. I think I have been around long enough to recognize when my leg is being pulled but I am serious when I say that there are probably readers who can't tell fact from fiction and you have to be careful about not misleading. The tall story about the engineer and fireman falling out the cab window to see Perlman dining was nonsense but it was written in a way that could lead some readers to think the writer was serious. Not all readers are as smart as the "experts". Maybe I'm being a prig but there are a lot of gullible people out there. And nonsense takes on a life of its own -- I wouldn't be surprised if in a future issue of Trains there is a story that claims the downfall of the NYC Niagara was due to an engineer falling out the cab window.
Flintlock76Did someone on the Model Railroader Forum pick up on my annoyance (and run with it) that the "Long Black Train" in the Josh Turner video was pulled by a steam locomotive and not a diesel?
Now as SCP5850 is often described as "That Hell-Bound Train", and as having been reported since 1924 but now its advent is usually presaged by a 'horn', it has had some spectral power switch over the years...
To my knowledge, none of the classical tropes on this (from the Celestial Railroad and Freud's association of black, fire-filled locomotives with death and Hell through all the metaphors for separation that trains used to provide) are involved in that thread. (Or in the SCP community, where perhaps they are badly needed.)
Someone who appreciated the Bridge of San Luis Rey could probably work up a proper story of the Long Black Train and how its passengers choose to ride it. Whether it is Hawthorne's or Durrenmatt's or Van Allsburg's needs to be decided... and do the passengers have the choice, or does the spectral equivalent of Amtrak's personnel by now thoroughly tired of, well, working and deadheading at the same time, much like Vanderdecken's poor crew, make their trip a misery with uncertain prospects of reaching the destination?
Since a camelback thread is inherently about suffering, misery, and sudden death... well, one wonders if a Long Black Diamond Train would be pulled by one. Perhaps the suggestion ought to be made over there in MR. Certainly he won't get far with either 4-axle dynamic or independent...!
.
The quiet brook is doing its babbling again.
"The Long Black Train?"
Did someone on the Model Railroader Forum pick up on my annoyance (and run with it) that the "Long Black Train" in the Josh Turner video was pulled by a steam locomotive and not a diesel?
Just curious.
Overmod as our trains barista -
who would have thought of what this thread comes to
and what insights it eventually reveals!
Great cultural deeds are being unveiled here!
It all sums up to one consequence:
steam really was abandoned much to early - if it just were for the teas
and coffees all those passengers could have had from crews when in stations.
I guess I have to get me a cappoccino to go with this ...
Paul MilenkovicCoffee water preheater? Ewww?
Paul, never mind, it was a play with words:
Coffin preheater - coffeine, coffee preheater - and the whole posting.
I remember it was understood as a fun story back then.
Frying on the shovel blade: I had one crew of an Ol49 (no, not old 49er) doing the same during a turn around at Sulechóv (near Zielona Gora - former Grünstadt, Schlesien): they fried meat and sausages on the shovel in the fire hole. Then they offered me some with high hopes. I managed to negotiate it down to a tiny piece and pretended to bite into it, turned around and - woosh - spent it to the mice and craws out there. Sorry, but it just wasn't the right thing for me - przepraszam! (speak~ psheprasham - excuse me)
Juniatha
Coffee water preheater?
Ewww?
Semmens and Goldfinch "How steam locomotives really work" talked about drawing water for tea (this is England, you know) from the boiler of a reproduction of one of their pioneering steam locomotives, but the authors say they don't recommend it.
Wardale in The Red Devil talks about a resourceful driver (locomotive engineer) on the long work days gather over-the-road performance data, much of which were spent in "loops" (sidings) because Control (the dispatcher) was giving priority to every other train.
The man had a cooking pot that he could connect to a steam line, maybe from the injector? I gather that the food in this pot was not exposed directly to boiler water with its high dissolved solids in an attempt to replicate Porta's recommendations on water treatment along with whatever pathetic excuse the SAR had for anti-foam chemicals.
Wardale described how potatoes, sausages, onions and tomatoes all went into that pot, and after a couple hours simmering, it was delicious. Wardale offered that it was a whole lot better than trying to roast food on the blade of a scoop shovel held just inside the open firebox doors.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
JuniathaLast time I wrote a story about the 'coffee preheater' and the 'cylinder-less engines' was some years ago. It might be possible to check it way downstream the Styx where all postings float away and disappear in the fog and clouds of the internet ...
The cylinderless locomotives were here ... not only with the joke, but with the answer provided for the thread's OP at the end...
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/741/p/190040/2076489.aspx#2076489
The coffee preheater appears to have lost a 'missing link' post somewhere between a discussion of funereal Coffin feedwater preheaters and the romantic notion of the Italian 'Amaretto express' locomotives and the somewhat New Orleans & Fiddler's Green prospect of the locomotives of the Southern Comfort Railway...
I suspect that if Eli Gilderfluke had survived to the modern era he would assuredly have figured more than one method of 'augmenting the Rankine cycle' to produce both the proper bloom and then the tempered 185F coffee feedwater from a boiler with effective high-pressure water treatment...
(On the Model Railroader forum there's a discussion starting up that appears to raise the issue about what happens when you diseaselize That Long Black Train... I never really thought about it, but there'll be a good story in there somewhere. Probably now including the Haunt of Hunter... who made a point about keeping steam off anything he was involved with helping to run... )
Well, thank you Flintlock - that's the right spirit!
To anyone to whom it concerns: if you read right to the end you will surely see that end remark which was a pick-up from an earlier posting by Lithonia Operator, remarking on doubts he had about 'memories' that create themselves. If picking up that same remark didn't open your eyes I don't know. Guess that's why postings just to make you lighten up are so rare: nobody wants to get hassle when they only wanted to create a smile.
At least everybody should be well aware of the fact I know this métier and when I say 'know' I really mean it. I thought a lighter story now and then might brighten things up a bit.
Maybe I'm being unfair, but maybe the "excessively serious" may want to lighten up a bit? This Forum's supposed to be about fun and maybe, just maybe, learning a little from each other. At least I see it that way.
And if you're being silly, that's what an emoticon at the end of the tall tale is for!
Kind of like this one, one of my favorites!
This one's good too!
The Excessively Serious
It is not the excessively serious readers who need to be told the story was a joke. It is the many readers who are not as knowledgeable as some of the "experts" who contribute posts. You can easily mislead some of the readers who are trying to learn something here and that is not a good thing. If this is the place for tall tales let me know -- I can fabricate some real whoppers.
Lithonia Operator wrote: "One way or another, it's a hell of a story!! "
Thank you!
Overmod wrote: " the 'excessively serious' who were apparently not quite sure it could happen that way..."
Well, it seems to happen with me every now and then. Last time I wrote a story about the 'coffee preheater' and the 'cylinder-less engines' was some years ago. It might be possible to check it way downstream the Styx where all postings float away and disappear in the fog and clouds of the internet ...
JuniathaDude, let me tell you a secret --- it was a joke.
it was a joke.
Dude, let me tell you a secret ---
On a long passenger train strung out across a fairly tight curve the engine cab could most definitely end up at an angle to look into the window of a car far back in the train, but one would need binoculars to identify a particular face.
The rest of that story sounds pretty fanciful, and I've never heard it anywhere before.
It could be a combination of several stories, Perlman's disdain for steam is very well known and I have read of other cases of engine crews falling or jumping out of the cab for one reason or another.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
The story doen't give the impression that this was a slow train traveling on a route with sharp curves. But I suppose anything is possible.
Lithonia Operator nhrand you can't see a passenger in a following car from the engine cab.
nhrand you can't see a passenger in a following car from the engine cab.
Lithonia Operator nhrand you can't see a passenger in a following car from the engine cab. I was skeptical about that also.
I was skeptical about that also.
If the train is long enough and the curve is sharp enough and the passenger is sitting far enough back in the train - it is possible, if not likely. Very unlikely anywhere track speed is above 20 MPH as higher speeds require larger diameter curves.
nhrandyou can't see a passenger in a following car from the engine cab.
Over The Top
Juniatha's mention of a trainman going over the tender to get to the engine cab reminds me of a similar event I witnessed in the mid 1950's during a fan trip over the Southern Division of the Central Vermont. The CV was still steam powered at the time so there were frequent fan trips in the waning days of steam in New England. The CV in Mass. and Conn. was freight only so power was the N-5 2-8-0's which were powerful and more than fast enough to get a fan trip originating in NYC, New Haven or Boston from New London to Brattleboro and back with plenty of time for photo stops and lunch while the engine was serviced. The CV 2-8-0's were freight engines but were equipped with steam lines for passenger service in Vermont on the Montreal trains. The fan trip trains consisted of New Haven cars, including a diner, since the CV had no passenger cars available on the Southern Division.
I was riding the baggage car (with open doors with slats to keep fans from falling out) but was standing at the front door to hear the engine, see the smoke and watch the tender swaying at speed. Suddenly the steam hose on the tender connecting with the baggage car hose burst with a bang but fortunately the steam was carried below the cars because of the speed of the moving train -- the escaping steam was loud but didn't pose a danger while the train was moving. To alert the engineer to close the steam line, the trainman went out the front door of the baggage car to the tender, climbed the ladder and went over the coal pile to reach the 2-8-0 cab. Since there was no regular passenger service on this end of the CV, trainmen didn't have uniforms but on the fan trips they wore their "Sunday" blue suits which probably needed dry cleaning after the trip. When the engine was turned at Brattleboro the 2-8-0 went into the roundhouse where the steam hose was replaced as I watched -- a relatively easy job.
I can recall that a number of CTA 6000 cars that were assigned to what is now the Blue Line were equipped with the safety bars when the Jefferson Park extension was opened in 1970. The subway that connected Logan Square with the median of the Kennedy Expressway had especially tight clearances, even for CTA.
Close Clearances
Regarding the danger of running an engine with your head out the cab window, you obviously needed to be cautious about close clearances which were usually indicated by signs such as -- will not clear man on side of car -- or something similar. An example of a warning about how close clearances could be is the following instruction from a NY,NH&H employee timetable from 1932 -- "Wind shields on L-1 engines must be closed while operating on tracks 1 and 2 west cut, New Haven." The wind shield is a narrow folding framed window located next to the side window on many steam locomotive cabs to give the engineer some protection against cinders when he peers out the side window. The wind shields on the New Haven L-1 2-10-2's were only about 6 or so inches wide when extended so you can see that clearances in the cut were so narrow that the windshield would be struck if open. Remember when trolley cars with windows that went up had a grid of bars over the opening to prevent passengers from having their heads or arms out a window given close clearances. When passenger cars still had open windows the window usually only opened enough to let in air but not enough to get your head out although you could lose an arm if you were not careful. I was commuting into NYC when car windows still opened for "air conditioning".
Unbelievable
It's a good tall tale but not believable. The engineer and fireman were obviously killed -- you don't fall out of the window of a fast moving engine without breaking a neck. And I hope the engine crew had enough sense to know you can't see a passenger in a following car from the engine cab.
One way or another, it's a hell of a story!!
Lithonia Operator wrote. "Or is this just one of those senior "memories" that create themselves?"
Oh, you should have written the rest of the story:This was on the New York Central at the early time of the reign of Perlman.One time he was riding the Pacemaker which at that time to his pain in the axx still was handled by a Niagara steam (!!!) locomotive. When they took up the train at Harmon, the driver was told by the trainman to be cautious about not to overspeed nor to arrive late because 'the Big Boss' was on the carpets. Ok, they started out correctly and everything was about to work out fine - until the driver got the idea of having a glimpse on the Big Boss as he sat at the table in the diner on the right side of the train ( he always did, to avoid passing trains giving him a shock every time)Now, as they were following the Hudson upstream there came a tighter right-hand curve and the driver got obsessed with the idea of that being the point where he should get his glimpse.He held at the roof with his right hand, jumped his back on the window sill, and took a look way back. The fireman shouted at him "Now don't you ...!" But the driver waved at him "Cool down!" Unfortunately, this was just his right hand that he did the waving with, consequence didn't sleep at the switch but the air stream grabbed him and pulled him off the window. The fireman jumped over the cab, got hold of his feet, and wanted to pull him back in. Instead, the many Hamburgers and good steaks made themselves known (the driver had 275 pounds, quite the same as the boiler pressure) and at the twinkle of an eye, the fireman (a thin young man of but 119 pounds) found himself strained to the limit holding those feet just where they were. What was more alarming, he felt losing his balance and he was endangered of being drawn through the window, too, when suddenly he was turned over and - zip! - out they both were. It is not known if Perlman had become aware who the two men were that tumbled over the embankment when his diner passed. Known, however - if not to the steam historians - was his explosive reaction when the train had finally stopped at Hudson after it had run through at Poughkeepsie. This had alarmed the trainman, and since he didn't see the silhouette of the driver at his window, he decided he would have to climb out at the front of the train, get to the top of the tender at full speed while another passenger train passed them, and make an impromptu hair-raising entry into the cab - and find it empty. Since at Harmon he had still spoken to the driver this was inexplicable to him. Although he had a faint thought of the two might be out on the running board repairing something, no desperate look-around spotted them. So he finally came to the conclusion he had to stop the train - but how? he was not familiar with the elements of a steam (!!!) locomotive. After trying various levers, testing water level, injector, and others, he finally grasped something that caused a hissing sound and a grinding noise. Speed began to fall - ahh! that was it! While throttle and valve gear remained set as they were, the train finally came to a stop quite near Hudson. Once standing, he got out of the cab, his colleagues ran up to him and finally, an important-looking figure appeared: Perlman! shouting from his fire-red head about what sxxx! this is and who the fxxx is responsible for! As he towered himself up next to the locomotive it so happened that the safety valves popped open and an enormous crash went loose which gave him a shock so much he fainted and had to be hurried into the next hospital. His words when he woke up have largely missed their due entry into the annals of steam - although they certainly were pointing out the doom of steam very decisively: he shouted "To hxxx with these steam locomotives, get rid of these fxxxxxx things as fast as you can - that is: me!" That's what soon banned especially the Niagaras from the Hudson line and re-allocated them to the Big Four, further made all steam locomotives pretty indiscriminately tumble into oblivion and being replaced by diesels, no matter what traction value, but no driver could fall out their tiny side window and no boiler could sound like about to explode while the Big Boss is near to it.So, all in all, it was a brave attempt by the Niagara or some would say as Perlman did: a tried assassination - but it went to nothing and only banged back in a most Perlman-like way! This is the unofficial explanation of why no Niagara was preserved.
Yet, I have a strange feeling, I can't rid of: this might very well be one of those 'memories' that create themselves ...
IIRC, we had a story in one of these threads about an engineer falling right out, while the fireman was asleep. And there was no head brakeman in the cab. The fireman at some point woke up and stopped the train.
Or is this just one of those senior "memories" that create themselves?
Paul Milenkovic Can't remember the source, but I think I saw a photo of the locomotive enginer of yes, a camelback, sitting on the window sill and having his whole upper body leaning out the window.
Can't remember the source, but I think I saw a photo of the locomotive enginer of yes, a camelback, sitting on the window sill and having his whole upper body leaning out the window.
Head-out-the-window became such a habit that I think I saw a photo of one of the UP/GE condensing steam turbines with the driver posed that way. Maybe just habit, but that locomotive had a much bigger nose on it than a diesel, and I had seen a drawing labeled that they stored makeup water for the condensor there. Just because it has a condensor doesn't mean it doesn't need a water tank.
Did this leaning with one's head out the window pose a hazard of getting struck by lineside obstructions?
All Of The Above
The number of variations on the placement and design of steam locomotive cabs would fill a book. And don't forget the cab-in-front locomotives on the SP. A trip to a railroad museum is a good place to get an education. I'm within a moderate drive of the museums in Spencer, NC, Baltimore, MD and Strasburg, PA, all of which have locomotives on display which have access to the cab. The C&O 2-6-6-6 cab is about large enough to fit a pool table. The B&O museum has both a camel - cab on the top of the boiler - and a camelback - cab astride the boiler. One of the interesting cabs is the one on the B&O USRA light Mikado which has an extension behind the fireman's side of the cab that provides a seat for the head-end brakeman (cabs on larger engines often have space for a seat behind both the fireman and the engineer). I can't remember a "vestibule" fully enclosed cab at the three museums I cited but that is another interesting variation. I would say that the most common cab location is behind the firebox with about half the cab over the rear end and half behind the rear end. Regarding visibility, that depended a great deal on the age of the engine. As locomotive boilers increased in girth the front windows on rear cabs became smaller but even on the largest engines there was enough of a front window to see signals, etc. Of course, running with your head out the side window was common even on cold days -- some northern roads even provided the engineer with a type of bay window on the cab side to improve the view ahead while offering protection from freezing weather.
Lithonia Operator Second vid wrote: "All I know is what I experienced. I was not halluciniating."
Well, ok, you weren't - but the designer of this weird cab clearly was.
This is sure the most impractical - or let's make no bones about it: stupidest - sorry - cab arrangement I have ever seen. This is less a crew's shelter but a boiler's shelter! Second video: Also least comfortable is the fire door down at the cab footplate! Oh thank you - no! Greetings from your backbone! And you have no proper overview of the fire, neither! Also, they don't even have a boiler cladding! O-M-G! Nice, very nice!
But, ok, it could be corrected if they want: adjust the underframe and coupling and reposition the cab back ~ 3 to 4 feet; put a boiler cladding, re-adjust the piping. To avoid having to reposition the fire door, you could lower the middle part of the cab floor; this would also help for height of coal pickup table of the tender which I reckon is also rather low now. You would feel the difference when firing!
See these videos for a more regular cab arrangements:
241.A.65 Mitfahrt auf der Lok - Drivers cab-ride steam engine - YouTube
ex SNCF 241.A Mountain type deGlehn four cylinder compound now preserved in Switzerland. Although the 'Jeanne d'Arc' type was never known to be inviting to crews, at least you have them behind the boiler (boiler ends lengthwise between the two cab side windows)
Spektakuläre Sonderfahrt mit der Dampflok 44 225 (44 2225-9) - Dezember 1994 - YouTube
cab ride on Decapod 44 225 preserved in Cottbus; boiler back ends lengthwise at about 1/2 of front side window; DR standard cab of standard classes.
01 202 an der Geislinger Steige, 15.10.2016 - YouTube
Pacific 01 202 preserved in Switzerland, on a tour in Germany; at 1:19 you see you start these locomotives with throttle ~ 1/2 open which as the engine walks away will give you about 55 % bp; only when you take back c/o you open up more and until full 1/1 with max no more than 40%; around 5:30 you can see the firedoor is positioned higher, you can fire with the backbone almost upright (if you are not too tall) - same with all other standard classes.
Dampf über der Geislinger Steige - YouTube
And while we're at it: steam over Geislinger incline (line Ulm - Stuttgart): 01 1066, 01 150, 52-80 Decapod plus 41 class Mikado, Bavarian S 3/6 von Borries four cylinder compound and 01 1066 three cylinder again, at 7:54 you can well see the fireman sitting well back of the boiler.
But, ok, I don't want to be involved in a quarrel and so everyone cool down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bizlbxDYNo
It's alright: besides the boiler, above or below it and even before - I don't care! Ok, now bye-bye!
In the second video I linked above, Russ mentions a 1950 N&W engine. That was a reference to the 611, which was visiting. That video was shot two weeks before I was there. The 611 was still there, but although I saw it very close-up several times, I was never on board.
Well, folks can speak in absolutes if they wish. But here is a video from inside the same engine I got to run. (I did not shoot this.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFrD4TDyytI
Where you see the engineer standing, I was seated. Well up alongside the boiler. (IIRC, the seat could fold out of the way onto the cab side.) Just as I was the paying engineer, there was also a paying fireman, and a paying "head brakeman." I ran the loco under the instruction of the RFE, who stood behind me. The guest fireman worked with the actual fireman. And the guest brakeman just rode, in the fireman's seat. AFAIK, neither the guest fireman or the real fireman (actually a firewoman) ever sat down.
I could hear the two firepersons talking and doing their work, but I saw them only before and after we were running. The were not visible to me, and neither was the guest brakeman. (Except maybe just the top of his cap.) The backhead and firebox doors were not visible to me. The throttle was ahead of me and above, and the Johnson bar was further forward, IIRC, and came up from the floor. It was cozy, but I liked it. The view forward was great, but not seeing anything to the left was a bit unsettling at first.
This video (also not mine) will show more of the engine cab, and explain why the boiler extends so far back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmSql-Cf0Rs
The RFE seen here, Russ, was who worked with me. It was a great experience!
My impression is that during a certain period, it was common for engines to be configured this way. It was not particularly hot where I sat. But it was fall, and the door to the running board was left open, as was the window.
The guest fireman told me later that he worked pretty hard. The firewoman did not shovel, only directed. The guest brakeman only rode. We were strictly forbidden from taking photos in the cab.
All I know is what I experienced. I was not hallucinating.
Sara is right: the crew did sit behind the boiler, not by its side (that would be absurd to do! why all the space behind if they are squeezed into that little and hot(!) front space) Of course they don't sit behind the boiler in the middle of the cab but at left and right side to be able to look forward alongside the boiler. Sara described absolutely correct the vision of the two people was like the eyes of a horse: forward and to one side each.
To be correct, description of the position of their seats should be: on a side elevation drawing, the seats are lengthwise behind the boiler back, on a cross-section drawing the seats are outsides the boiler, on a look-down drawing they are behind and outsides the corners of the boiler back at the left / right sides of the cab room behind the boiler.
Take out any cab photo or side view picture of a regular steam locomotive of any country and you will see: on American late era steam locomotives there is a wide side window, mostly somewhat set back within the side sheet of the cab and of this often the rear part is open and that's where the driver / fireman lean out.
If their seats would be forward besides the boiler in the foremost corner of the whole cab: how could they bend back so far? (and how could they manage get to sit down there at all?)
On all my cab rides on various steam engines I never saw anyone even to attempt just for a minute to get into where the life steam injector and Bosch oiler are firmly installed and several pipings pass on the left side, where the valve gear control screw and block, speedometer, whistle lever, sometimes throttle lever and the brake controls are installed on the right side, pretty well filling those spaces.
On the 44 / 50 and 52 / 42 classes engines built after 1940, there was just one of the originally two cab side windows and it was the rear one and that's where the guys sat, not at the front corner of the blindfolded part of the cab.
Same with the French engines that had this SNCF split window, the rear part opening, the Italian engines with a rear cut-out in the side sheet, Russian engines with the rear of the two side windows opening, even British engines like the LNER A1 - A4, LMS Princess and Coronation classes, the BR standard 7 class, 9F and all the rest, South African ... etc ...
Best wishes
Paul MilenkovicIf you conduct a Web search of "steam locomotive backhead", you will see (for U.S. locomotives) that the engineer's seat (I think for a long time the Brits made the crew stand) is indeed to the right of the boiler, but it is set back enough that the engineer and fireman can see each other to coordinate their work.
Well actually, not in all cases.
For example, around the turn of the 20th Century a number of steam locomotives were built with the backhead/firebox protruding back into the cab and separating the engineer and fireman, although not so separated they couldn't communicate.
There's one of that type at the Colorado Railroad Museum, a 2-8-0. I've seen it and been in the cab. Casey Jone's Ten-Wheeler was of the same configuration, and as L-O said, 475 at Strasburg is the same.
Just how common the configuration was and what the reasoning behind the same was I don't know.
Oh, and on the locomotive I saw at the CRM there were steam pressure, and assorted gauges on the engineer's side where he could see them. The sight glass I don't know, I don't remember seeing one. Doesn't mean there wasn't one there.
Oh c'mon, people!
If you conduct a Web search of "steam locomotive backhead", you will see (for U.S. locomotives) that the engineer's seat (I think for a long time the Brits made the crew stand) is indeed to the right of the boiler, but it is set back enough that the engineer and fireman can see each other to coordinate their work.
If the engineer is seated beside the boiler, how is the engineer going to see the steam pressure gauge and the sight glass or glasses? Yes, steam pressure and boiler water level is among the duties of the fireman to check, but the engineer may want to glance at these indicators, too?
Most steam locomotives outside the USA were subject to much tighter clearances than those in the USA. So there was not the room to sit beside the boiler, even on locomotives with narrow fireboxes to fit between plate frames.
In Australia, the only locomotives that had the driver sit beside the boiler were Baldwin 2-8-0s from 1879 and 1892 and a few similar 4-6-0s from 1892. These had the boiler backhead in line with the rear of the cab.
Most other locomotives had the backhead only a few inches behind the cab front plate.
Peter
I understand it would have to be that way with a Wootten firebox. But Sara's post said that engineers sat behind the firebox on "regular engines" also.
The N&W #475 at Strasburg is the only engine I've ever run, so it made a big impression. But my recollection, from going to museums, etc., was exactly what you say, that the seat in the narrow "aisle" was more or less standard in North America.
From the engineer's seat in 475, I could barely see the person riding in the fireman's seat, IIRC only his cap.
Lithonia OperatorI operated a steam locomotive not long ago at the Strasburg Rail Road. On that one, the engineer's seat is in the narrow space between the firebox/boiler and the wall of the cab.
Which is the 'normal' location for most US steam locomotives. The Wooten firebox that generated the need for the Camelback - the firebox was wider and did not leave sufficient space to locate the engineer in that space - at best it allowed a narrow walkway between the firemans location and the engineers location.
I operated a steam locomotive not long ago at the Strasburg Rail Road. On that one, the engineer's seat is in the narrow space between the firebox/boiler and the wall of the cab.
Lithonia
I can tell you that - hehehe: The cab seats are arranged not in the small aisle between boiler and cab wall but behind the boiler back side. In any regular steam locos cab.
Blocked forward vision: look up Juniatha's post about this: the drawing shows that it was all half as hot: you could look forward as well at least as in the later locos with the really big boilers. It's on p4 this thread and in the upper 1/3
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/740/t/285910.aspx?page=4#3321990
In steam locos of the regular form the crew can look forward and only each the left and the right part of the line, like the eyes of a horse.
Did the rear cab conversions have the engineer all the way aft of the firebox?
Yes, all the way and in one piece, he did not even stick partly inside the firebox. Ahh, not even the firing one.
I thought that camelbacks had the cab forward of the firebox because the wide firebox left no room for engineer/fireman seats; and also forward vision would have been blocked from a rear cab.
So, when later converted to rear cab locos, how was the vision problem solved? And did the rear cab conversions have the engineer all the way aft of the firebox?
never knew much about them except for some old pics I have seen. Sounds like it was not a good design and dangerous.
jtrain1
"Boy. Was he lucky! But, did he get into trouble for that?"
Who was lucky?
nhrand
Quote: "Placing a cab in the rear would mean a long frame extension which might be weak and make weight distribution more difficult. Moreover, the end cab would have to be shallow and not give the engineer much room to work. An end cab might require an unwanted axle to support it."
UUhh! that must be a solid cab - more of a house, as the cab is labeled in German! Shallow, not much room? But more room than between the side of a boiler and the loading gauge limit, I believe. BTW - why did they build the 'center cab' over both sides as the conventional 'backend cab'? In the con-cab the driver - and the fireman - could walk both sides, yes, but in the center cab he would have to crawl over the boiler back to reach the other side - and then slide down again - che-che-che - not a very practical suggestion to look up an odd signal post and a good reason to aquire a less than positive attitude towards these engines.
BTW - impressive collection of photos!
Firelock
"Oh my, Karen Carpenter. What a shame, what a loss."
Yes - what a voice she had - so much emotion, such a mastering of the tunes!I have a suspicion she was not so self-destructive by her own:If you watch the early recordings she played the drumshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kPD4LtA1vohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2uIMRgMm8chttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm2eR64CTIw(Cars play Bach - lots of early photos)- and she liked it,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=677zUCoqg_khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9TmMfnZyY4had a dispute about it with her brother who thought she should be forward on the stage as the singer and oposed her drumming, there is even a video about that:(but I couldn't find it now - sorry)On the later recordings she only sings:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDp9b9eYoLMwith Ella Fitzgeraldhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76ZKihNCWWERare: Don't cry for me Argentina (although I think in this case she was better:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpbRIP--r-ocertainly the best vibrato & power reserve - yet if you don't like her, listen to thishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObdX5mtK2nsor thishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adUPdnzCAk8or this - well, yeah, of course -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgK-dIPMIp4but why not, he's a great musician and orchestra leader - uhm, perhaps with his singerins he is not always too fortunate)
In a nutshell, I feel, Karen without percussions was never happy anymore and that, unconciously has led her to neglect her basis of life in a feeling that she didn't want to go on like that. So, I don't want to blame her brother, but ... ... ... I still do: another man who had not seen the complexity of a woman who in this case happened to be his sister, to whom it just came comfortable that she didn't know how to help herself against his ordering things the way he wanted it.
While we're at it: Myself, I have so often experienced variations of this general theme, it started at school in Berlin where it happened repeatedly that a girl fell in love with one turkish guy or other islamic guy and no talking, no warning, no arguing could save her - until it was too late: she had to learn, an islamic guy a girl can't leave once she has enough of what his initial sweet-talking had turned into. In a few cases I could fight her out, when she was a friend of mine and at a time when these guys had not yet formed such stong gangs as they have now, matters have changed completely now, today even the police think twice before engaging in such cases! But even back then there had been unbelievable inhumane cruelties I don't want to describe here - like what you ask? ok, well, like for instance one girl had her wrists tied by a rope to the back end of his car and then the drove through the woods over the gravel paths at speed draging her along; luckily in a curve she was swept to the outer side and around a tree where the rope was ripped and she was left there with lots of abrasions and broken arms and heavy injuries to the wrists, while he drove away - that's why she survived.
Ok - no more words, I want to forget, but I can't. End of such postings!
Vaya con Dios
Why A Center Cab, Not A Rear Cab.
Obviously a locomotive with a wide firebox can be built with a rear cab -- just look at the many camelbacks that were rebuilt with end cabs. However, in the period of large scale production of center cabs it was simply thought the center cab had advantages and an end cab was ackward. Consider first that the period of camelback construction was fairly narrow and about over by 1910 -- camelbacks continued to be built thereafter but not a lot. You could even think of the period as a fad. The CNJ, for example, built many classes of 2-8-2's and 4-6-2's with fireboxes as wide as their camelbacks but with end cabs. Most camelbacks had no trailing truck -- 4-4-2's being the major exception. Placing a cab in the rear would mean a long frame extension which might be weak and make weight distribution more difficult. Moreover, the end cab would have to be shallow and not give the engineer much room to work. An end cab might require an unwanted axle to support it. A center cab provided the engineer with a good view of the track ahead. Also, turntables could be shorter. To some extent you might consider the center cab a style or fashion -- you could build an end cab but why when center cabs were considered the standard way to build. Eventually the disadvantages gained more attention than the advantages. Look at the many rebuilds -- they may look a bit ackward but they worked.
For an extensive look at the variety of camelbacks, including Mikados, Pacifics, Mallets and rebuilds, please visit my camelback website: http://sites.google.com/site/camelbacksteamlocomotives
Oh my, Karen Carpenter. What a shame, what a loss.
I wonder why so many creative people have a penchant for self-destruction?
Why ask why? She wasn't the first and won't be the last.
Fireflintlock
Oh, yes, I know! What do you think I have been trying to spread, just beause I think it should be better known, I believe it should be made known ...
No topics for this forum - but just the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjFoQxjgbrs
(Rainy days and mondays - Carpenters)
Hi Juniatha!
Well, considering the joy of toy trains you know I just have to "spread the gospel," so to speak!
Hi Fireflint
.. a brave attempt - yet knowing Sara I have to prepare you for failing ... Sara is not easy to understand in her preferences and propensities - and she would assent "That's what the drivers and firemen said at Hamm!" (You probably know that -003 had a different boiler than the first two 05s, and was set for higher steaming rates, having a smaller indirect (tubes) heating surface with a larger direct or radiation heating surface (firebox and combustion chamber), at that time the first such type on DB (later all Witte engines had the same type and same difficulties with firemen who didn't want to change their ways). I hope I haven't said too much, Sara, never mind, don't be strict with me.
Sara THere I do 'uncouple' - I have no miniature railway and have never wanted.
Oh Sara, you don't know what you've been missing!
Some days there's nothing like sitting down at the layout with a mug of coffee and a smoke (or whatever) shootin' the juice to the train and watching it go 'round and 'round.
Of course, I'm easily amused. Plus, it's your own little world where everything makes sense. Most of the time anyway.
N gauge, HO, O or G, it's all good, but personally I prefer the thundering majesty of O gauge. Have a look...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmAe5J8Yx-E Woo-hoo!
rrlinemanAccording to Pennsy Power 1 they were later re-built with conventional cabs.
PRR of course had no Camelback Mallets, so the correct place to look is a different Staufer reference book... Erie Power. Some of the relevant pages are visible here:
http://www.trainweb.org/milepost51/eriel1.html#L-1
Up to now I had never seen any reference to putting conventional cabs on the L-1s without putting a trailing truck on them (in part for the added weight of the stoker). There is a comparatively short time between documented pictures of L-1s about to be 'operated on' at Baldwin and of the 2-8-8-2 'result', so if they installed just a long cantilevered cab as pictured in the diagram, they came to their senses about it fast.
It's surprisingly hard to find pictures of the locomotives after conversion, but there's a pretty good one here (from the above site and page):
http://members.trainweb.com/milepost51/rrmem/2600Baldwinrebuild.jpg
Unaccountably although Erie Power has a picture, Mr. Goldstein did not provide an image of that page...
On The Running Board
The comment about riding the running board of a steam locomotive while shunting remnded me of the time I rode Canadian Pacific H1B Hudson 2819 on a freight out of the St. Luc yard in Montreal in June 1959. I stood behind the engineer in the vestibule cab. On a long tangent soon after we left the yard and we were moving at a steady pace with 45 cars, the engineer climbed out the window to reach the running board along the boiler and fix something. On the 2819, and on many steam locomotives, there is a narrow walk below the cab and a handrail along the top -- with a large boiler there is often no room for a cab front door or it is too tight to use as access to the boiler side. After banging something a few times with a hammer he was satisfied and came back in through the side window.
I had been taking photos of steam for five years when I rode the 2819 but I was not at all familiar with operating a steam locomotive and was surprised when the engineer spent some time on the running board while the train was in motion and, except for the fireman, I was the only one in the cab. Up to that time I hadn't really thought too much about the fact that when running a steam engine the engineer doesn't have to be sitting in his seat with his hand on the throttle at all times. In fact, I remember reading about a wreck on the New Haven that occurred because the engineer missed a signal because he was working on the fire when the fireman had a problem keeping up steam.
My ride on the non-streamlined 4-6-4 was about year before steam operations ended on the Canadian Pacific and steam was growing scarce. Indeed, the engineer said he was glad to be runing a steam locomotive because operating a diesel was like operating a trolley car.
rrlineman >>According to Pennsy Power 1 they were later re-built with conventinal cabs.<<
Aaaahh! so they de-'paniced' (Juní) themselves after some years?
Wichita Lineman: Original Video...Glen Campbell (1969) - Bing video
Flintlock >>Don, I get where you're comin' from, I'm an O-Gauger myself,<<
Here I do 'uncouple' - I have no miniature railway and have never wanted. Other than on an exhibition I have not so much been interested because for me the admiration of locomotives lies also in their huge size and mass and the thunder of their power. Although the absolute power is not so great today in comparison with other machines steam locomotives have a fascination of their own with their unique aura and livelyness.
Maybe now that live steam is largely a thing of yesteryears, I should look a second time at the small reproductions.
Don, I get where you're comin' from, I'm an O-Gauger myself, but shouldn't you have posted your comment on the "Classic Toy Trains" Forum?
By the way, I've got six RMT "Beeps" myself! Great little engines, put two or more together and they'll pull anything!
For those of you wondering what we're talking about:
http://www.readymadetoys.com/
Hey, Christmas is coming you know.
I loved the "Oscar" and 'Piker.' I always wished I had purchased the kits when they were availabe, so I went out and bought the next best thing I could find. RMT makes, or made, a 4 car set of 4 wheel cars consisting of a baggage car, two coaches and an observation car. They are "Lionel" O, quite well made, heavy, for their size, have lighting in the cars and decorated nicely. I have a NYC and an undecorated set. I run them behind my RMT 'Peep," which is an abreviated GP. The set draws a lot of attention when I run them at train shows.
Delaware & Hudson also had a number of 2-8-0's with Wootten fireboxes and a single cab. I believe that some were rebuilt from double-cabbers.
According to Pennsy Power 1 they were later re-built with conventinal cabs.
Hey, juhu!
I thought it would work the usual way!
Thanks Juni, for proving it!
Flintlock:
Never mind, but I think the object was not the Mallet but the non-camelback ?
Oh wow, a Camelback Mallet! Yeah, they had those too, but not too many. The Erie had the first one, named "Angus," and used it for pusher service. Which probably made the fireman very happen, at least he didn't have to work too hard since pushers don't go that fast.
There may have been some other Camelback Mallets besides the Eries but I'll have to hit the books on that.
This a camelback ...
and this is a non-camelback
with the cab in the back.
Cross section shows cab has
forward window and reaches
over sides of firebox. I used
the center line to align cab
sideways the same as original.
It works - it shows it was more
sort of a 'panic' than really
needed.
At least that's what I think ...
(puhh - 4h in the morning -
I go to sleep ...!)
When the B&O article referred to "waste anthracite" they were referring to what was called "culm," the stuff that was left after the raw (for lack of a better term) just-dug coal had gone through the breakers and emerged into the various sizes for various purposes.
Culm was the small grainy stuff that wasn't saleable. It was usually dumped into piles that over the years became hills, many of which can be seen to this day in anthracite country.
The B&O article's good, but it could have been a little more descriptive.
Phoebe Snow? Sure! I remember Phoebe Snow!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebe_Snow_(character)#/media/File:Phoebe-Snow-ditty.JPG
54light15 "Anthracite is a waste by product?" I thoght anthracite was the better, cleaner burning coal than bituminous. Remember Phoebe Snow? Her gown stayed white on the route of anthracite? Or something like that.
"Anthracite is a waste by product?" I thoght anthracite was the better, cleaner burning coal than bituminous. Remember Phoebe Snow? Her gown stayed white on the route of anthracite? Or something like that.
True, but the original idea was to burn anthracite mining "tailings", a byproduct of digging it out of the ground that was unusable for home heating fuel because it would choke the grate.
Sara T It does not explain to me why they had to put that cabin at the side of boiler.
Easy to explain. With that extra-wide firebox there was no room to mount a conventional cab, so since the engineer had to go somewhere they put his cab on the right side of the boiler. There was also a matching cab on the left side that was usually unoccupied unless a head-end brakeman was needed, and he usually rode there.
Here's the story of a surviving (but not running) Camelback, Jersey Central's No. 592, which is displayed at the B&O Railroad Museum in Baltimore.
http://www.borail.org/CNJ-No-592.aspx
I've been there and seen it, but they wouldn't let me on it!
But I do have one of these to fool around with!
http://www.lionel.com/products/jersey-central-conventional-4-6-0-camelback-773-6-28749/
>> aboard Sara!
You certainly came to the right place for all things "Camelback!" <<
But, Flintlock, this explains why they were built with this wide grate. It does not explain to me why they had to put that cabin at the side of boiler. You could have looked over the side of the firebox, no? And the locomotive was not so long as the later big ones.
So ???
Greetings
SD70DudeAnother memorable story (which was printed in the magazine a few years ago) involved the fireman repairing a failed feedwater pump while the engine continued to work hard pulling upgrade. Meanwhile the low water alarm had started to scream.
Ever hear the phrase "Wooden ships and iron men?"
I can't help but think railroading is "Iron horses and men of steel!"
I've been on the running board of our engine while she's hot a few times (never while moving), usually to put the stack cover on after the end of an operating day. The insulation means it isn't any hotter than standing next to her on the ground while you're greasing everything.
During the steam era over here trainmen were expected to exit the cab via the running boards and then run ahead of the engine to line switches, so a heavy train would not have to come to a complete stop as it entered a yard or siding.
Another memorable story (which was printed in the magazine a few years ago) involved the fireman repairing a failed feedwater pump while the engine continued to work hard pulling upgrade. Meanwhile the low water alarm had started to scream.
aboard Sara!
You certainly came to the right place for all things "Camelback!"
Suffice to say you've probably learned as much about them as it's possible to learn, but for just a quick review that wide firebox concept came about for no other reason than to burn cheap, reject coal that was unsaleable by the coal companys. The railroads that used it as fuel for all intents and purposes got it free for the asking.
Only the accountants and railroad money-men loved the Camelbacks because they were cheap to run. The engine crews never liked them at all, and some flat-out hated them. But, it was either run the engines you were assigned or look for work elsewhere.
Advancing locomotive technology made them obsolete as the 20th Century wore on, but on some 'roads like the Jersey Central they lasted until the end of steam, for various reasons.
But for railfans and modelers they've always had a fascination that's never gone away.
Quote "One time I was filming from the side of the boiler of a Wolsztyn locomotive standing on the running board"
Wow, they let you stand on the running board while driving - even at slow speed?
What about switches on the branching path? Didn't you have to keep a tight grip to the boiler and wasn't that hot?
You really do test it out - chi-chi-chi!
As to the working conditions, it is worth noting that during the Camelback's era trainmen were expected to walk on top of moving freight cars during all hours of the day and night and in all weather conditions, of course without fall protection. During the same timeframe many British locomotives lacked cabs of any kind. A far cry from what we enjoy today.
Others can explain the steaming rationale behind the Camelback design better than I.
I have a question about these locomotives. I looked it up in the internet and it looks totally weird to me. (More than my 'own' initial turned-around status (as coal dust fired locomotive and that was weird, oh, I never came to grips with anything, heavens sake I got rid of this contortion later)
--> W-h-a-t was the purpose of this upside-down confusion? Lack of view because the grate was wider than normal? You must be kidding! What about the later locomotives with the really wide and long boilers?
One time I was filming from the side of the boiler of a Wolsztyn locomotive standing on the running board while the locomotive was shunting some cars and when free got away really quick and attained some mild speed for some longer distance. This was a one time special situation, it didn't feel so uncomfortable because I wanted it for a purpose. But to imagine having to work day in day out like this would make me think, I have to say ...
Sara 05003
Enough with the old movies, already! We've seen some of this but not all and you gotta love the music! Note how the lyrics are sort of set to the action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIC94gEUuc8
Oh, it's scary all right! In my mind when I think of fifty-year-old movies I still think they should have Charlie Chaplin in them! Not anymore!
Now some of my favorite movies like "Patton" and "Kelly's Heroes" are fifty-year-old movies! When did THAT happen?
Just had a scary realization - "The Leap from the Water Tower" was filmed 52 years before it was covered in the June 1967 Trains. In a bit less than 4 months, it will have been 54 years since I first read and saw the article in Trains. Another way to look at it: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was released 52 years ago.
Eureka! See Hazards of Helen #3 ("The Leap From the Water Tower") from 1915. The very first card after the title is "The Largest Locomotive In The World" and you will enjoy the rest.
Something that surprised me was how small and spindly this largest locomotive in the world looks today. And then you reflect that the Jacobs-Shupert firebox was intentionally small compared to the convection section volume...
Are there any comparison pictures of this and a Virginian engine ... showing details at the correct relative scale?
Erik_MagUpshot was that a movie trust was formed in the mid-aughties and they were very active in sending out lawyers and process servers to anyone not in the trust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Company
To be honest I'm much more sympathetic to Edison than I was to George Selden of ALAM doing the same sort of thing at that time...
My reason for mentioning Thousand Oaks was that our family lived in for 7 years was in walking distance of the MGM back lot. Part of one episode of The Rifleman was filmed across the street from our house and my dad and brother got to meet Chuck Connors
Cool, like something out of a Kim Stanley Robinson story...
I just took a look through my History 171 textbook, with a whole chapter on the movie industry in California.
Upshot was that a movie trust was formed in the mid-aughties and they were very active in sending out lawyers and process servers to anyone not in the trust. L.A. had the advantage of being a long way from New Jersey and being a short distance from the border - when the process servers got too close, it was relatively easy to transport the gear and film to Tijuana. Another advantage of the L.A. area was a wide variety of terrain within a short distance making it possible to simulate just about anyplace.
OM: My reason for mentioning Thousand Oaks was that our family lived in for 7 years was in walking distance of the MGM back lot. Part of one episode of The Rifleman was filmed across the street from our house and my dad and brother got to meet Chuck Connors.
Wasn't the fact that the studios were "on the coast" and the head offices at least a 3 day journey away have been a factor? They were kind of isolated out there and could get away with things that they couldn't had the studios still been in New York. Land prices, eternal sunshine too. Looking at some of Buster Keaton's films, Los Angeles was a pretty dusty, desolate place.
Erik_Maghigher post war prices caused at least one backlot to developed - the MGM lot next to Thousand Oaks was turned into housing in the late 60's.
I'll have to dig out my textbook and look up exactly what was said about avoiding patent infringement lawsuits.
Lower land prices would certainly have been a bonus, but higher post war prices caused at least one backlot to developed - the MGM lot next to Thousand Oaks was turned into housing in the late 60's.
I'll have to dig out my textbook and look up exactly what was said about avoiding patent infringment lawsuits. Bear in mind that L.A. was still a relatively "sleepy" town when the movie industry started ramping up.
Patent infringement? I've never heard of that. As I understand it with patents being issued by the Federal government trying to hide from a patent infringement lawsuit anywhere in the continental US wouldn't do you much good. But what do I know? Maybe it was easier to say "Go ahead, nobody's lookin'!" in California because it was true? Less prying eyes?
That's a question I definately would have asked the prof if I was in his class. That's assuming he had the answer and wasn't just regurgitating something HE heard.
Lady Firestorm, my resident movie maven, also reminded me that land was a lot cheaper out in California, VERY important if you want to build studios.
Flintlock76 While certainly the movie industry was born in Fort Lee (excepting Edison's experimentals) they had begun the move west by 1914, California's moderate climate and reliable sunshine was more conducive to film making.
While certainly the movie industry was born in Fort Lee (excepting Edison's experimentals) they had begun the move west by 1914, California's moderate climate and reliable sunshine was more conducive to film making.
Obviously you hadn't taken UCB's History 171 (California History) as taught by Walton Bean. He stated that the real reason for film making taking off in California as it was easier to avoid patent infringement lawsuits in Calif as opposed to Jersey.
FWIW, that was one of the questions on a midterm in the course and I left out the patent infringement aspect in my answer.
This one was without a doubt, filmed in New York in its last half anyway. Model T Fords, Harold Lloyd, 3rd avenue streetcars and Babe Ruth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysUHthupf3c
It's interesting that not one of the Perils of Pauline films was shot on the West Coast.
The early Hazards of Helen (with Holmes) were said to be shot in Glendale and 'Tuolomne County' -- interestingly, episode 6 is 'The Black Diamond Express'.
I always thought that the first film studios were in Astoria, Queens where I believe some sound stages are still used. Buster Keaton's films are obviously in the dusty streets of Los Angeles. This Harold Lloyd clip is interesting where he steals a streetcar- An unusual type, I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDqtgoznzQw
OvermodWhen those were shot much of the film industry was likely still in New Jersey!
I don't know, I didn't see too much in those films that shouted "New Jersey" at me, even though at the turn of the 20th Century NJ wasn't anywhere near as developed as it is now.
Certainly I'd agree the Camelback wreck was filmed somewhere in the Northeast.
Overmod Which episode number was it?
Which episode number was it?
Leap from the water tower.
This was re-released by Blackhawk Films in 1967, hence the coverage of it in Trains.
When those were shot much of the film industry was likely still in New Jersey!
The very first 'Hazards of Helen' eppysode I pulled up was billed as "Car of Death - The Wild Engine" and is notable for featuring cars and engines clearly labeled for "S.P.L.A.S.L." That should jump out as providing the range of on-site filming used; I suspect the exact locations, and equipment types, would be easy to determine.
One fascinating thing to watch is the early trick photography used to capture the 'derailment' and explosion of the boxcar of dynamite; I still haven't quite figured out what that business with the motorcycle going off the bridge was -- but it was sure entertaining to watch!
In the event: the point about 2-10-10-2s was that Trains, in 1967, indicated they were in one of the episodes, so wherever the thing was filmed, probably to get The Most Massive Locomotives Imaginable (and to this day, those things still qualify in that category!) is to be determined, not speculated.
Now it occurs to me that I have seen pictures of what looked like celebrities atop one of those ginormous 12-wheel whaleback tenders, and could never figure out why that sort of scene would be shot. Cast or publicity pictures would definitely explain it!
I'm tempted to say ATSF would have gotten more use out of one of those locomotives as a movie star than in any sort of practical road service. A kind of cinema equivalent of how the Gobernador 4-10-0 was reported to be used, blasting out of town seemingly on an endless fast freight at 'just' the time visiting bigwigs were passing through. (The Russians to their ultimate sorrow ran this sort of scam with bombers at a May Day parade ...)
Not much Camelback-related content in all this... but who cares when we're having fun, and then Helen Holmes smiles...
Erik_Mag One of the fun things about watching the first clip was seeing scenes from the "Hazards of Helen" short that was featured in the June 1967 Trains. Sad thing was that none of the scenes with the AT&SF 2-10-10-2 were in the collection.
One of the fun things about watching the first clip was seeing scenes from the "Hazards of Helen" short that was featured in the June 1967 Trains. Sad thing was that none of the scenes with the AT&SF 2-10-10-2 were in the collection.
Unless I'm mistaken when those silents were shot the movie business was firmly ensconced in the Hollywood/LA area. I don't think those 2-10-10-2's ever ranged as far as the LA area.
Which episode number was it? There are a number of those on YouTube... the algorithm didn't pull up one with 2-10-10-2s right away but some of the ones there make fascinating watching.
I'll bet a lot of classic car fans cringe when they see those old Model T's and Model A's being demolished! No big deal back then, but now? Oh brother!
I'll tell you, I cringe whenever I see that 4-4-0 on the burning bridge in "The General" wind up in the river, even though I know that one way or another it was headed for the scrapper anyway.
This one is mainly about cars but there's some train and streetcar scenes. It's a good thing that Model T Fords were so cheap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBnNgI1Icu4
Thanks 54'! Amazing what they got away with before OSHA arrived on the scene.
There's camelbacks in this, along with a few other things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Moh2l7udjio
Overmod I was given the less expensive version of that locomotive as a child. I thought it was as precious as the crown jewels and never even ran it... just open the box periodically and look. My wife unthinkingly gave it to my son when he was a baby, and he 'did' for the side rods and tender trucks, and some of the boiler detail. It occurs to me that I should get it out of storage and restore it, finally, to run.
I was given the less expensive version of that locomotive as a child. I thought it was as precious as the crown jewels and never even ran it... just open the box periodically and look.
My wife unthinkingly gave it to my son when he was a baby, and he 'did' for the side rods and tender trucks, and some of the boiler detail. It occurs to me that I should get it out of storage and restore it, finally, to run.
I read somewhere this was a problem on the prototype?
BEAUSABREWhat I am considering is replacing the motor with a can motor controlled by a decoder and adding a fly wheel if there is room.
OK, you're an HO guy so you know your way around the stuff far better than I do. However, I'm not particularly crazy about modifying old classics, in my case that'd be post-war Lionels, and opinions do vary on that in the O gauge world. I believe the classics should stand on their own merits as artefacts of the time in which they were built and shouldn't be jazzed into something they're not.
But hey, it's YOUR engine! Do what you want and don't let me stop you! Just be careful, OK?
Flintlock76By the way, how's it run?
It has what was considered a good motor at the time, a Pitman open frame job, so like almost all HO power of the Sixties, it has a high starting speed, although you can throttle it down after it jerks into motion.
What I am considering is replacing the motor with a can motor controlled by a decoder and adding a fly wheel if there is room.
Overmod It occurs to me that I should get it out of storage and restore it, finally, to run.
Why not man? That's what it was made for!
I run everything I've got, if I wouldn't run it, I don't buy it.
Paul MilenkovicSure is fine looking model -- as good or better than some recent offerings.
While I'm not an HO guy I've heard of Howell Day/ Red Ball. They were a class act in their time.
Flintlock76 Beautiful model! I wouldn't do a thing to it, it's fine like it is! Looks like my Lionel 771 someone ran through a hot wash and shrunk! By the way, how's it run?
Beautiful model! I wouldn't do a thing to it, it's fine like it is!
Looks like my Lionel 771 someone ran through a hot wash and shrunk!
By the way, how's it run?
Sure is fine looking model -- as good or better than some recent offerings.
[
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!)
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
The loco used in the movie, the Long Grey Line was CNJ 4-6-0 #774
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."
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?
Same me, different spelling!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Paul MilenkovicOnly MR wouldn't run my how-to article on a really simple cam-based steering for the Turbo Train model.
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.
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.
"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
Flintlock76Whether bobbers were ever banned in New Jersey or New York, the L&HR's stomping grounds, I don't know.
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.
cx500 actually being outlawed
Bobber cabooses are illegal in Ohio.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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!
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.
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.
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'.
Thanks Mr. Rand, very informative!
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.)
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!
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/
Flintlock76As an aside, if you're looking for anthracite, and there's a Tractor Supply Co. in your neighborhood...
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
CSSHEGEWISCHSome of the later 2-8-0's were built with one cab but still had the Wootten firebox.
Flintlock76In fact, toward the end of the steam era the CNJ was using bituminous coal in its Camelbacks, the lack of demand for anthracite in the post-war years caused that fuel source to dry up a bit.
Of course after the EPA was created, anthracite had a short and definitive future, being an inherent high-sulfur fuel. That was certainly not a bad thing.
One of the unrecognized points of culm/slack burning comes by comparison to the Big Boys. This material contains a great deal of fines mixed with slate and other rock that does not 'ash', and if hand-fired (as most anthracite-burning locomotives were) not all of this might in fact stay 'landed' on the grates to burn. Carbon releases much more heat than the sum of the hydrocarbons in coal do, but it takes a higher temperature to light it off to get that heat. Meanwhile carbon in solid form benefits from small particle size and good 'scrubbing' to keep combustion at the surface going, and of course the small 'reacting' particles are as luminous as those in luminous flame ... once they are lit.
If you look at a 'normal' anthracite building-heat fire, you will note that most of the flame is blue or only weakly luminous. In large part this is because the fire has been optimized for long life and low fuel burn, in other words minimizing the need to stoke or dress the fire for an extended service time. This would be nifty for GPCS (it might require careful pyrometry and cellular-windbox modulation of primary steam, but it could be done) but is ridiculous on a locomotive. Even with a large grate permitting a thin fire, you're going to be getting into blacksmith-smelting temperatures if you try heavily drafting such a thing.
What is needed is a step toward pulverized-coal firing, where the lightoff and combustion are in a levitated plume and not 'down in a flameholding bed' or whatever. Sizing coal so that a relatively large volume of it would ignite and scrub off to smaller particle size in a bed, then preferentially levitate as extended luminous flame, offers much better removal of heat from the firebars and transfer of that heat production to where it can be radiantly coupled to water-heating surface.
There is still the issue that carbon particles that 'go out' in a reducing atmosphere, such as that characterizing a gas-producing furnace in the first place, may preferentially reignite as 'sparks' in the smokebox -- which causes problems if captured there -- or in the exhaust, where carbon particles can have an unpleasantly long 'burn time'. This has implications for how you fire with fuel of different particle size -- especially when the fuel is least-cost acquired from mines, perhaps company mines in that era, like some solid-fuel analogue of Bunker C.
Strangely I have come across no accounts of what it was like to have to fire with this stuff. Surely there are accounts, perhaps quite enchantingly worded, in sources like old Railroad Magazines that specifically mention how one shovels this kind of dirt-with-benefits for best effect ... perhaps in some of the fast express locomotives that ran effectively on this fuel.
Most of Delaware & Hudson's 2-8-0's were built as double-cabbers. Some of the later 2-8-0's were built with one cab but still had the Wooten firebox.
54light15 I did post something in the "old movies with trains" thread a while back about the John Ford movie, "The Long Grey Line" about West Point USMA and in that film is a camelback. It's the only one I've ever seen, so If you want to see one...
I did post something in the "old movies with trains" thread a while back about the John Ford movie, "The Long Grey Line" about West Point USMA and in that film is a camelback. It's the only one I've ever seen, so If you want to see one...
True. For the World War One era segment of the movie a steam engine was needed, but the problem was the West Shore Line (NYC) ran through West Point (still does) and the NYC had none available, so a Jersey Central Camelback was used. Most of the film crew had never seen one either!
Paul Milenkovic So these locomotives used slow-burning anthracite?
So these locomotives used slow-burning anthracite?
From what I remember from Withuhn's book on steam locomotives, the Camelback's were designed to burn anthracite culm - the large grate area was to limit the amount of small pieces of coal from being levitated off the grates and ultimately blown out the stack. Burning stove grade anthracite would have been too expensive.
Paul MilenkovicSo a Wooten firebox with a large grate and enormous combustion space could be efficient for bituminous coal, with the right kind of firebars and with dampers to restrict air when low burn rates are called for?
As I understand it yes, you could burn bituminous coal in a Wooten firebox (after proper modifications) but not the other way 'round.
In fact, toward the end of the steam era the CNJ was using bituminous coal in its Camelbacks, the lack of demand for anthracite in the post-war years caused that fuel source to dry up a bit. Same with the Reading and the other anthracite 'roads.
There still is a demand for anthracite, but it's nowhere near what it was.
Overmod charlie hebdo I think Trains ran a great feature article (and cover?) on the CNJ 4-6-0 years ago. They did -- early '70s, I think, with heavy coverage of the oh-so-nearly-saved 774, back then as famous a number to me as 759. I remember an account in that issue of someone wanting to photograph what turned out to be the last run: he set his alarm, and when it went off ... it was raining heavily outside...
charlie hebdo I think Trains ran a great feature article (and cover?) on the CNJ 4-6-0 years ago.
They did -- early '70s, I think, with heavy coverage of the oh-so-nearly-saved 774, back then as famous a number to me as 759.
I remember an account in that issue of someone wanting to photograph what turned out to be the last run: he set his alarm, and when it went off ... it was raining heavily outside...
Those were still great issues of trains.
Conventional wisdom is that a large grate allows a low pounds-of-coal per square foot of grate giving less "carbon carryover" out the exhaust at high power, but at low power, drifting or just standing, a large grate that needed to be covered with a large quantity of coal had high standby coal use?
I thought I read this in the downloadable scan of the Ralph Johnson of Baldwin book that later in the steam era people figured out that, OK, make the grate large, you can control the standby burning of coal by setting dampers to control the amount of air?
So a Wooten firebox with a large grate and enormous combustion space could be efficient for bituminous coal, with the right kind of firebars and with dampers to restrict air when low burn rates are called for?
Flintlock76This footage is something that should have some serious restoration work done, it's priceless!
If 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.
charlie hebdoI think Trains ran a great feature article (and cover?) on the CNJ 4-6-0 years ago.
Flintlock76 Yep, them's the ones. The CNJ one's in the B&O Museum in Baltimore, the DL&W one's in the Transportation Museum in St. Louis. The Reading one's in Strasburg at this time but I understand it's been sold to another organization. There could have been one more, a CNJ 4-6-0. At its retirement the CNJ offered to sell it to anyone interested, but there weren't any takers. As they'd already donated the 4-4-2 they figured that was enough and sold it for scrap. IF there'd been "Crowd Funding" back in those days it might have been a different story.
Yep, them's the ones.
The CNJ one's in the B&O Museum in Baltimore, the DL&W one's in the Transportation Museum in St. Louis. The Reading one's in Strasburg at this time but I understand it's been sold to another organization.
There could have been one more, a CNJ 4-6-0. At its retirement the CNJ offered to sell it to anyone interested, but there weren't any takers. As they'd already donated the 4-4-2 they figured that was enough and sold it for scrap.
IF there'd been "Crowd Funding" back in those days it might have been a different story.
I think Trains ran a great feature article (and cover?) on the CNJ 4-6-0 years ago.
pennytrains Edison/Biograph caught a few on the LV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4OVeXqSL1k
Edison/Biograph caught a few on the LV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4OVeXqSL1k
Thanks Becky!
Unless I miss my guess, the opening shots are at Elizabeth NJ, where the PRR crossed over the CNJ. I'm not sure if the CNJ tracks are still there, but the PRR trackage survives as Amtrak's Northeast Corridor.
This footage is something that should have some serious restoration work done, it's priceless!
seppburgh2Of the Camel Backs that remain are: DL&W 4-4-0, Reading 0-4-0, CNJ 4-4-2,
And aren't those the only ones, period, still in existence?
I can't speak to other 'roads and all circumstances, but on the CNJ it wouldn't be unusual to see a passenger Camelback pulling a local freight now and then.
Lithonia OperatorThey clearly had lots of drawbacks, but I love camelbacks; they are so unique. Real contraptions. Ungainly beasts. But posessing a certain beauty.
Well, they do look cool on a model train layout! I've got two O gauge versions, one CNJ and one NYO&W.
If the little guys in the cabs have any complaints they're not saying anything.
http://www.lionel.com/products/jersey-central-tmcc-4-6-0-camelback-772-6-28748/
Despite the drawbacks, the CNJ did get good service from their Camelbacks, especially the later production models. Powerful, peppy, with good pick-up and acceleration, they lasted in service up until 1954.
pennytrains I've also heard of locos similar to the Winans being used as "inspection" locomotives for railroad officials.
I've also heard of locos similar to the Winans being used as "inspection" locomotives for railroad officials.
Kinda-sorta. The inspection locomotives were typically built on 4-4-0 types, and looked like someone dropped a passenger car on one. The "gallerys," for lack of a better term, ran alongside the boiler and back to the cab.
Here's one that belonged to the Reading, a 4-4-2 in fact. Imagine the party you could throw in this thing!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspection_locomotive#/media/File:Inspection-locomotive.jpg
They clearly had lots of drawbacks, but I love camelbacks; they are so unique. Real contraptions. Ungainly beasts. But posessing a certain beauty.
I think no 6-drivered one was preserved, which is a damn shame.
UlrichFor some reason the "Camel" locomotive.. which had the cab mounted over top of the boiler (instead of straddling it) didn't catch on. According to Wikipedia B&O tried them as early as the 1840s. With the cab mounted over top the boiler I would think that some of the safety issues of the Camelbacks would have been avoided, and the crew would have had much better visibility as well.
With the coming of stack-train clearances, it would be possible, along with greatly increasing steam separation in a conventional cylindrical boiler, to provide clear-vision or wheelhouse cab design again. These might have the same trouble as the cabs on the large late Virginian and GN GE locomotives: every tunnel might make you want to duck reflexively and you might not become inured to that...
UlrichAccording to Wikipedia B&O tried them as early as the 1840s.
Right, those were the "Winans Camels." Long story short as far as locomotives go they were an evolutionary dead end for various reasons.
The B&O Museum tells the story:
http://www.borail.org/davis-camel.aspx
For some reason the "Camel" locomotive.. which had the cab mounted over top of the boiler (instead of straddling it) didn't catch on. According to Wikipedia B&O tried them as early as the 1840s. With the cab mounted over top the boiler I would think that some of the safety issues of the Camelbacks would have been avoided, and the crew would have had much better visibility as well.
Overmod I read an account recently of a train that ran 20 miles and passed two stations with "a corpse at the throttle"
There was an incident similar to that on the old New York, Ontario & Western. One of their camels ran past two stations where it was scheduled to stop, the fireman said to himself "What the hell..." and made his way to the engineer's cab. The engineer was gone! Luckily the fireman was able to stop at the next station and send word down the line about what happened.
Turns out (since this was during the summer) the engineer liked to ride sitting on the cab's window sill, and fell out! He was found pretty quickly, not badly injured.
Some of the issue with machinery failure was that it was a deadly risk that was not really present on conventionally-cabbed power -- and one that might manifest, unavoidably, at any moment.
A concern actually remarked on was that if the engineer became incapacitated, no one might know for miles. I read an account recently of a train that ran 20 miles and passed two stations with "a corpse at the throttle"
If you think a Camelback separates the crew, consider a Henderson quad or quint ... or something like the German cab-forward express engines of similar vintage. Those used a perfectly valid maritime solution in the years before telephony or wireless on locomotives: speaking tubes.
Boiler lagging would only partly relieve the issue of heat (although it prevented 'roasting' from intermittent contact). If you look up the issues of casing design in one of the Babcock & Wilcox books you will appreciate the issue when radiation from long-term thermal soak in the lagging cannot radiate effectively from the jacket surface. The temperature in a cab even with windows open can go surprisingly high -- it is no surprise that you find accounts of Mother Hubbards operated for considerable distances by engineers 'hiking out' of the cab window, even to the extent of straddling the sill. (As a fringe benefit that position cleared most of an engineer's body from the path of any incident rods or debris that might come flailing up, or many of the wooden-warship collateral damage from splinters that would follow )
Dangerous... or amusing (at least in long retrospect)... accidents could result from this -- EDIT: I see Wayne has quoted the exact instance of this I was thinking of!
BaltACDDeath by failed machienry on camel backs was the primary drawback.
It didn't happen very often, but it did happen.
Another major drawback of camels was the total lack of communication between the engineer and the fireman. Of the Northeastern 'roads the only anthracite hauler that didn't go in for camelbacks was the PRR. They purchased four just to try the concept out but didn't keep them long, they just didn't like the engineer and fireman being isolated from each other. The Pennsy sold them to the Long Island Railroad, who didn't like them either. What happened to them after that I don't know.
Camelbacks were never a popular locomotive for the crews who ran them.
The boilers on all steam locomotives have lagging along their length between the smoke box and the fire box. The lagging is insulation so that the boiler doesn't loose the heat of the heated water that is in the boiler - only a relatively small portion of the the contents of the boiler are steam at any point in time. Thus the engieers area of a camel back has the protection of the lagging from the heat of the boiler. The firman by contrast has to contend with the heat of the firebox and opening the firebox doors from time to time both the add coal as well as observe the status of the fire - the engineers position on conventional steam engines was likely hotter than their location on camel backs.
Death by failed machienry on camel backs was the primary drawback.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.