A couple of times during the 20th Century locomotive deals with the Russian's fell through. During WW I times deals that had been negotiated with the Czar's government failed with the Russian Revolution and the resulting changes. Then some deals after WW II were broken because of Stalin's actions on the political/military front.
In the first case the Western Maryland (and other roads) were able to get engines that had been ordered and never delivered. In the Stalin era we ended up the the 'Little Joe' electrics that went to multiple carriers.
Now the question - Since Russia's railroads are constructed to a 5 foot gauge, and Standard gauge is 4' 8.5" - How were the modifications made to permit usage in the US? Were the wheels just moved the 3.5 inches total (1.75 inches per side) to accomidate the change of gauge?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD A couple of times during the 20th Century locomotive deals with the Russian's fell through. During WW I times deals that had been negotiated with the Czar's government failed with the Russian Revolution and the resulting changes. Then some deals after WW II were broken because of Stalin's actions on the political/military front. In the first case the Western Maryland (and other roads) were able to get engines that had been ordered and never delivered. In the Stalin era we ended up the the 'Little Joe' electrics that went to multiple carriers. Now the question - Since Russia's railroads are constructed to a 5 foot gauge, and Standard gauge is 4' 8.5" - How were the modifications made to permit usage in the US? Were the wheels just moved the 3.5 inches total (1.75 inches per side) to accomidate the change of gauge?
The WW1 steam engines were given wide tires to move the flanges closer together. This arrangement is still visible on IRM's 1630, a Frisco Russian Decapod. This arrangement doesn't work well with self guarded frogs!
BaltACDNow the question - Since Russia's railroads are constructed to a 5 foot gauge, and Standard gauge is 4' 8.5" - How were the modifications made to permit usage in the US? Were the wheels just moved the 3.5 inches total (1.75 inches per side) to accommodate the change of gauge?
Well, the brake gear had to be moved, too...
It's easy going in the direction of narrower gauge. If you're moving the wheels, the axles have to be designed so that they have 'seats' for the wheel hubs in the new position. There may be problems with inside-bearing wheelsets and drivers here, if the frame or axleboxes are designed to put hub liners right on the wheel centers at the wider gauge. There may also have to be some redesign of the offset of the eccentric cranks of the valve gear, and spacers for the main rods where they bear on the pins, as the lateral distance between cylinder centers doesn't change when the gauge does.
Alternatively, you can just move the tires on a wide rim - this is good, for example, if you're only doing a bit over an inch per side, and I think this is what was done on at least some of the Russian Decapods.
At least one locomotive was designed with 'umbrella-dished' drivers so that by reversing the wheel a change of gauge could be achieved with existing driver castings but no change to either the axles or the tires. (I don't have my copy of the Encyclopedia of World Railway Locomotives handy, but it was discussed there and I believe a picture of the driver center involved was provided.)
(Going the other way is more of an issue for outside-frame trucks, less so for inside bearings...)
This is FASCINATING! More to it than just sweating on different tires.
One DOES learn something new almost every day @ "Trains".
Thank You.
Per Buslist's comment, the Russian Decapods owned by the Erie and the Susquehanna had a habit of "tripping" their big feet on switches, but for all that the "Bolsheviks," as the Erie men called them, were pretty popular locomotives with the men who ran them.
RME At least one locomotive was designed with 'umbrella-dished' drivers so that by reversing the wheel a change of gauge could be achieved with existing driver castings but no change to either the axles or the tires. (I don't have my copy of the Encyclopedia of World Railway Locomotives handy, but it was discussed there and I believe a picture of the driver center involved was provided.) (Going the other way is more of an issue for outside-frame trucks, less so for inside bearings...)
All the modern steam locomotives of the South Australian Railways had offset driving wheel centres of the pattern described, for use on 5' 3" and 4' 8-1/2" gauges.
These were introduced in 1926 on thirty locomotives (10 each Mountain, Pacific and Mikado) built by Armstrong Whitworth. All subsequent steam locomotives except for 3'6" gauge Garratts had this arrangement.
None were ever converted, but 10 Mikados built to the 1926 design were completed to standard gauge for the Commonwealth Railways in 1951.
There may have been other uses. The Japanese built locomotives for use on both standard and 5' 0" gauge in Manchuria in 1936 that may have used that arrangement.
M636C
https://youtu.be/-q39OEODpsA
If you haven't seen it here's IRM's Frisco Russian regaged with nothing more than wide tires. She is taking a 135 car coal train off the property last Memorial Day weekend. Not bad for a 98 year old girl. Note that IRM's volunteer engineer can get that train moving with no slips
I've seen that video, and it's pretty impressive. Granted those coal cars are empty, and they're modern cars equipped with roller bearings, but being able to move 135 of them as well as it did shows just how good those "Bolsheviks" were.
Pretty good engine handling too on the part of the engineer.
Doesn't an engine of that size have a stoker? The engineer was good but the fireman? Blower on the whole time, no coal to the back corners of the firebox.
tdmidgetDoesn't an engine of that size have a stoker? The engineer was good but the fireman? Blower on the whole time, no coal to the back corners of the firebox.
I believe the Russian decapods were constructed before the requirement of having stokers for grate area above a certain square footage - and I don't know if the decapods exceeded that square footage or not. As cash strapped as the Russian's were when the engines were ordered, I doubt they would have ordered the 'extra cost' option of a stoker.
To my knowledge none of the Russian decapods got stokers, either the export ones or the ones that stayed here.
Our MOT in St. Louis also has a Frisco engine that was built for the Russians, but never delivered because of the revolution. I've never seen it move, don't know if it ever did years ago, but it sits on display now. Enjoyed the above video of the one at IRM, hope to get there one of these days.
The Minneapolis Northfield and Southern Ry. got some Russian Decapods after WW1. A lot of people may not realize that the US built these engines again during WW2, this time for the USSR. One of the engines was damaged (fell from a crane I believe) in 1945 and was sent back to the builder for repairs. By the time the engine was ready to go, the war had ended and the US blocked it's being sent to the Soviet Union...so the MN&S bought that one too, so I guess they had both "Russian" Decapods and "Soviet" ones too!
wjstix The Minneapolis Northfield and Southern Ry. got some Russian Decapods after WW1. A lot of people may not realize that the US built these engines again during WW2, this time for the USSR. One of the engines was damaged (fell from a crane I believe) in 1945 and was sent back to the builder for repairs. By the time the engine was ready to go, the war had ended and the US blocked it's being sent to the Soviet Union...so the MN&S bought that one too, so I guess they had both "Russian" Decapods and "Soviet" ones too!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.