100% correct all three. Regarding the particular tunnel with restricted clearanes, it is the "Nassau Cbefore ut" tunnel south of Broad Street station to the Motague Street tunnel still having revenue service with the R full time and the N late nights. The M was the last refenue servie to the this tunnel before it was rerouted to Queens, Forest Hills via 6th Avenue. The tunnel had been regularly used by Culver trains, and before 1967 by West End Locals in one direciton during rush hours. Before 1967 and the Christie Street connection, the south traks on the Manhattan Bridge went to Chambers Street and the Nassau Street line, so high-roof elevated cars could get to Coney Island via the Manhattan Bridge without goiing through the Cut tunnel with tis restricted overhead clearnce. Now those Manhattan Bridge tracks connect to Broadway (N and Q), the north tracks now to Houston Street and 6th Avenue (B and D).
Your question, please.
Nearly all the speling mistakes in the preceding post were introduced in transmission, not in my writing. The moderator is at fault for not permtting me the edit button.
It's been said 'there's a prototype for everything'. One thing that often causes model train people agony is to see a steam locomotive positioned for auction pictures with the tender backward. But there is at least one case of a modern engine actually made that way -- what is the engine, and the details behind having the tender backward?
[Note: extra credit for explaining much earlier photographic evidence of tenders with fuel bunker trailing...]
Overmod:
I believe you are looking for the Southern Pacific's cab forwards. They burned oil. The original premise was to have the engine crew ahead of the smoke, etc. in the various tunnels. If my memory serves me correctly they were Class AC. I have never seen other railroads using that type of arrangement.
Ed Burns
SP cab-forwards, and just about any other oil-fired engine I could name, operated with the tender bunker-first, against the locomotive, just as conventional locomotives did. They piped the oil forward to the firebox, but that's not what I'm looking for.
The tender in question was intentionally coupled cistern-first to the locomotive, with the bunker at the after end. (If it helps, the locomotive was conventional.)
I seem to remember Northwestern Steel and Wire had an ex-GTW 0-8-0 used in-plant at Sterling IL that was experimentally converted to oil. The oil bunker on the Vanderbilt tender used wouldn't fit under the cab roof, so they simply turned the tender around. I don't think the experiment lasted long, and NWS&W's coal-burning steam operations ended in 1980. It might have been one of Trains Magazines "Would You Believe It" series.
I'll give it to you. #28, with ex-KCS tender.
It looks like I was wrong about the Vanderbilt. The tender on 28 in the photos I could find this morning looks like a normal rectangular tank, but with a couple of tanks on top that look like residential/commercial oil tanks. Couldn't find a view from the back.
If you were wrong, I was wrong too -- I remember the reference I used mentioning the Vanderbilt arrangement. A back-check would be to look at KCS engines to see which classes in fact had those tenders.
Since we're talking about SP, I might as well ask a question or two, and see what your answers are:
First, where did SP #8799 reside before it was scrapped after it's service, and what was it used for?
Second, what kind of locomotive is 8799? Were there more than one of the type?
However...you have to answer a question correctly before you can ask one...so this does not count.
I can't find a picture of them together, but there's a photo out there of KCS 479's tender at NWS&W - a compact Vanderbilt from a medium sized 2-8-0.
I'll post a new question tomorrow morning at the latest. In the meantime....
SP MW8799 (The MW comes from Maintenance of Way, and indicates non-revenue use) was buit as SP9010 by Germany's Krauss-Maffei, one of 15 K-M diesel-hydraulic hood units and 6 cabs (3 originally D&RGW), later renumbered to 9113. After retirement as an active locomotive it was rebuilt in 1969 to an unpowered (but cab-equipped) camera car for SP's pioneer Simulator Training Program. Numbered MW1166, it was almost immediately renumbered to MW8799.
After it was retired (1984) it was stored (1986) at the California State Railroad Museum. Owned by the Pacific Coast Locomotive Assn. since 2008, it has been restored to its original 1964 appearance. It is occasionally operated as an NPCU, or cab unit, since it is still unpowered, though PCLA does have a K-M engine, transmission and truck set it hopes to restore (the locomotive originally had two).
Check to be sure, but I believe the K-M has successfully operated under its own power!
Overmod Check to be sure, but I believe the K-M has successfully operated under its own power!
Correct! Still only one engine. I have seen rumors that they're shopping for a second. The engines are fairly easy to come by, as they were used all over Europe in rail and non-rail (marine, stationary) applications. The transmission is likely to be a little more trouble, as it was different from the ones used in production series in Germany.
The K-M hydraulics were really pretty successful, despite a service life of less than 10 years. The game changer for SP was the SD45, which SP started getting in quantity in 1966, ending up with over 350 by 1970. With the same effective horsepower rating as the K-Ms with a single, standard EMD engine (albeit a 20-cylinder) the SD45 didn't require the same wheel wear control a diesel-hydraulic required. Alco's DH643 had the same dual-engine design as the K-Ms, with similar high maintenance requirements. SP did own a fair number of C628 and C630 models from Alco, so the engine wasn't an issue.
Now that is something that is not from the web, that looks pure to me, you pass this. Good job!
This is directly from the web, unless this isn't copied and pasted, this is not a pass, it needs to be from memory.
You have passed the question.
On to the past!
The most common steam wheel arrangement for freight service was the 2-8-0 "Consolidation". The first one of the type was so named to honor the merger that created the Lehigh Valley system. The engine itself was delivered by Baldwin to the new Lehigh Valley Railroad with elegant lettering for one of the roads that merged into the LV. Name the railroad Consolidation was lettered for.
Alright, I guess i'll answer the railroad question, I believe the most common wheel arrangement for freight services with steam engines were nicknamed "Consolidations", and the arrangement was 2-8-0.
Well, this might have been because the Lehigh and Mahanoy BUILT Consolidation.
I am having trouble finding a photograph with the actual elegant lettering. The ones I have all show the locomotive but not its tender, which is upsetting for a different reason; I'd like to see if the tender trucks are Ohio pattern or some other interesting architecture...
OvermodWell, this might have been because the Lehigh and Mahanoy BUILT Consolidation
Baldwin built it at L&M's master mechanic Alexander Mitchell's urging with works number 1500. Of course, the suggestion (by Mitchell) that the Grant works was ready to build it instead pushed Baldwin to accept the order. It was ordered by L&M and delivered to LV in August 1866. One of the most expensive engines ever at the time, the cost for similar engines dropped rapidly enough for 2-8-0s to become the heavy freight engine of choice. The most common heavy freight engine prior to Consolidation was the 0-8-0, which was prone to derailment and was very hard on track, keeping speeds very low. Consolidation was the only 2-8-0 on LV's roster until 1871.
https://archive.org/stream/historybaldwinlo00baldiala#page/62/mode/2up
The only photo I have seen with the tender is on page 429 of John H. White's "A History of the American Locomotive - Its Development 1830-1890". The preview on Amazon skips page 429... There is a drawing of the tender on pg. 436 (which is in the preview) that shows the trucks, but not the lettering.
Mr. Overmod, I believe you are up!
Everyone is familiar with the Vanderbilt tender, but what other application of its general principle to railroading did that young engineer develop?
A cylindrical tank car for the transport of oil. Also a new type of firebox on the locomotives that was corrugated and improved efficiency greatly.
Right, and right.
Can you provide a bit more on the firebox ... including the similarity to the tender design ... and why it did not catch on as anticipated?
I believe it improved the rigidity of the firebox right up to the bottom of the sides and may have allowed for increased depth. This allowed for less reliance on the stay bolts.
It also makes sense that it provides more even and efficient heat disrubution.
I know that further improvements to the corrugated designs over the years were made. Perhaps by the time it became a superior way to go and of advantage steam was being phased out on the railroads. I believe the corrugated firebox is still manufactured and offered in modern day boilers.
I'm not a mechanical or power engineer so maybe these are primitive explanations...there is also the possibilty/comparison that I can draw on from Mining methods...many places still mine 'bottom up', instead of the far superior and easier 'top down' simply because that it is the way it was always done.
Something along those lines 'this is what we know and are comfortable with'.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter