I am wondering if the Venturi effect played a role in this system but that's just a SWAG on my part. The steam pressure at the constricted section of the Venturi would vary as the volume of steam admitted by the throttle is increased or decreased. This pressure variance might be used to rotate a spring loaded cam which in turn would vary the cutoff.
Mark
daveklepperOK, but there is a way of mechanically accomplishing the same thing, the way a mechanical speed governor works.
This is true... but how more elegant would it be to allow the characteristics of the steam to do the cutoff automatically That is what this system does. There is no governor, no fiddly little bits and springs (as with Corliss valves) to get deranged or shot away. Just a forward and reverse air servo...
... the heart of the innovation being how the cutoff effect is done, effectively, without explicit mechanical control -- feedback or otherwise --
Another hint: there are cams involved. Of a very particular profile.
OK, but there is a way of mechanically accomplishing the same thing, the way a mechanical speed governor works. Off one of the axles is geared a spinning horizontal pair of wheel, stacked vertically, with four springs connecting their rims. Half-way up each spring is a weight. The faster the wheels sping, the further out the weights make their orbit because of cetripacle force. In thd center of the top wheel is an air injection nozle and at the perifery an exhaust opening, the whole thing arranged so that the rotating weights effectively act as a throttle on the air-stream from the injector to the exhaust . There may be other possibilities for pure mechanical, non-electrical, speed control of device, but that is one.
daveklepper The cutoff could have been controlled electrically from a speedometer.
The cutoff could have been controlled electrically from a speedometer.
It could. That is not much more complicated than the system used for reversing the Algerian Garratts with Cossart OC-and-drop-valve gear. On the other hand, why go to all the trouble of assuring control and power circuits on the locomotive, worry about what happens if the motor controlling the reverser goes out, etc.
As another hint: the only cab control was a switch from forward to reverse. I had thought there would be a lockable neutral position, but apparently there is not. All the work is done using brake air, and the control valves are standard items as found in automobile lifts (!!). There is no modulation in the control at all -- it is full forward, or full reverse, and (hint) there is no mechanical linkage at all controlling the cutoff functionality.
It's not a linkage at all, in the sense you mean. That is part of the point of the 'modification' in question.
The "cutoff" is accomplished by wiredrawing the steam at higher cyclic rpm, which is thermodynamically 'not preferred' but which provides the necessary automatic flexibility. But it is the device that accomplishes this -- or, perhaps more appropriately, the system that accomplishes this -- that is the subject of the question...
As another hint, the modification has its own U.S. patent.
I think I answered the question correctly in general terms, and ask you to go into more detail on how the linkage between throtle-load-and cutoff was done.
There are lots of cases where one-man operation could be accomplished -- but they are all what I think you'd consider 'lightly loaded' in that the usual sort of continuous stoking and fire maintenance will not be happening. There are times when a stoker-fired engine (or an oil-fired one) can be adjusted so that long distances can be run without required 'fiddling' -- but it's difficult to predict when this nice situation can be achieved, and certainly isn't something you could depend on for actual, safe railroad running.
The locomotive in question was NOT intended for single-man firing... just operation by soldiers who were not experienced in driving steam locomotives. You do something simple to go forward, and the locomotive does the rest, just like a Jeep with vacuum advance on the distributor...
... although this engine does something quite different for its cutoff control than adjust a mechanical valve-drive linkage...
daveklepper I don't understand how a hand-fired coal-burning steam locomotive can be operated by one man, except when lightly loaded.
I don't understand how a hand-fired coal-burning steam locomotive can be operated by one man, except when lightly loaded.
In a large limestone quarry near my boyhood home 0-4-0 tank engines operated by one man hauled 10-12 small car trains of stone from the working face of the quarry to the foot of an inclined plane where the cars were hauled out of the pit to a ground level rock crusher.
daveklepper So they took a standard War Dartment 2-8-0 and modified with throttle control of cut-off, automatic control of stoker with themal sensing in the firebox, automatic water filtering and injection, timing for grate shaking, etc. But it was the success of the modified Alco RS-1 in Iran that terminated the program, and the Army Transportation Corps decided it was easier to train a serviceman to run a diesel.
So they took a standard War Dartment 2-8-0 and modified with throttle control of cut-off, automatic control of stoker with themal sensing in the firebox, automatic water filtering and injection, timing for grate shaking, etc. But it was the success of the modified Alco RS-1 in Iran that terminated the program, and the Army Transportation Corps decided it was easier to train a serviceman to run a diesel.
Here’s a video of a trainload of tanks for Russia in 1944. I think the officer christening the Alco diesel is Lt. Col. Frank S. Besson, Jr., who became a 4-star general and a director of Amtrak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq_HbiFtLEE
http://www.transportation.army.mil/museum/transportation%20museum/generalbesson.htm
Interestingly enough, much of that could have been done. Throttle (or more accurately, back-pressure) control of cutoff was successfully demonstrated shortly after WW1, and most of the other 'required' automation was being undertaken by N&W, for the M-2 Automatics, at just this time.
But this was an ordinary hand-fired engine, without fancy water treatment (where would you get the dose cakes on a battlefield?), and made as simple and maintenance-free as possible. (I have not yet confirmed that the engine could be worked at full power with the valve drive on one side damaged, but there is no objective reason why it could not have been). The easy-to-drive technology extended only to the valve gear, eliminating the need to coordinate cutoff with throttle in the usual way...
That's a good guess, too -- but think the opposite. This was a locomotive designed to be operated, in a pinch, by servicemen who had no idea what was involved in actually driving a modern steam locomotive. In other words, what was wanted was something that would burn available fuel and run on available water (rather than needing complex liquid fuel like a diesel) -- but that would only require a throttle and brake for operation. As with a modern automobile or truck with automatic spark advance... why tinker with cutoff when you can regulate it automatically...
Could they have taken a war-baby 2-10-0, 2-8-2, or 2,8-0, all built for the Army to be used on foreign railroads, mostly European, and modified to have all modern accessories, automtic operation of many for one=man operation, and perhaps even condensing to re=use spent steam as water, to try to sell it to overseas railroads?
Interesting guess, but no. This locomotive was intended to do far more, and go far more places under minimum maintenance conditions --- and be operated in emergency conditions by less knowledgeable crewing --- than her (rather numerous) unmodified sisters.
I suspect they converted a regula 0-6-0 switcher to a fireless cooker ot use steam from one or any of their inplant boilers. The tender would be unnecessary, and the valves and fittings for incoming steam would be in the firebox location. Valve gear, throttle, cylinders would remain as found.
Keeping things in the Wilkes-Barre area, but moving to more real steam than the WB&N:
Vulcan Iron Works did a special project in the very late '40s which I'd have expected to have come from Baltimore instead. This involved an interesting simplification of steam-locomotive operation.
What was the project, and to what locomotive was it applied? Bonus points if you can describe exactly how it did its business...
YES AND THE NEXT QUESTION IS YOURS
I was thinking HArvey's Lake for a bit, but the answer you want is HAnover -- one end at that wretched Sans Souci park?
Mr. Klepper -- were you the railfan riding on the outside of the last Nanticoke car in October 1950?
You are correct about the Laural Line, the Lackawanna and Wyoming Valley Railroad, officially. Third rail except trackage in Willkbarre and the South Scranton (freight0 and Nay Aug Park branches. Part of the line has been restored as a trolley wire museum operation.
And the interurban-like line of Wilkbarre Railways was indeed the Nanicoke Line. To complete the answer, what was the shuttle that connected with it and did not run downtown? A very rural one-car shuttle.
Hint, the Nanicoke cars carried a big "N" sign, at the front right of the dash, much like Third Avenue Transit in New York with the "B" for Broadway-42md St., "X" for most crosstowns, "T" for the Third and Amsterdam Avenues. The shutle was "HA."
This is covered in Harold E. Fox's book, isn't it? (Would you believe a .pdf download of the whole thing?)
Gotta be the line to Nanticoke, and the Laurel Line (isn't the north end now the Electric City Trolley Museum?)
Picture of the carbarn is at this location
(The picture appears to be divided into a large number of little individual GIFs and can't be conveniently pasted into a reference...)
Now my question. After trackless trolleys replaced nearly all of Willksbarre's local streetcars and buses the longer suburban runs, two trolley lines continiued for many years more. One could have been considered an interurban but ran with streetcar equipment, and the other was distguished by not running downtown, running as a shuttle-operated branch, like Capitol Transit's Branchville-Beltsville shuttle. I last rode the two remaining lines in the summer of 1950. Name and describe them. And where was the carbarn located? At the time Willksbarre was still served by f ast and frequent interurban trains to Scranton, but even though the same guage and voltage, no track connection was seen between the two systems.
Beltsville is between Branchville and Laurel. In a nice little video from the National Capital Trolley museum you can see the continuation path from loop at the end of the line (Video from 1957 or 1958). I did find a photo of a Beltsville car (signed for Branchville) but no route number is visible.
On the WB&A articulated cars the plow hanger was on the smoker section (rear if restroom was forward). The switch arrangment at the DC terminal loop made it almost impossible to get enough speed up to make the turn onto New York Avenue for the trip out of town if the smoker was leading. Unlike many 1200V cars, the WB&A cars were not set up to allow for 600V operation and ran at half voltage on Capital Transit tracks. An interesting footnote is that none of the switches on New York Avenue were power operated, to prevent accidental throwing by multi-car WB&A trains.
IThe restroom forward operatioin probably had something to do with the locstion of the conduit pickup plough and the automtic "coast-straight, power-curve" operation of motorman operated switches. With the local streetcars, this was less critical, because they were much shorter. In general, three-truck articulated cars were used in the Washington service and double truck conventional cars in the Annapolis service.
The Capitol Transit line I was looking for was the Branchville-Beltsville shuttle. I am uncertain if it had a route number, but it would be something like 79 if it had one. I was told it formerly ran as far as Busselton and connected wiith Baltimore Transit there..
Since we're on Washingon and Baltimore... The WB&A's articulated cars were almost always operated with the restroom end forward on Baltimore-Washington trips. On Annapolis trips they operated in either direction since they couldn't be turned at either Annapolis station. What made the operating direction to Washington so important?
The line I rode in 1947 was a shuttle north from Branchville that used one double=emd car. So if the line to Laural was truncated to Brabchville, this must have been another line. I was told it connected, at one time, with the Baltimore system at Busselton.
daveklepper Are you certain you have the Batlimore system at its maximum size?
Are you certain you have the Batlimore system at its maximum size?
I looked at maps from the teens and the thirties. I know the Washington Berwyn and Laurel was truncated to Branchville in the 1930s.
The nearest electric line I know of to Laurel was the WB&A Fort Meade line which met the B&O at Annapolis Jct. United Ry and Electric did get to Baltimore Highlands, about 10 miles or so from Laurel.
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