RME A midwestern road known for projectile speed had some B units with a very unusual configuration - if certain mice could run trains, these might not only have led but led quickly. What was the builder and model number, and the reason they were used as B units?
A midwestern road known for projectile speed had some B units with a very unusual configuration - if certain mice could run trains, these might not only have led but led quickly.
What was the builder and model number, and the reason they were used as B units?
Johnny
Deggesty RME A midwestern road known for projectile speed had some B units with a very unusual configuration - if certain mice could run trains, these might not only have led but led quickly. What was the builder and model number, and the reason they were used as B units? Projectiles? how about the Rockets of the Rock Island? However, I know nothing of distinctive locomotives, except for Christine.
Projectiles? how about the Rockets of the Rock Island? However, I know nothing of distinctive locomotives, except for Christine.
EMD AB6, 2 built for the Rocky Mountain Rocket to haul the Colorado Springs section by themselves while also being able to keep the streamlined look of the full train intact. Based on an E6B, when originally built they only had one engine and a baggage compartment where the second one would have been. A second engine was added later in life as after the Rocket's demise the pair migrated to Chicago commuter trains.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
The (in)famous 'Christine', ALCO DL-109 re-engined with 567s:
No, when I say B unit, that's exactly what I mean: a unit that cannot lead a consist. An AB6 is the antithesis of that! And most of the Christines (remember ATSF had some, including one ultimately famous cab; did NYC use the name for theirs?) were either orthodox A or B units -- not something 'diferente'.
Yeah but-What about this?
"Here's a two-parter:
A fairly well-known railroad experimented with a system that was supposed to improve steam locomotive efficiency. During the early years of WWII upward of 80 locomotives were equipped with it, but to my knowledge no other railroads used it, although a very similar approach using different equipment was well established. What was it, and how was it done?
Meanwhile, the same road was known for a decidedly interesting way to implement the idea of a coal pusher without sliding elements that could damage the coal; the only thing I know roughly comparable to it was a system applied to certain locomotives in England when coal pushers couldn't be made to work.
What was the approach and the railroad involved here? Extra points for describing the English system..."
Inquiring minds need to know.
Yeah, what about it ... well, then.
Both of them came from the B&O, although not at the same time, and the first device was NOT compatible with the second.
The 80-plus installations concerned a method of locomotive firing which promised great advantage -- great advantage that was, in fact, seen with other than coal fuel. Remember that not only was it tried, but applied, during wartime, to a comparatively large number of locomotives -- which would seem to indicate it actually worked as designed for some time. I suspect that wartime security may account for the almost total absence of picture documentation -- to say nothing of technical Web description -- of the arrangement.
The 'coal-pushing" arrangement was far less sophisticated, and had some frankly showstopping problems. But it has a certain robust charm all its own..
Ok thanks for that RME...c'mon guys lets get these solved.
I have tried but struck out. Up to my neck in final exams, a huge Field School and grad ceremonies plus our Director "left" the position...today!...Ill be free as a bird June 24th and the upcoming summer.
I don't know that CP did it any differently, but Southern Pacific used steam jets for oil firing to spread the fire around. Did someone create a steam "coal shooter" to stoke evenly?
rcdrye Southern Pacific used steam jets for oil firing to spread the fire around. Did someone create a steam "coal shooter" to stoke evenly?
You are almost 90 degrees at right angles to figuring out the answer.
Most coal stokers used steam jets, sometimes an intricate system of different-size nozzles on two levels, to 'stoke evenly'. In fact, the only successful mechanical-distribution systems I can think of for locomotive practice in the era of concern (late '30s to the end of WWII) would be the Elvin and Detroit Stoker 'flinger' systems, and the chain-grate approach that would be used on the N&W M2 Automatics and then the TE1.
(You don't use compressed air for a variety of reasons, which I won't go into here...)
The actual use of the steam jets in most oil-firing practice was to levitate and preheat the oil, and atomize it for good primary and then secondary combustion. (The actual plume characteristics were largely the result of the induced draft.) A good rule of thumb was to adjust the pattern and force of the jets so that the ignited luminous flame (e.g., carbon-rich) filled the radiant sections of firebox and chamber as fully as possible with minimal impingement on cold walls and structure -- and, associated with this, would "just" complete combustion by the time the plume reached the rear tubeplate (after which actual combustion heat release was nominal to zero in little more than a few inches). In practice, one or the other of these was compromised at a given firing level. And compromise, in this connection, either means too little heat release or too much sooting.
Now, one VERY important consideration is to increase the effective plume length, as this gives longer time for combustion to go to completion even at comparatively high induced gas speed. I encourage you very, very strongly to consider how the Canadians, among others, arranged this with oil firing, and then what a similar optimization for coal firing might involve...
"No, when I say B unit, that's exactly what I mean: a unit that cannot lead a consist. "- RME
A while ago on the forum a picture was posted of a Pennsy GP7 B leading a train at speed on the mainline. Quite a stunning picture .I think it was posted by Overmod.
I replied that I would try it out on the guys at an NTrak meet to see their reaction. Have 2 of them, one in brass and one kitbashed.
There was a train number and location given, along with a promise of how this came about, the reason why, ...definitely got the impression it was a semi-regular practice. There was a vague promise of further explanation but then Overmod just disappeared. It was definitely on the Classic Forum.
That was my son posting using my former account.
Fun, wasn't it? I think the Trenton local, in the PC era at least, regularly went out of Morrisville with a GP9B "leading" like that ... on the same main with 100mph Metroliners.
But when I say "lead" I mean control. My understanding is that the hostling controls in a GP9B are not capable of full control of a consist - in the picture, it is likely being controlled from a unit with a full cab. Think a road switcher with a very long articulated long hood...
Always had the thought that Overmod and RME could be the same person, so I'm close! Not quite in that instance , but in the ballpark.
Yes it is funny with the GP B unit in front. A bit terrifying but funny.
Maybe the future of railroading?...Uber & Drone Railroad!
RME I think the Trenton local, in the PC era at least, regularly went out of Morrisville with a GP9B "leading" like that ... on the same main with 100mph Metroliners.
That practice lasted into Conrail. I saw a GP9B leading the local out of Mo'ville quite a few times in the late '70s.
Thank You.
NDG- Very informative on how that all comes about and works. Great information.
It is so much easier to have someone who actually did these things relate them this way than read it in some rule book.
NDGNow, a True B-Unit as in Cab Unit, probably would NOT have a pilot nor footboards on either end, and there would be a hazard running that way if you hit a rock or deep snow. No Bell, but small horn w/valve by Hostler's Control, Plug in headlamp on bracket, maybe?
Here is one of the things about the GP9B (and ATSF's GP7Bs): they have the end platforms, footboards, and headlights of 'normal' Geeps; only the cab and its associated paraphernalia is "missing".
I do not think EMD consciously intended that a hood B-unit be capable of 'leading' in a road consist, and that it is likely 'circumstantial' (as an economy of production) that they have the footboarding and road lights -- but, as NDG has noted, for long 'backing' moves those things are an advantage, and there is also the interesting possibility of a B-unit Geep coupled to the cab end of a nominally long-hood-forward GP9, giving the moral equivalent of one of those centercab transfer switchers beloved of some first-generation-dieselizing roads without some of their usual drawbacks...
A number of roads had "headlights" on their covered-wagon B units, some of them of full reflectored road size instead of a single sealed beam or equivalent. I don't know anything about why this was done, or whether it involved operations or just something like hostling safety. That does not get around the safety implications of no pilot or footboards ... although I shudder at the idea of someone having to ride footboards on a B unit, giving hand signals 'around the corner' to someone leaning backward out of a cab with their eyes off the controls behind them and quite possibly with their hands not conveniently reaching them either. Much better to do it as NDG indicated, as if controlling a passenger consist backing move with a monkey tail.
(But doesn't it presume that the covered-wagon B unit itself has been turned so that the 'horn' end is trailing? Otherwise the 'hostling' trainman wouldn't have a much better view of the things in front of the train, out his little window, than the enginemen would...)
A lot of railroads just omitted hostler controls on their B-units. Soo Line (WC)'s four freight A-B-A F3/F7 sets 2200A/C/B to 2203A/C/B (B-units were "C") had a spare B-Unit 2204-C which was the only one of the five freight B-units with hostler controls. None of the six passenger B-units had them.
Maybe we should move back to the String Lining thread if we continue along with these items?
Great stuff by the way NDG.
Been a while now and no one seems to know what the answer is to the original question with the war time equipped locomotive firing and the showstopping coal pushing arrangement with the robust charm!
Plus we still have the three blind mice hurling down the track at projectile speed somewhere in the mid-west, in a B unit nontheless! Searching for a builder, model number and a reason!
Confused? Don't be.
I can never tell the difference between an ALCO DL-109, and a Baldwin "Baby Face".
BLS53 I can never tell the difference between an ALCO DL-109, and a Baldwin "Baby Face".
CSSHEGEWISCH- The links do not seem to work.
BLS53- Really? A DL109 has a very distinctive knife point nose whereas the Baldwin baby face is very rounded. The carbody as viewed from the sides are vastly different as is the roofline. Plus the windows are altogether different.
Miningman CSSHEGEWISCH- The links do not seem to work. BLS53- Really? A DL109 has a very distinctive knife point nose whereas the Baldwin baby face is very rounded. The carbody as viewed from the sides are vastly different as is the roofline. Plus the windows are altogether different.
I never saw either one, but I did see many pictures of both, and, as Miningman wrote, there was quite a difference between the two.
CSSHEGEWISCH DL-109 http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/show/Picture.aspx?id=135780 "Baby Face" http://www.rrpicturearcihves.net/show/Picture.aspx?id=4552909
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=135780
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4552909
MiningmanBeen a while now and no one seems to know what the answer is to the original question with the war time equipped locomotive firing and the showstopping coal pushing arrangement with the robust charm! Plus we still have the three blind mice hurling down the track at projectile speed somewhere in the mid-west, in a B unit nonetheless! Searching for a builder, model number and a reason!
The "coal-moving" arrangement resembled a model railroader's answer for how to move coal to the front of the tender without touching the coal.
The firing arrangements, on the B&O, resembled a stoker ... in a somewhat unusual place. Railroaders familiar with some forms of Canadian oil firing will know where that place is. Astute readers will then know what kind of stoker was the design basis...
In case you were wondering, there's a sort of elaborate analogy between the 'projectile' name for which the railroad was known, and the characteristics of the mouse in question, who was known for extreme, extreme speed. Something about the mouse is also the reason for the B-unit status.
I vaguely remember a "Speedy Gonzales Cannonball Meteor Zephyr-Rocket".
You now have all the pieces you need for the answer, but I will give you one more, senor: Alco.
Please keep going on the coal questions; I'll give you a book reference with them if you don't get stoked enough.
Yes, Really. Or I wouldn't have made the statement. Is knowing the difference between two obscure locomotives, that have been extinct for half a century, a prerequisite for being a railfan in your world?
Of course not ..visually they are fairly distinctive. Perhaps years of model railroading gives a person a nice 3D reference.
In any case I posted a couple of pics for you.
Sadly none of either locomotive were preserved.
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