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...
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?
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.
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..
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.
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'.
The (in)famous 'Christine', ALCO DL-109 re-engined with 567s:
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
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.
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?
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.
Johnny
That's what I was looking for. The Erie main line from Hammond to Marion Ohio was built by the Chicago & Atlantic (formed as but never operated as the Chicago, Continental & Baltimore). Reorganized as the Chicago and Erie in 1890, purchased by the Erie in 1895 but not merged until 1941. C&A bought into the Chicago and Western Indiana to get access to Dearborn Station. Between State Line (Hammond) and Griffith Ind. the C&E and later Erie shared track with the C&O of Indiana.
Why not the Chicago & Atlantic/Chicago & Erie (two non-Pacific names for the same money!) which started at Hammond (but never went west of that) and was consoldidated with the Erie in 1941?
The railroad name had "Chicago" in it. I already gave that it started at the Indiana line. If it helps, the name under which the line is best known is quite short. The company shell lasted until 1945 or so, but the line was under lease before the turn of the 20th century.
Gulf, Mobile and Northern?
Except that the CRI&G didn't actually leave Chicago, running only from Fort Worth to Dallas Texas. The line I'm looking for actually started at the Indiana Line, if that doesn't give it away...
rcdryeThis Railway's name included the name of its eventual purchaser. Before that, it was one of the few leaving Chicago whose name included a body of water that was NOT the Pacific.
Seeing as we were in a 'Rock Island state of mind' ... wouldn't the question. as written, technically include the Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf?
This Railway's name included the name of its eventual purchaser. Before that, it was one of the few leaving Chicago whose name included a body of water that was NOT the Pacific.
The Rock Island "as the only road to have an all steel track" is amazing.
That dispells a lot of myths about the "also ran" "late to the party" somewhat considered bumpkin and backward road. Also considered responsible for steel rail rolling in Chicagoland..wow thats huge.
Long live the Rock at least in memory and some trackage. Hard to believe it is no more.
That's the one I'm looking for; the date I just gave was a typo.
North Chicago Rolling Mills, May 1865 (from Stover's 'American Railroads', p.157 - note that this book is part of 'The Chicago History of American Civilization' so there could be a smidge of native pride showing here...)
Elsewhere Stover notes that the Rock Island was an early adopter of steel rails, and by 1880 was "the only road to have an all-steel track from Chicago to the Missouri River". (p.87) This may partly account for the early postwar initiation of steel-rail rolling in the Chicago area instead of elsewhere in the industrial East.
The first steel rails were rolled at North Chicago IL in 1865. The plant became a U.S. Steel facility later.
On the tender question: the method used to move the coal will be familiar to people needing to coal things other than locomotives.
On the stoker question: think Canadian oil firing.
Rails were rolled in mid-1866. Who can figure out where and precisely when? It was not Pennsylvania, according to what my reference says.
Bumping this up...I've tried 4 times on the 2 part and replacement question...someone needs to get 'er done.
Does anyone know if Dave Klepper is Ok..I heard about log in problems but it has been a long while now.
Interesting how carefully the wording on that sign dances around that the rails involved were not, in fact, the first ones physically rolled in the United States...
There is a reason I am asking for the specific month, as well as the year.
In 1864, the PRR placed an order for an experimental lot of 150 tons of steel rails - the first in America - and hinted that it might build its own steelworks. In 1866, the company announced that it was accelerating its purchases of steel rail despite a price that was double that of iron rails. In time, the PRR helped organize and fund the Pennsylvania Steel Co. At Steelton, Pennsylvania, just south of Harrisburg, that firm built the first plant to be constructed specifically for the production of railroad rails.
rcdryeI seem to remember NP using what amounted to a vibrator to move the coal down the slope sheet on the Yellowstones, made necessary because of the relatively high moisture content of the lignite coal involved.
I think it's possible that a number of railroads used vibration (either eccentric weight or 'buzzer') to get stubborn coal to feed -- I believe that method was used on hopper cars. What I'm looking for, though, is something more adapted to feeding coal for 'hand bombing' than down into the extended channel of a stoker worm. (Which by definition makes it unsuitable for the improvement in the first part of the question...)
In the meantime, here is an alternate to get the thread re-started.
What month and year, and by whom, were the first domestically-produced steel rails in the United States rolled?
I can't find the reference I wanted, which is why I haven't tried. I seem to remember NP using what amounted to a vibrator to move the coal down the slope sheet on the Yellowstones, made necessary because of the relatively high moisture content of the lignite coal involved.
I have been informed that a famous Northwestern road also tried the coal-moving method.
There were more than 80 locomotives equipped with the 'improvement' in a comparatively short time, but it was a required thing to qualify on even before our entry into the War, so probably thought of as a Big Coming Thing.
It is not a small or trivial improvement, and it is a radical change from earlier methods although it uses some of the same parts and, likely, patented or proprietary stuff (further hint: of operational necessity...)
Dudes! ...Wake up!
I want to know the answer ( so I can feel real bad about not getting it )
Not a boring question... few participants... worried about Dave Klepper , has not been around for a while. Seems we are down to maybe 4 or 5
I'm at work right now, taking quick break, cannot search until I get home and then it's about when time available.
If this is too boring or uninteresting, I'll provide a different question. In the meantime, someone else can propose a different one to keep the thread going.
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