Tenders matched to locomotives?

[Utley26]

In the steam era, was it common for a specific tender to be eternally "married" to a specific locomotive? I'm not talking about a certain tender type, I mean both the tender and locomotive share the same locomotive number.  See today's photo, for example.  Was this common across roads?  It seems unnecessarily troublesome to me; why take a locomotive out of action for just a problem with its tender?  

[selector]

No, about the best you could say was that it was 'handy' if any one pairing could be left intact.  But both engines and tenders need work from time to time, sometimes third line level where they are stripped right down to the frames.  When the steamer was still good to go, but the tender had big problems, it would have made sense to place another tender behind the locomotive.  Also, sometimes new designs meant a 'better' tender would be purchased, or sometimes ones better suited for the type of work, say one with more capacity, or one with a stoker, or one with a better oil heating system if one had to be retrofitted to improve atomization in winter.   I have no specifics, but the answer to this question on another forum said that, ideally, a pairing could be left alone essentially permanently, but it was by no means a sure thing.

Crandell

[Kootenay Central]

Thank You.

[Utley26]

Thanks.  Just flipping through a book I have handy, it looks like Frisco, Santa Fe, IC, and Missouri Pacific were some roads in which the loco number was painted prominently on the side of the tender.  Seems like an unnecessary hassle to me, but there must have been a good reason for it.

[henry6]

Steam locomotives were designed for a specific railroad for a specific service and often in a specific location or terminal.  Therefore the tender was designed to match the engine to the road and service.  That being said, the answer is that while a tender usually stayed with its engine...had the same number and was considered part of the locomotive...it was thus not used with another engine.  HOWEVER, if an engine was taken out of service or scrapped, the tender might have been kept and used/matched to another engine or even locomotive.  Larger tenders were often swapped over to smaller engines to make a locomotive which would have a longer range or be kept out of the engine terminal longer when in pusher or other service.  BUT remember, each railroad had its own concepts, ideas, idiosycrancies, engines, locomotives, conditions, changing conditions, and moments.

[AltonFan]

I remember reading once about a railroad that ordered switchers with tenders designed for long-haul road engines.  And when the new switchers were delivered, they were given old tenders suitable for their purpose, and the long-haul road engine tenders ended up on... long-haul road engines.

I apologize, but I do not remember the railroad that did this.

[AltonFan]

Utley26

Thanks.  Just flipping through a book I have handy, it looks like Frisco, Santa Fe, IC, and Missouri Pacific were some roads in which the loco number was painted prominently on the side of the tender.  Seems like an unnecessary hassle to me, but there must have been a good reason for it.

Compared to steam locomotives, tenders are simple.  The most serious problems probably involved servicing the journal bearings on the trucks.  I think it more likely that problems with the locomotive itself would have caused the most service and repair issues.

OTOH, tenders were never made to be say, as interchangeable as freight cars.  And it's not like locomotive shops kept spare tenders around to replace those suddenly in need of repair.  The connection of a tender and its locomotive was a long-term relationship, and changes were typically made only when major work (such as rebuilding) was done on the locomotive.

So having the tender number emblazoned on the side of the tender wasn't really ever much of an issue.

[henry6]

As I explained earlier: an engine and tender was a locomotive and as such were married or semi permanently coupled, really "made for each other", and never considered to be two seperate pieces.  It wasn't until the diesel era that engines were considered seperate units.  Some railroads continued the concept of a locomotive to be a combination of an A unit and its attached B or A units with such lash ups semi permanently coupled and often similarly numbered as 100A, 100B, 100C, 100D for a four unit set or sequentially numbered or A units got a number series seperate from the B units but would be carefully matched (for instance: A unit series #101, B unit series #201, 202, etc.). 

Tenders were part of the locomotive because it was designed for certain amounts of coal and water based on the engine's need or use and based on the railroad's facilities between coaling and water stations and given use.  Thus a Pacific might use more coal than a MIkado but the Mike needed more water or vice versa.  The tender was built specifically for that engine and might only be able to be used with another of that same engine.  But since physically the tender was designed and built to be with a particular engine the mentality was that they were married forever and ever so if a tender malfunctioned, the locomotive was taken out of service; if an another locomotive's engine went down, it was never considered to take the good tender and match it to the good engine to get one on the road, both locomotives were out of service until they were respectively repaired.  But with diesels it was quickly learned that you can MU a 5000 series with a 100 series and a 900 series and you've got a three unit lash up that makes up one locomotive. (Oh, yes, yes, the right cables and matching was neccessary and was developed.)

[cx500]

Already mentioned was switching tenders in the late steam era when locomotives were converted to oil from coal.  Going further back in time, the turntable at a specific terminal might be short, so bigger locomotives were limited to a short tender in order to fit.  So there was a limited amount of tender swapping for that reason.  Engines tended to stay in the same service for years, often through major shopping, so would mostly keep the same tender.

John

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

AltonFan

I remember reading once about a railroad that ordered switchers with tenders designed for long-haul road engines.  And when the new switchers were delivered, they were given old tenders suitable for their purpose, and the long-haul road engine tenders ended up on... long-haul road engines.

I apologize, but I do not remember the railroad that did this.

The road in question is Erie, there were builders photos of the 0-8-0's with the large road tenders.  David P. Morgan opined about this matter in Second Section.

[tomikawaTT]

You could say with considerable certainty that a given tender would remain mated to a given locomotive until its next major shopping.  Separating a tender from its locomotive involved a lot more than simply closing the angle cocks and lifting the cut bar - especially since the connection was a solid drawbar, not a knuckle coupler.

You could say with equal accuracy that railroads wouldn't hesitate to change tenders.  Many USRA locos, delivered with small 4-axle tenders were re-equipped with bigger, higher-capacity 6-axle tenders.  The N&W replaced worn-out original tenders on many of their Y-class mallets with much newer tenders acquired used when the RF&P dieselized and scrapped their 4-8-4s.

As far as having the loco number on the tender, changing it was just a matter of a few hours work with paint and stencils.  No big deal.

Chuck

[wjstix]

Don't assume that railroads put their name on the side of the tender so they could switch tenders around whenever they pleased. 100 years ago, most railroads put the engine no. on the tender and the railroad initials on the side of the cab. (This was common enough that in Britain it was referred to as "American style" lettering.) Not all did that, and over time it became more common for the railroad to have the engine no. on the cab, and the railroad name or herald on the side of the tender. However, note that in this scheme with the railroad name on the tender, the engine no. was usually fairly prominent on the back of the tender. It often would also have smaller stencils with the engine no. on the tender.

 http://www.vistadome.com/trains/steamtown2/uprr_4012_distant.jpg

[henry6]

Every railroad had its way on any given day.  Depended on  chief mechanical officer in charge, master mechanics, and whim after whim.  Changes were prevalant enough, thankfully, that those changes can help us date or at least date range pictures.

 

[cefinkjr]

I imagine lots of people...hostlers, roundhouse foremen, yard masters, station agents, tower operators...really appreciated large numbers on the sides and/or rears of tenders.  Those folks all knew the owner of the locomotive; they were more interested in which one it was.

In model, numbers on the rear of tenders saves a lot of hassle when finding a particular locomotive in a full roundhouse.

[gordono]

I can only speak with real familiarity about the Southern Pacific Railroad's tender swapping practices.  These practices have generated a lot of interest among Southern Pacific steamed devotees.  The Southern Pacific had a number of types of smaller tenders, 7000 gallon, 9000 gallon, 10,000 gallon Vanderbilt types, plus 9000 gallon rectangular tenders.  If one looks at photographs of an individual smaller locomotive over the years one will find that it could be equipped with any one of these tender types at any given time and a different one at a later time.  It should also be noted that many of the 7000 gallon tenders were converted the 10,000 gallon by lengthening the water tank, after this conversion they would likely be assigned to a different locomotive.

With larger locomotives we would often see that locomotives received tender upgrades over time.  For instance that the P-8 class 4-6-2s were delivered with four-wheel truck 12,000 gallon Vanderbilt tenders but were all later upgraded to newer six wheel truck 12,000 gallon Vanderbilt tenders.  The SP-1 class 4-10-2s were all delivered with 12,000 gallon Vanderbilt tenders, but all later received 16,000 gallon semi-Vanderbilt tenders.  Presumably the 12,000 gallon tenders were bumped to smaller locomotives.  The GS-1 class 4-8-4s came with the 16,000 gallon tender, but those assigned to the Pacific lines all received larger tenders like those assigned to the GS-2 and G-3 class.

The Mt-1, Mt-3 and Mt-4 class 4-8-2s all came with 12,000 gallon tenders, with the Mt-1 class being delivered with four-wheel truck tenders.  These four wheel truck tenders did not stay with the Mt-1s.  The Mt-5 class were built with the 16,000 gallon semi-Vanderbilt tenders and many, but not all, of the early class Mts received the 16,000 gallon tender later.  As the 4-8-2s were scrapped, many of the 16,000 gallon tenders were reassigned to 2-10-2s all of which had had
12,000 gallon tenders.

Some of Espee’s unique whaleback tenders that were used on its 2-8-8-2s, wound up behind 2-8-2s after the 2-8-8-2s were scrapped.

From company records we know that SP 2472 had a least three different 12,000 gallon tenders assigned to it.  Its current tender had been assigned to 2467 at one time.  The 2467's current tender is believed to be from a scrapped 4-8-2 or 2-10-2.

[halford39]

The C&O also did this on their last order of 0-8-0 switchers. They were supplied with 21,000 gallon rectangular tenders.

[FUSE-]

THE IC IN WORLD WAR II  USED MATCHED TENDERS  &  SWITCHING WOULD HAVE  SHOWN THE WRONG  NUMBER    FUSE-