Into the late 1960s the Pullman pool was also in play - a PRR sleeper might end up on just about anybody else's train for one or more trips. Conversion to HEP was also expensive. C&NW did it first for commuter trains, using former freight F7s and extra E8s, with Cummins engine/alternator packages, and then ordered the "400s" where any extra cars could be drafted from the commuter fleet. C&NW's first bilevels (StLCC 1955) were also among the first cars converted to HEP from steam to match the 1958 P-S order. The first were probably C&NW's diners and lounges which also got "hats" to match the bilevels' profile.
p.s. Another reason it was easier for Amtrak to do it is that they were one organization. Railroads passenger cars sometimes ended up on another railroad for part of it's journey, like say ATSF sleepers going from Chicago to New York City on a New York Central train. It wouldn't do any good for Santa Fe to convert to electrical heat if NYC was still using steam - or vice versa.
They had to be compatible; either they all change, or nobody changes.
A lot of railroads recieved steam power during WWII when they wanted diesels but the manufacturing capacity was needed for other things. They presumed that these locomotives would continue to live on in their fleets until their economic usefuless was over. This came more rapidly than expected however as wages (and thus steam costs) rose very rapidly in the 1950s, which made replacement with diesels attractive.
wjstix Back to the original question...it's important to understand that the transition from steam to diesels wasn't 'all or nothing', and happened more quickly than anticipated in many cases. When a railroad bought new streamlined cars c.1939, and E-units to pull them, those E-units were probably (except for some switchers) the only diesels the railroad had. If one of them went down, the railroad would use one of their passenger steam engines to fill in. It's easier to put a steam generator in an E-unit than to put HEP in a steam engine. Keep in mind, some railroads (like New York Central) were running trains of streamlined cars with regularly assigned steam engines into the mid-1950's. Second, when a railroad bought new steam power, they assumed the engine's service life would be about 30 years. A railroad receiving new 4-8-4 engines in WW2 didn't anticipate that those engines might be scrapped before they reached 10 years of service. I think by the time the railroads realized steam would be virtually gone from mainline passenger service by the late 1950's, they had already invested in a fleet of steam heated passenger cars. Easier and cheaper to keep using what you have, rather than re-do all the engines and all the cars.
Back to the original question...it's important to understand that the transition from steam to diesels wasn't 'all or nothing', and happened more quickly than anticipated in many cases.
When a railroad bought new streamlined cars c.1939, and E-units to pull them, those E-units were probably (except for some switchers) the only diesels the railroad had. If one of them went down, the railroad would use one of their passenger steam engines to fill in. It's easier to put a steam generator in an E-unit than to put HEP in a steam engine. Keep in mind, some railroads (like New York Central) were running trains of streamlined cars with regularly assigned steam engines into the mid-1950's.
Second, when a railroad bought new steam power, they assumed the engine's service life would be about 30 years. A railroad receiving new 4-8-4 engines in WW2 didn't anticipate that those engines might be scrapped before they reached 10 years of service. I think by the time the railroads realized steam would be virtually gone from mainline passenger service by the late 1950's, they had already invested in a fleet of steam heated passenger cars. Easier and cheaper to keep using what you have, rather than re-do all the engines and all the cars.
Interesting point on the expected life of steam locomotives. So what was the reasoning behind this? Was it thought that diesels would not be suitable for all situations, and a complement of steam power would be present on rosters for the forseable future? Or did the superior economics of the diesel exceed expectations, and the RR's realized they must retire all steam regardless of the relative young age of the locomotives?
A typical F3 or F7 with a boiler had a split 1200 gallon tank - 800 fuel and 400 water. Some units had a hatch tank in place of the dynamic brake hatch that would hold 600 gallons (these ones usually had the full 1200 gallon fuel tank). FP7s had space for two more tanks totalling 1150 gallons - an FP7 with a hatch tank could hold 1750 gallons without sacrificing fuel capacity. The smaller vapor 4616 (1600 lb/hr) S/Gs had a 200 gallon tank under the S/G itself. F7B units had 1200 gallon water tanks. The "Torpedo boat" GP7 and GP9 configuration moved the air reservoirs to the roof to allow for more fuel and water capacity.
wjstixAs rcdrye touches on, the issue often wasn't supplying the heat, it was carrying enough water. The steam generator in say an F7 A unit would probably be enough to heat a train that a single F7 could haul, but an F7A only had room for a small water tank...I think something like 300 gallons, while in a B unit you could get a 1500 gallon tank. (In a B unit, the steam generator and water supply was located where the cab would have been on an A unit.) So a local train with say 4-5 cars that could have been easily pulled by one F unit might have needed an A-B consist to keep the cars heated if the trip was of any distance. Otherwise, they would have to make stops to resupply the water tank. That's one reason GM developed the FP line, F units stretched to allow for a steam generator and large water supply.
That's one reason GM developed the FP line, F units stretched to allow for a steam generator and large water supply.
The B&O purchased a series of F3 A & B units with steam generators for use in passenger service, specifically the all new Vista-Dome equipped streamlined Columbian. Once placed in actual service it was found that the engines could not consistantly provide steam from the coach yard at Chicago to Grand Central Station for boarding and then on to Garrett, IN for a crew change and watering. The engines frequently arrived Garrett out of water. Subsequently the B&O used E units for all passenger runs out of Chicago. The F3's, with their passenger gearing were then assigned to the B&O's Chicago Division for use in fast freight service - and the passenger gearing defined fast.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
As rcdrye touches on, the issue often wasn't supplying the heat, it was carrying enough water. The steam generator in say an F7 A unit would probably be enough to heat a train that a single F7 could haul, but an F7A only had room for a small water tank...I think something like 300 gallons, while in a B unit you could get a 1500 gallon tank. (In a B unit, the steam generator and water supply was located where the cab would have been on an A unit.) So a local train with say 4-5 cars that could have been easily pulled by one F unit might have needed an A-B consist to keep the cars heated if the trip was of any distance. Otherwise, they would have to make stops to resupply the water tank.
BaltACDWas motive power assigned to trains based upon the number of engines necessary to maintain line speed or were the number of engines base upon the number of steam generators necessary to provide sufficent steam through the train?
This is one of those "it depends" questions. Assuming "normal" steam demand a Vapor 4625 steam generator (GPs, SDs, F7, FP7, FPA2, FPA4) could generate up to 2500 lbs of steam an hour, good for five or six average heating/cooling loads. On many trains there were several head end cars that were entirely unheated or only minimally heated, so the train could be longer than 5 or 6 cars, making engine power more important. A fairly common arrangement, especially on western railroads, was an A-B pair of F-units with a boiler in the B unit only, where there was room in the carbody to carry water. E-units and some PAs were often fitted with the larger Vapor 4740 SG( ~4000 lbs/hr), which could heat 8 or 9 cars. The point of no return was reached at about 18 cars, where steam could no longer be counted on to reach the rear of the train. Many railroads, from the New York Central to the Great Northern, built steam generator cars out of everything from old B-units (Southern, D&RGW) to locomotive tenders (many examples). Amtrak built S/G cars out of E8s, leaving the cabs intact, at least on the outside, during the period of HEP conversion. These were run in the winter to reduce the fuel load on the locomotives, to allow freight locomotives to be used in passenger service, or at the end of trains that were extremely long or ran in extreme condiditions. Several railroads (UP) installed S/Gs in Baggage or Baggage-Dorm cars specifically for end-of-train use. As far as I know only NP used water-baggage cars to allow more fuel to be carried on locomotives. On very cold days the S/G could use a lot of fuel.
I guess the more direct answer to your question was that the size of the S/G and power of a typical engine more or less fit the same size train, as long as it wasn't too long.
One thing I have never seen a discussion of - Steam generators on diesels. How many cars could they supply acceptable steam volume and pressure for?
Was motive power assigned to trains based upon the number of engines necessary to maintain line speed or were the number of engines base upon the number of steam generators necessary to provide sufficent steam through the train?
The NYC did have steam generator cars, but the Century was assigned the best E-unit power which had boilers of sufficient capacity in my experience. However, there may have been times when one of these generator cars was added at times of extreme winter cold. Never saw this, but it certainly was possible.
Love this topic, as my Uncle Tony was an old steam generator repair specialist. He worked on the California Zephyr back when the WP ran it into Oakland and heated the train with steam generator cars. These were baggage-dorm conversions with two mounted steam gennys , all with their own water and fuel tanks. The SF Super Chief used the same type conversions later on too.Some of them went to Auto-Train. The NY Central also had some cool looking black steam gen cars too. Does anyone know if they were used on the 20th Century Limited? I'm looking for NYC consist lists in the 50's and 60's. Help! thanks all.
Deggesty According to the Passenger Equipment Register, only two roads, Southern and Santa Fe used steam-powered air conditioning. I should have added that my information came from a Register that was published in the seventies. By then only two roads used steam-powered air conditioning. If you walked by a car with steam-powered air conditioning, you could get a light shower of water.
According to the Passenger Equipment Register, only two roads, Southern and Santa Fe used steam-powered air conditioning.
I should have added that my information came from a Register that was published in the seventies. By then only two roads used steam-powered air conditioning.
If you walked by a car with steam-powered air conditioning, you could get a light shower of water.
John H White stated that the AT&SF and Seaboard were the only two long term users of steam ejector A/C, so the P.E.R appears to be validating White's statement (except for the Southern vs Seaboard). My mention of the Espee Daylight was to indicate other roads dabbling in steam ejector A/C but moving on to something else.
The UP seems to have settled on electrically driven A/C for their Streamliners, head end power for the Winton 201A powered trains, then axle-driven generator power for everything later. The HEP equipped trains also had steam heat, and the last of the HEP equipped trains were confiured to use a combination of steam and electric heating - funny thing was that electric heating was more efficient despite the losses (engine and alternator) in converting diesel fuel to electricity. The UP appeared to want at least 400lbs/hr of steam capacity per car, which translates to 100+KW of electric power. Given the extra efficiency of electric heating, they might have been able to get away with 30 to 50 KW per car. That's substantially more than the power needed by A/C and it probably didn't make economic sense to size the HEP to heating load, especially since they were powered by auxiliary diesel engines.
1950 Pullman car list shows the following with Steam Jet A/c:
Erie MKT Milw NYC Pullman SFe Sou StLSF UP
Pullmans were pool-service "Betterment" cars of various floor plans, along with a bunch of Tourist Sleepers. Erie's, UP's and Sou's were heavyweights. Milw's included the lightweight cars on the Olympian Hi, including Skytops. NYC had a couple of 10 sec ObsLg heavyweight cars.
Deggesty DS4-4-1000 RME Remember that trainlined power for air conditioning, in those days before 'heat pump' heat became cost-effective, was often still provided via axle-powered arrangements Most of the passenger car air conditioning was provided by either ice blocks or by steam jets. Both are very reliable. According to the Passenger Equipment Register, only two roads, Southern and Santa Fe used steam-powered air conditioning.
DS4-4-1000 RME Remember that trainlined power for air conditioning, in those days before 'heat pump' heat became cost-effective, was often still provided via axle-powered arrangements Most of the passenger car air conditioning was provided by either ice blocks or by steam jets. Both are very reliable.
RME Remember that trainlined power for air conditioning, in those days before 'heat pump' heat became cost-effective, was often still provided via axle-powered arrangements
Most of the passenger car air conditioning was provided by either ice blocks or by steam jets. Both are very reliable.
Johnny
and could rapidly change from cooling to heating and heating to cooling if required.
Deggesty According to the Passenger Equipment Register, only two roads, Southern and Santa Fe used steam-powered air conditioning.
Perusing through Wright's book on the Espee Daylight, ran across a notation that the first trainsets used steam ejector A/C. Later trainsets used the Waukesha engine driven A/C.
One of the 1901's issue of The Electric Journal had an article on steam ejector cooling, stating it was good for a maximum of 50 degrees F between the "cold" side and "hot" side. Big advantage of steam ejector technology is that it did not use toxic gases that were the refrigerants available at that time.
Early steam connections used hoses that were adequate for the relatively low pressures found prior to superheating. As boiler pressures rose reducers were applied, keeping the inlet pressure below about 150 lb, which prevented hose burst until the later pipe connections became widespread. Boilers used on diesels and electrics were "flash" type, with steam production dependant on use more than on pressure - in fact most roads allowed some steam to leak out the end of the train so the lines didn't freeze up. The key rating for train boilers was "pounds per hour" which was both a measurement of steam production and water use - a gallon of water produces around 8 pounds of steam. EMD B-B units were generally equipped with model 4625 units (2500 lbs/hr), with E-units often equipped with model 4740 (4000 lbs/hr). Amtrak's SDP40Fs were equipped with a pair of 4625s each. Water capacity was a big problem since it cut into fuel capacity. F units in passenger service were often paired with the boiler only in the "B" unit, since it was difficult to provide enough water capacity in the "A". The FP7 was a partial answer. In any case water use was greater than fuel use in the winter. Many western roads, and some eastern ones, built steam generator cars out of anything from old tenders to ex-Army troop sleepers, or set up steam generators in part of a baggage car. UP's "City of Everywhere" often rolled into Chicago with nearly 30 cars in the late 1960s, trailing a baggage boiler car.
Except for B-units and FP7s, most units with boilers stowed water in a partitioned fuel tank under the frame. Amtrak and EMD's decision to use above-frame tanks on SDP40Fs probably doomed them, as sloshing water on curves as the tanks emptied could quickly overwhelm the lateral stiffness of the trucks.
White's book on American RR Pasnger car stated that the steam line was typically run at boiler pressure. The "vapor" system reduce steam pressure to a few ounces per square inch above atmospheric.
As for the original topic, some of the pre-war UP streamliners had head end power for A/C and auxiliary heat along with Vapor-Clarkson boilers for normal steam heat. Interesting upshot was that providing resistance heat from the dedicated HEP engines used less fuel for a given amount of useful heat in the passnger car than steam heat.
The Butte, Anaconda and Pacific used 2400VDC for heating the passenger cars when the electrification was opened, lighting was from a 600V line running off a dynamotor in the locomotive. Ironically, the BA&P went back to coal stove heat for the passenger car on thier mixed trains after they stopped running dedicated passenger trains.
Because I don't know - What was the pressure of the steam line on passenger equipment. I know steam engines used between 150 and 350 psi depending upon their design, however I am sure the steam heating line was operated at a much lower pressure - I just don't know what the pressure is.
Deggesty BLS53 I recall as a child of the 60's, in a small town where daily, a dining car was removed from a passenger train for the remaining journey. From a railfan perspective this was an event my Father enjoyed watching for whatever reason. A workman would pound away with a hammer on the metal connection to break it loose, with steam flying everywhere. From a kid's perspective it seemed so archaic with jet airliners flying around and men going into space. Many years later when electrical power became commonplace, my thought was, what was so hard about implementing this earlier? Thanks for the thoughtful answers. Steam flying everywhere? On the IC, when a passenger train was to be worked In Jackson, Mississippi, the steam to the cars would be cut off and the valve in the line at the rear of the last car would be opened before the train reached Jackson--thus leaving no pressure in the line so that it would be safe to disconnect whatever cars needed to be disconected. I assisted in the operation at least once, when headend cars were to be added.
BLS53 I recall as a child of the 60's, in a small town where daily, a dining car was removed from a passenger train for the remaining journey. From a railfan perspective this was an event my Father enjoyed watching for whatever reason. A workman would pound away with a hammer on the metal connection to break it loose, with steam flying everywhere. From a kid's perspective it seemed so archaic with jet airliners flying around and men going into space. Many years later when electrical power became commonplace, my thought was, what was so hard about implementing this earlier? Thanks for the thoughtful answers.
I recall as a child of the 60's, in a small town where daily, a dining car was removed from a passenger train for the remaining journey. From a railfan perspective this was an event my Father enjoyed watching for whatever reason. A workman would pound away with a hammer on the metal connection to break it loose, with steam flying everywhere. From a kid's perspective it seemed so archaic with jet airliners flying around and men going into space.
Many years later when electrical power became commonplace, my thought was, what was so hard about implementing this earlier? Thanks for the thoughtful answers.
Steam flying everywhere? On the IC, when a passenger train was to be worked In Jackson, Mississippi, the steam to the cars would be cut off and the valve in the line at the rear of the last car would be opened before the train reached Jackson--thus leaving no pressure in the line so that it would be safe to disconnect whatever cars needed to be disconected. I assisted in the operation at least once, when headend cars were to be added.
And there's no possibility of residual steam being left in the line, that would be visible in winter, in Illinois?
I do not know how difference there was between the Waukesha-powered and electrically-powered AC sytems--but the steam-powered system gave repairmen fits when one went bad while on a road that had not used the system (Amtrak liked to move its inheritance around all ove the country). And, after the Southern gave its train to Amtrak, there could have been problems when cars from other roads had troubles while on the Southern. The same situation may have prevailed on the Santa Fe, though I believe that Amtrak continued using former Santa Fe cars on the trains that it operated on the Santa Fe.
I think it was in 1982 when I rode from Birmingham to New Orleans in the spring--and the cooling system had to be cut completely off before everybody in the car was chilled.
Steam heating/cooling was the accepted standard for all passenger equipment constructed during the age of steam and even the age of the GG1's as they handed their trains off to steam power in some cases and other carriers in other cases. Some of the early Streamliners were steam powered and thus followed the existing standard. When the post war equipment was built it also followed the existing standards. The last NEW train that was purchased and put in service was the Denver Zephyr in about 1956 and it followed the standards. The standards applied to ALL the railroads the provided passenger service and whose cars were used in interchange service amongst the various carriers.
It wasn't until the creation of Amtrak in 1971 that you had a single organization providing most of the passenger service in the country and thus had the power to change the standards for the cars it would operate.
While I expect steam powered electrical generators could have been developed to allow HEP power from steam engines, the size of electrical equipment in the 20's to the 60's was physcially much larger than what we have come to accept as normal today. The diesel locomotives used for passenger service in the 50's and 60's didn't have excess horsepower to oprerate HEP as they only had 2400 HP (E-9's) or less per unit. (E6 & E7 = 2000 HP; E8 = 2250 HP; FP3 & FP7 1500 HP; FP9 1750 HP) To use HEP before Amtrak would have required the establishment of a HEP standard for all carriers to comply with and considering the declining state of passenger revenues from the late 40's onward no carriers wanted to increase their investment in passenger equipment by updating their fleet to HEP standards if they had been made and adopted.
daveklepper 1. Dieselization did not take place overnight on almost all railroads. A particular car could be behind diesels on day and steam on another. 2. Money
1. Dieselization did not take place overnight on almost all railroads. A particular car could be behind diesels on day and steam on another.
2. Money
I should've clarified after diesels took over completely. Mainly 1960 forward.
CSSHEGEWISCHFM's Speed Merchants (P12-42, two each for NH and B&M) were equipped for HEP drawn off the main generator in the same manner as F40PH's many years later.
And the Baldwin RP-210s for "Train X" had auxiliary engines with generators providing 480V HEP. (Note that neither of these types of locomotive were expected to pull anything but their special consists, though, nor were the lightweight trains intended to be hauled by conventional power.)
The LRC trains needed HEP-equipped locomotives to run properly ... but a conventional consist that didn't require steam could be pulled by one of the LRC locomotives, and if it did require steam, the lightweight unit could be MUed with an F-unit...
FM's Speed Merchants (P12-42, two each for NH and B&M) were equipped for HEP drawn off the main generator in the same manner as F40PH's many years later.
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