I was watching a video about Canadian steam engines and noticed on several engines below the cab windows there was a 53% or some other number painted on the cab.
I am curious as to what they are referring to. Any ideas?
Joe
I'm led to believe it is the tractive effort rating of the locomotive:
4070-Photo-Backups-261 by Edmund, on Flickr
i.e. this USRA Mikado would have a 55,000 lb. tractive rating.
Alco_USRA_0003 by Edmund, on Flickr
As shown above, tractive force is rated at 54,700 lb. and the GTW may have rounded it up to 55,000 using the % as a symbol for x 1000.
I could be mistaken. Others may step in with further information.
Cheers, Ed
Oh, c'mon, Ed. You know better than that!
Ans: it's the day's exchange rate for the CDN$ vs. the USD$. That's why those ratings were changed at midnight every night. Part of hostler's job was to carry stencil, two paints (Engine Black, White), and correct the exchange rate for next day's revenue hauls across the borders.
selectorOh, c'mon, Ed. You know better than that!
Could be the income tax rate of the engineer?
selector Oh, c'mon, Ed. You know better than that! Ans: it's the day's exchange rate for the CDN$ vs. the USD$. That's why those ratings were changed at midnight every night. Part of hostler's job was to carry stencil, two paints (Engine Black, White), and correct the exchange rate for next day's revenue hauls across the borders.
Ralph
MARTIN STATION...Now that's funny!
There's not much humour in the exchange rate for us Ca-knuckleheads, though.
Wayne
Thanks Ed, that sounds reasonable.
That wasn't a Canadian-only thing; some US railroads (U.P. for one IIRC) did it too.
Stix, what UP classes did that? In my experience they put just about everything BUT the FA or adhesion percentage on the cab (including weight on drivers and cylinder proportions).
In any case 55% isn't going to be a direct measure of adhesion, which would be in the range of 4 (or 25% weight on drivers) to mean something on the kind of engine pictured. About the lowest FA I know of in service is the N&W J, which I recall as being about 3.31; even that would be fantastically slippery if not handled with care and respect (and indicates that a large percentage of ihp was intended to be used fully only at high cyclic/road speed)
I'd be more inclined to speculate it's a practical 'derating' of something calculated, like PLAN or other ihp, for practical train make-up purposes, perhaps varying by division.
It is an interesting question, though. I has nothing to do with cut-off limit, estimated shelf life remaining for the boiler (why not just the last date shopped),...?
I googled the question and came to this site:
CNR Steam Locomotive Roster - Notes (trainweb.org)
Apparently, for CNR at least, each 1k of TE was designated as a percentage. So, maybe in the case above, 55% = Total TE for the locomotive.
OvermodStix, what UP classes did that?
I was just saying that I've seen several railroads that put a lot of "fine print" on the engine cab, often with a "%" in there representing...something. Maybe I'm thinking of one of the other "Pacifics" (Northern, Southern)?
LastspikemikeWonder when these graphics were added and by whom?
What, exactly, are you trying to say?
6218_Chatham-cab by Edmund, on Flickr
LastspikemikeThe internet says 4070 was assigned to this CN Mikado
The 4070 was the former 3734 and, as I mentioned in my first reply, was a Grand Trunk western locomotive.
selectorApparently, for CNR at least, each 1k of TE was designated as a percentage. So, maybe in the case above, 55% = Total TE for the locomotive.
I am told we will have expert confirmation of details of the CP system on the Kettle Valley in a few days also, from a pretty definitive source.
I was beginning to think 'percentage of weight on drivers' but that 210% threw that idea out the window.
Stix -- see what you can find for 'them other railroads'. Perhaps one of them uses the percent sign a different way, or lists locomotive performance more directly as it would affect determining consist for a given train factor.
Lastspikemike In the Kettle Valley Railway book, pages 30-31, in the locomotive roster there's a column headed up "Cap." "%" with numbers varying from a low of 27 for a 4-4-4 to a high of 210 for a 4-6-2. None of the photos in any of the CPR related books I have show the % number on the cab.
In the Kettle Valley Railway book, pages 30-31, in the locomotive roster there's a column headed up "Cap." "%" with numbers varying from a low of 27 for a 4-4-4 to a high of 210 for a 4-6-2.
None of the photos in any of the CPR related books I have show the % number on the cab.
Which book?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Lastspikemike As far as the graphics on 4070 I noticed there were no such graphics on any of the photos available on the Internet. For me this begs the question: who added them and when. The why has been asked and it is suggested it originated in Canada. If so, it would be some time after the renumbering in 1957 (or whenever) and the graphics were not common practice up here judging by the complete absence of photos of same on any CPR locomotive, for example. It is intriguing that such numbers exist. For what purpose they would be lettered on the cab is interesting.
As far as the graphics on 4070 I noticed there were no such graphics on any of the photos available on the Internet. For me this begs the question: who added them and when. The why has been asked and it is suggested it originated in Canada. If so, it would be some time after the renumbering in 1957 (or whenever) and the graphics were not common practice up here judging by the complete absence of photos of same on any CPR locomotive, for example.
It is intriguing that such numbers exist. For what purpose they would be lettered on the cab is interesting.
You keep talking about CPR when it was CNR that did this as a regular practice.
And yeah as said by several above, the "%" marking is x1000lbs tractive effort, not "percentage" of anything.
The "S-3-g" is CN's locomotive class.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
I checked my Morning Sun books of CP and CN, which contain pictures taken mostly in the late 50s. The vast majority of CN engines had these markings on their cabs, below the number. CPR did not seem to have these markings, at least not on the cab.
Simon
Now the thing to do is review pictures of Grand Trunk Western steam on the Internet and in books and see if they carried these numbers ... or if GTW engines acquired them if renumbered for a Canadian system.
Overmod Now the thing to do is review pictures of Grand Trunk Western steam on the Internet and in books and see if they carried these numbers ... or if GTW engines acquired them if renumbered for a Canadian system.
GTW was a subsidiary of CN and generally followed a lot of CN practices, and also fit into CN's locomotive numbering system.
wjstix That wasn't a Canadian-only thing; some US railroads (U.P. for one IIRC) did it too.
Lastspikemike The OP questioned whether this was a Canadian practice.
The OP questioned whether this was a Canadian practice.
Actually he just said he was watching a "Canadian" video and noticed the markings, and wondered what they meant.
wjstix I know several used a fraction as part of it (like "24/32"), and a fraction is another way of expressing a percentage, so could be another way of saying the same thing?
I know several used a fraction as part of it (like "24/32"), and a fraction is another way of expressing a percentage, so could be another way of saying the same thing?
Except if you've read through this thread at all, it's NOT a percentage of anything. The "%" symbol in CN's usage is a placeholder for 000 lbs tractive effort.
LastspikemikeWonder when these graphics were added
It goes back to at least 1935, the date of this photograph:
CNR_6029_crop by Edmund, on Flickr
Lastspikemikeand by whom?
Going out on a limb here, but the guy with the brush looks guilty:
CNR_3552_crop by Edmund, on Flickr
Apparently CNR used a method called "Power Class" or "Haulage Rating" to indicate tractive effort using the % symbol for recognition. You can see it on any of their classification book details.
http://www.trainweb.org/j.dimech/roster/rosnotes.html Scroll down to calculation of Haulage Rating.
Good Luck, Ed
Lastspikemike... and come up with a simalcrum of statistical proof of this association.
Lastspikemike ... http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/photos/cnr_steam2/three.htm Scroll down to the photo of the CV Texas T-3-a underneath which there is a reference to t.e. 77%. Not an original source but likely a reliable secondary source (although this webpage claims a t.e. for this locomotive of 82,620 a pretty stunning number all things considered. Maybe if you turned up the heat.....?) ...
...
http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/photos/cnr_steam2/three.htm
Scroll down to the photo of the CV Texas T-3-a underneath which there is a reference to t.e. 77%.
Not an original source but likely a reliable secondary source (although this webpage claims a t.e. for this locomotive of 82,620 a pretty stunning number all things considered. Maybe if you turned up the heat.....?)
The Texas type, 2-10-4, were large and heavy steamers, many of which produced TE much higher than 82K. The earlier Pennsy I1sa 2-10-0, an older design, produced more tractive effort than a Union Pacific Challenger, and considerably more than any Texas type, except that 2-10-4's like the PRR's J1 had boosters for lifting heavy tonnages.
So, the TE for the Texas & Pacific 'Texas type' was on the low side for that configuration when you consider that the 5011 series ATSF version had well over 100K of tractive effort, and the highest piston thrust of any 2 cylinder steam locomotive on record (219+K lbs. if I recall correctly).
[Edited to correct last figure]
LastspikemikeSpeaking of imponderable acronyms (who was?) I wonder what the second "I" in IIHF stands for?
International Ice Hockey Federation
LastspikemikeThat's nothing compared to a 4-4-0 with a 70% number.
It would seem the Haulage Rating for a 4-4-0 would be 14,000 lbs.
CNR_b-11-a by Edmund, on Flickr
Warm Regards, Ed
LastspikemikeStill leaves the question unanswered, on both sides of the border.
Lastspikemike Is there another type of hockey?
Is there another type of hockey?
doctorwaynemust be dozens more, too.
BEER HOCKEY!
-Kevin
Living the dream.
The only thing I remember about field hockey (we played it for one day in high school phys-ed) is that all the sticks are right-handed. I shoot left, so it was no fun for me.