Thanks, JD... You brought a lot of great information to this thread. I heard that the small feeder line that I model (the Montana Western) used a small table that was operated either by steam or by air, and have had a hard time verifing that there even was "such a critter".
Your information certainly has laid that doubt to rest. Thanks again for your input....
Bob
Okay, I'm gonna jump in here just for the fun of it.
My experiences: maintenance on a 100+ yo shortline, volunteer on a second shortline that started 100+ yrs ago, and was merged into the Reading and spun off with the creation of conrail - both of which have operating steam locomotives - and am now a student locomotive engineer with Norfolk Southern. My research includes as many manufacturer's books as possible, Baldwin, Alco, and especially Lima, as well as David Wardale's 'Red Devil' and Andre Chapelon's 'Locomotive A Vapuer', and any documents from L.D. Porta I can get my hands on.
Somewhere, I have video of a dual cylinder to single crankshaft steam powered turntable. I don't have time to go through my multitude of videos and DVDs, but they did exist.
As for your questions:
1) Steam source on the table: obviously, the locomotive, with armstrong provisions for diesel/gas/cold locos. A railroad that had steam TT's would have outfitted their engines with appropriate hookup technology.
2) Connection means: A simple canvas-type cloth hose with a standard or modified glad hand. This would be similar to the 'steam-heat' piping on the locomotive and coaches. Remember, even into the 1960's, diesels were outfitted with steam generators in order to supply 'power' to the steam heat lines on the passenger trains.
3) Application of long distance steam lines: Not a problem... ever hear of asbestos? Croxton Yard in Jersey City, NJ had insulated steam lines from dual stationary steam generators going throughout the yard. The pipes are still in place and deteriating. Even today, the City of Harrisburg, PA uses a central steam generation facility to heat several, if not all, of the buildings in town.
4) Use of steam today: NS's locomotive Juniata Back Shop, still has it's own coal-fired steam power plant which generates electricity for JBS, the yard office at Rose, Alto Tower, and assorted other railroad facilities. Despite this, the powerplant retains such old antique technology that the use of certain electronics within the plant can trip a breaker and shutdown the generators. Also, despite the much superior electrical switch motors now available, the railroad still maintains and uses the original PRR air-powered switch motors over a large chunk of the territory. Also, despite advances in computerized central traffic control, they continue to use a manned operator tower to control traffic in the Altoona area. My point being, that just because superior technology exists, doesn't in and of itself mandate its replacement.
5) A 360-degree steam tight joint.... as pointed out in #1, not realistic, but: ever notice that the UP 4-6-6-4 challengers and 4-8-8-4 BigBoys have two radial steam joints on the main delivery pipe... on each side? Eight joints providing superheated live steam from the superheater header to the front cylinders at ~300psi. Like I said, not likely, but entirely within the engineering capabilities of American technological development from the time.
6) Using old steam drives with air: chances are the only modifications made would be the removal of the steam line insulation... but only at the time of repairs and/or inspections. Any steam driven system can be run on compressed air. The sole point of consideration is that since steam carries heat, it has more engery then its simple PSI rating. Therefore, a 30psi steam engine might require 45 or even 60psi of compressed air to performthe same amount of work.Depending on design, the engine might even work on 30psi of air, simply at a lower speed or efficiency. Need proof? go to any live steam meets, or train shows where a live steam club is setup. Many times the clubs will use a single small home air compressor to power a variaty of models through a custom manifold delivery system. I have a small mamod stationary engine that ran on approximately 45psi steam presure. I know for a fact that it will work well on 15PSI air.. just not at the same top speed.
I might or might not return to this topic... I stumbled across it during a google for EBT locomotive drawings, so have fun!
-J.D. - JDG Industries
===========================
J.D. Gallaway -- http://me.fccorp.us
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
I think the biggest advantage of air over steam power to operate a turntable would be operation in cold weather. Most turntables that were not electrified by the early twentieth century probably sat idle for a good part of the time and having to drain lines after each use and then having to thaw frozen equipment because, trust me, you never get all the water out, would be a major headache.
Well there you go. I was talking about the first world.
Well why would all these things be steamed powered BUT turntablesnot be so powered as well?
If steam power was the only or the standard way of poweringsomething why would they feel the need to mention it...
Well, existing ones would be rare if they had been converted tocompressed air and/or later electricity. There would be no personalexperience to be gained if the conversion had been done decades beforeyou were born.
If they were in widespread use then why would the government feelthe need to enact regulations to mandate their use? There would belittle point. A bunch of large railroads with 100% compliance can skewthe statistics.
If the railroads weren't using freight cars with air brake systemthen the capacity of the air compression systen would only have toservice the locomotive. So the compressors could be significantlysmaller and not able to supply a converted steam motor.
Where would you place a valve on a steam locomotive if you wantedto be able to pull off steam?
But what if a simple, low-powered air motor isn't yet availableand you needed a powered turntable?
And your point would be what? Archeology has missing links.
Just because something is rare/non-existant now or thirty yearsago. It doesn't mean it was a hundred years ago.
One thing you're both forgetting from history is that there were a couple other types of braking systems that preceeded the current system, which would have required a steam powered pump of some sort. There was the Eames Vacuum Brake system, applied to just the locomotive, but the cylinder was HUGE for even a 4-4-0.
Then Westinghouse had an air system that predated the ICC mandate.
marknewton wrote:If you don't mind me asking, have you ever had any practical experience with either steam plant or air machines?Mark.
I have never worked with steam but I do work with air, we also use steam venturis with air as air movers but I do not know what they were used for originally.
Newyorkcentralfan wrote: marknewton wrote:You'd be wrong. I've visited places like Tindharia on the DHR, El Maiten on the Esquel branch, Cadem on the Hedjaz, and a shed on a Chinese forestry line I can't even spell the name of...Third-world sort of places.Well there you go. I was talking about the first world.I've seen an astonishing variety of steam-powered kit in sheds and workshops. Cranes, coal grabs, ash plants, traversers, pumps, fans, machines and stationary engines of all sorts. I never once saw a steam-powered t/t.Well why would all these things be steamed powered BUT turntables not be so powered as well?Nor, as I mentioned before, have I ever seen a printed reference to one.If steam power was the only or the standard way of powering something why would they feel the need to mention it. Dog bites man is not newsworthy.When I consider that every other type of machine, plant or steam loco specialty was advertised prominently in the trade press, I think that's significant. And the earliest reference I've seen to an electrically-powered t/t was in 1897.Electric power turntable in 1897. Man bites dog. That IS significant.Air power was obviously the intermediary between steam and electricReally? Where, and in what context?.I believe that compressed air can be used in a system originally designed to use steam with far less problems than steam can in an air system.Personal experience tells me that steam-powered t/t's were very rare, if they existed at all, and the reasons why that was the case.Well, existing ones would be rare if they had been converted to compressed air and/or later electricity. There would be no personal experience to be gained if the conversion had been done decades before you were born.Regarding Westinghouse, being in production doesn't mean it was in wide use. From what I understand, Westinghouse had a problem selling the system until the ICC became their best salesman.The figures I quoted contradict that. They indicate that airbrake compressors were in widespread use during the last quarter of the 19th century, and came from the ICC itself.If they were in widespread use then why would the government feel the need to enact regulations to mandate their use? There would be little point. A bunch of large railroads with 100% compliance can skew the statistics.The act went into effect in 1900, after a seven year grace period. The act does not specifically mention air brakes. In 1903, the act was amended to require at least 50% of the cars in a train to be so equipped and in use.Interesting, but irrelevant. The figures I quoted refer specifically to locomotives fitted with air brake compressors - not freight cars.If the railroads weren't using freight cars with air brake system then the capacity of the air compression systen would only have to service the locomotive. So the compressors could be significantly smaller nd not able to supply a converted steam motor. Why would you run belts and shafts when you can just run an insulated steam line? All you need is a line running into the pit and up through the pivot.If you've ever dealt with piping steam over a distance to actually work a machine, as opposed to piping process steam, you'd know it isn't that simple as providing an insulated pipe. And the state of the art being what it was in the period under discussion, a steam-tight, 360 degree rotating joint would have been a really big ask. Much easier to either turn engines by other means - manual, air, or electric.Obviously manual is the easiest. If you require power, it depends on what's available. If you're starting from scratch and electricity is available. That's the next easiest. But if you're building the facility prior to electricity then you're left with steam, air or a mechanical drive. The question becomes why would you opt for air and have to obtain, maintain two generation systems when you can go with steam and have to deal with just one? Or worse still, mechanical drive. Running steam lines would have been preferred to running power shafts and gear boxes under the turntable, even if they leaked. Even if you were using locomotive steam, the hose would logically be installed on the turntable not the locomotive. You'd pull steam off the front end near the cylinders, which would be near the end of the turntable where the table engine would be.Again, really? Where exactly would you advocate taking steam off the loco from?See above. What you quoted. Where would you place a valve on a steam locomotive if you wanted to be able to pull off steam?"I'd imagine that a stationary air source would be employed, probably using the same steam line that had been used.And yet every example of an air-operated t/t mentioned, or that I've ever seen took air from the loco brake or main res pipe, as there were no "steam lines" to use If you converted from steam to air and ran it off a locomotive's air supply why wouldn't you remove the former steam piping? Either for ease of maintenance or for the scrap value of the obsolete parts?A locomotive compressor might not make enough pressure to operate the turntable engine.Sorry, that's just nonsense. When even a single-stage Westinghouse "F" pum Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Saturday, April 21, 2007 10:29 AM Iron Goat wrote: Here is a photo of an "old" turntable motor... it was either air or steam operated by the looks of it. I don't know if it was a conventional T/T, or a "covered table" like the one I am modeling (second photo...), which is just a bashed HO scale Atlas Turntable. Any comments on the motor and it's "energy source", anyone? Bob The first picture you provided is the same one I linked on page one of this thread, it's the East Broad Top turntable while it was being redecked last year. The photo was taken by Lance Myers. The motor is an air operated one that, to my knowledge, has not been used since the EBT bought it from the New York Central. All photos show it being used in the "Armstrong" mode, which is also the only way I've seen it used in the tourist era. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply steamaddict Member sinceJune 2005 14 posts Posted by steamaddict on Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:20 AM I noticed that the editor or an automated program didn't like the word after 'angle' in my post above. This is political correctness gone mad. Anglec__k (o and c are the missing letters by the way) and stopc__k are perfectly legitimate words in the english language (at least in Australia anyway) amongst others and by replacing them with asterisks makes it appear that I was using or intended to use profanity. It may have also been slightly my fault since I used a space between the word stop and c__k but the whole thing seems a bit crazy.I will have to get used to using the word 'tap' instead.Darren Reply Newyorkcentralfan Member sinceMay 2005 293 posts Posted by Newyorkcentralfan on Saturday, April 21, 2007 5:33 AM marknewton wrote:You'd be wrong. I've visited places like Tindharia on the DHR, El Maiten on the Esquel branch, Cadem on the Hedjaz, and a shed on a Chinese forestry line I can't even spell the name of...Third-world sort of places.Well there you go. I was talking about the first world.I've seen an astonishing variety of steam-powered kit in sheds and workshops. Cranes, coal grabs, ash plants, traversers, pumps, fans, machines and stationary engines of all sorts. I never once saw a steam-powered t/t.Well why would all these things be steamed powered BUT turntables not be so powered as well?Nor, as I mentioned before, have I ever seen a printed reference to one.If steam power was the only or the standard way of powering something why would they feel the need to mention it. Dog bites man is not newsworthy.When I consider that every other type of machine, plant or steam loco specialty was advertised prominently in the trade press, I think that's significant. And the earliest reference I've seen to an electrically-powered t/t was in 1897.Electric power turntable in 1897. Man bites dog. That IS significant.Air power was obviously the intermediary between steam and electricReally? Where, and in what context?.I believe that compressed air can be used in a system originally designed to use steam with far less problems than steam can in an air system.Personal experience tells me that steam-powered t/t's were very rare, if they existed at all, and the reasons why that was the case.Well, existing ones would be rare if they had been converted to compressed air and/or later electricity. There would be no personal experience to be gained if the conversion had been done decades before you were born.Regarding Westinghouse, being in production doesn't mean it was in wide use. From what I understand, Westinghouse had a problem selling the system until the ICC became their best salesman.The figures I quoted contradict that. They indicate that airbrake compressors were in widespread use during the last quarter of the 19th century, and came from the ICC itself.If they were in widespread use then why would the government feel the need to enact regulations to mandate their use? There would be little point. A bunch of large railroads with 100% compliance can skew the statistics.The act went into effect in 1900, after a seven year grace period. The act does not specifically mention air brakes. In 1903, the act was amended to require at least 50% of the cars in a train to be so equipped and in use.Interesting, but irrelevant. The figures I quoted refer specifically to locomotives fitted with air brake compressors - not freight cars.If the railroads weren't using freight cars with air brake system then the capacity of the air compression systen would only have to service the locomotive. So the compressors could be significantly smaller nd not able to supply a converted steam motor. Why would you run belts and shafts when you can just run an insulated steam line? All you need is a line running into the pit and up through the pivot.If you've ever dealt with piping steam over a distance to actually work a machine, as opposed to piping process steam, you'd know it isn't that simple as providing an insulated pipe. And the state of the art being what it was in the period under discussion, a steam-tight, 360 degree rotating joint would have been a really big ask. Much easier to either turn engines by other means - manual, air, or electric.Obviously manual is the easiest. If you require power, it depends on what's available. If you're starting from scratch and electricity is available. That's the next easiest. But if you're building the facility prior to electricity then you're left with steam, air or a mechanical drive. The question becomes why would you opt for air and have to obtain, maintain two generation systems when you can go with steam and have to deal with just one? Or worse still, mechanical drive. Running steam lines would have been preferred to running power shafts and gear boxes under the turntable, even if they leaked. Even if you were using locomotive steam, the hose would logically be installed on the turntable not the locomotive. You'd pull steam off the front end near the cylinders, which would be near the end of the turntable where the table engine would be.Again, really? Where exactly would you advocate taking steam off the loco from?See above. What you quoted. Where would you place a valve on a steam locomotive if you wanted to be able to pull off steam?"I'd imagine that a stationary air source would be employed, probably using the same steam line that had been used.And yet every example of an air-operated t/t mentioned, or that I've ever seen took air from the loco brake or main res pipe, as there were no "steam lines" to use If you converted from steam to air and ran it off a locomotive's air supply why wouldn't you remove the former steam piping? Either for ease of maintenance or for the scrap value of the obsolete parts?A locomotive compressor might not make enough pressure to operate the turntable engine.Sorry, that's just nonsense. When even a single-stage Westinghouse "F" pump can give you 110psi in the main res, you can safely reckon you'll have sufficient pressure and volume to run a simple, low-powered air motor.But what if a simple, low Reply steamaddict Member sinceJune 2005 14 posts Posted by steamaddict on Friday, April 20, 2007 7:25 AM The local turntable has a large air reservoir under the deck and it was 'charged' while the turntable hose was connected. With a fully charged reservoir the turntable can be spun 3 full turns which easily allows the turntable to be realigned with any bay/track to accept another loco. The turntable hose has a gladhand and was connected to the loco brake pipe as any freight car would be and the angle **** opened.I agree with some of the other responders that prior to air brakes all the turntable would most likely have been armstrong style as the locos were small enough, labour was more plentiful and people were conditioned to hard work. Using steam would have had complications with connections to the boiler, high pressure steam hoses, condensation in cold pipes and in the motor, etc. Reply marknewton Member sinceDecember 2002 From: Sydney, Australia 1,939 posts Posted by marknewton on Friday, April 20, 2007 7:07 AM Well Mark, the thirty years of globetrotting was presumably within the last fifty. Electricity has been well entrenched since the 1930s. So I doubt you'd see much in the way of steam powered anything.You'd be wrong. I've visited places like Tindharia on the DHR, El Maiten on the Esquel branch, Cadem on the Hedjaz, and a shed on a Chinese forestry line I can't even spell the name of...Third-world sort of places. I've seen an astonishing variety of steam-powered kit in sheds and workshops. Cranes, coal grabs, ash plants, traversers, pumps, fans, machines and stationary engines of all sorts. I never once saw a steam-powered t/t. Nor, as I mentioned before, have I ever seen a printed reference to one. When I consider that every other type of machine, plant or steam loco specialty was advertised prominently in the trade press, I think that's significant. And the earliest reference I've seen to an electrically-powered t/t was in 1897.Air power was obviously the intermediary between steam and electric.Really? Where, and in what context?Since the electricity has taken over with the last one hundred your experience is probably out date. Personal experience is great but it doesn't cover everything.Personal experience tells me that steam-powered t/t's were very rare, if they existed at all, and the reasons why that was the case.Regarding Westinghouse, being in production doesn't mean it was in wide use. From what I understand, Westinghouse had a problem selling the system until the ICC became their best salesman.The figures I quoted contradict that. They indicate that airbrake compressors were in widespread use during the last quarter of the 19th century, and came from the ICC itself.The act went into effect in 1900, after a seven year grace period. The act does not specifically mention air brakes. In 1903, the act was ammended to require at least 50% of the cars in a train to be so equipped and in use.Interesting, but irrelevant. The figures I quoted refer specifically to locomotives fitted with airbrake compressors - not freight cars.Why would you run belts and shafts when you can just run an insulated steam line? All you need is a line running into the pit and up through the pivot.If you've ever dealt with piping steam over a distance to actually work a machine, as opposed to piping process steam, you'd know it isn't that simple as providing an insulated pipe. And the state of the art being what it was in the period under discussion, a steam-tight, 360 degree rotating joint would have been a really big ask. Much easier to either turn engines by other means - manual, air, or electric.Even if you were using locomotive steam, the hose would logically be installed on the turntable not the locomotive. You'd pull steam off the front end near the cylinders, which would be near the end of the turntable where the table engine would be.Again, really? Where exactly would you advocate taking steam off the loco from?I'd imagine that a stationary air source would be employed, probably using the same steam line that had been used.And yet every example of an air-operated t/t mentioned, or that I've ever seen took air from the loco brake or main res pipe, as there were no "steam lines" to useA locomotive compressor might not make enough pressure to operate the turntable engine.Sorry, that's just nonsense. When even a single-stage Westinghouse "F" pump can give you 110psi in the main res, you can safely reckon you'll have sufficient pressure and volume to run a simple, low-powered air motor.All of your comments are no more more than speculation based on what appears to me to be an incomplete understanding of the technology and the way it was applied. If you can cite a reliable reference to a steam-powered t/t, I'd be genuinely interested to hear about it. But otherwise, I'll stick with my statement that they were rare/non-existant.All the best,Mark. Reply MudHen_462 Member sinceApril 2003 From: Missouri 369 posts Posted by MudHen_462 on Friday, April 20, 2007 12:34 AM Here is a photo of an "old" turntable motor... it was either air or steam operated by the looks of it. I don't know if it was a conventional T/T, or a "covered table" like the one I am modeling (second photo...), which is just a bashed HO scale Atlas Turntable. Any comments on the motor and it's "energy source", anyone? Bob Reply marknewton Member sinceDecember 2002 From: Sydney, Australia 1,939 posts Posted by marknewton on Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:34 PM There's two major obstacles to running an air motor on steam. One is lubrication. A typical air motor uses light compressor oil, or at a pinch bearing oil. Attempt to run it on steam and the oil breaks down rapidly, as it's flashpoint is too low. The other is condensate. An air motor usually has no provision for draining condensed water out of the cylinders, so trying to run it on steam would probably damage the thing beyond repair very quickly by water hammer. As for the idea that "it would not be too dificult to pipe some of that steam over to the turntable", I'd suggest the exact opposite. You'd have more problems with condensation and water hammer over a long pipe run, and then further problems keeping a steam-tight joint between the turntable pivot and the bridge.If you don't mind me asking, have you ever had any practical experience with either steam plant or air machines?Mark. Reply Robert Member sinceJuly 2006 23 posts Posted by Robert on Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:15 PM One of the other forum members mentioned that most of the machinery at the facility was driven by steam. It seems it would not be too dificult to pipe some of that steam over to the turntable to run through the "air" motors. The cost and maintenance is already there. I have gone to the historical society and the local building office, neither have any information going that far back except for a Sanborn fire map Thanks Reply Newyorkcentralfan Member sinceMay 2005 293 posts Posted by Newyorkcentralfan on Thursday, April 19, 2007 5:31 PM Try the local town offices. They might still have plans in theire files. Or try a local historical society. They might have plans or pictures. Robert wrote:There was a manual turntable in Newnan, GA, there is nothing left of it now. I was curious about what it looked like but I have not found any pictures yet. Reply Newyorkcentralfan Member sinceMay 2005 293 posts Posted by Newyorkcentralfan on Thursday, April 19, 2007 5:20 PM Robert wrote:So why not use steam to drive an air motor?Because generating steam is more expensive than compressing air. To use steam you have to have a source of steam, which means you need a source of water and fuel. The fuel and sometimes the water costs money, both to buy and store. You have to treat the water to keep the minerals in it from causing damage to your engine.You have to hire someone to watch it make sure you don't run out of water or the boiler explodes. You can't store steam for long periods of time or when it cools it contracts and creates into a vacuum and then destroys the container it's in. With air you have buy a compressor and something to power it. It takes a lot less maintance and supplies, basically lube oil and draining the tank of water periodically or when something breaks. You can keep it compressed nearly indefinitely. You only have to use energy to replace what you use and for the slight losses when you're using IC or electricity.They can be powered equally well from external or internal combustion or electricity. You can switch between them easily if you discontinue an unneeded technology. Reply Newyorkcentralfan Member sinceMay 2005 293 posts Posted by Newyorkcentralfan on Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:53 PM marknewton wrote:As I commented previously, in over 30 years of globetrotting, I've never seen one, never heard mention of one, nor seen any written reference to one in railroad trade or engineering publications. On that basis, I don't think they were ever common at all.Well Mark, the thirty years of globetrotting was presumably within the last fifty. Electricity has been well entrenched since the 1930s. So I doubt you'd see much in the way of steam powered anything. Air power was obviously the intermediary between steam and electric. Since the electricity has taken over with the last one hundred your experience is probably out date. Personal experience is great but it doesn't cover everything. marknewton wrote:Your dates are wrong. Westinghouse was producing the air brakecommercially by 1880. By 1889, of 29,036 locomotives in US service, 17,995 (62%) had had train brake connections. In 1900, 36,217 locos out of 37,663 (96%) were fitted. 1893 was the year airbrakes were mandated under the Safety Appliances Act."Regarding Westinghouse, being in production doesn't mean it was in wide use. From what I understand, Westinghouse had a problem selling the system until the ICC became their best salesman.The act went into effect in 1900, after a seven year grace period. The act does not specifically mention air brakes. What was specifiied was power-driving wheel brake and appliances for operating the train-brake system.In 1903, the act was ammended to require at least 50% of the cars in a train to be so equipped and in use. One can infer from this that this was because the railroads probably were dragging their feet in implementing the rule. marknewton wrote:Yes, powering a stationary engine that drove everything else via line shafts and belts. I can't envisage this method being used to drive a turntable, any more than I can envisage a flexible connection supplying live steam to an separate engine on the turntable.Why would you run belts and shafts when you can just run an insulated steam line? All you need is a line running into the pit and up through the pivot. Then to a cylinder, like a shay or a climax, turning a shaft geared to the bogie wheels running on the pit ring. marknewton wrote:Likewise, I can't imagine fitting every loco with a suitable connection, and providing a lump of hose to supply steam, either. Even if you were using locomotive steam, the hose would logically be installed on the turntable not the locomotive. You'd pull steam off the front end near the cylinders, which would be near the end of the turntable where the table engine would be. marknewton wrote:No, it'd be more a case of air motors being adopted once locos started being fitted with compressors, but only in those locations where electrifying the table wasn't justified.I'd imagine that a stationary air source would be employed, probably using the same steam line that had been used. A locomotive compressor might not make enough pressure to operate the turntable engine. Reply Robert Member sinceJuly 2006 23 posts Posted by Robert on Monday, April 16, 2007 10:27 AM So why not use steam to drive an air motor? Reply Eddie_walters Member sinceOctober 2005 From: Bucks County, PA 151 posts Posted by Eddie_walters on Saturday, April 14, 2007 8:28 AM Remember that before 1900 the locos were a fair bit smaller and lighter, and also, if a turntable is balanced it's relatively easy to push around manually. I remember seeing a graphic demonstration of this some time ago at the metre gauge "Vivarais" line in France (a fantastic ride - I highly recommend it) - the young crew put their loco on the turntable and didn't bother to balance it properly on the turntable. It took both guys a lot of effort to turn the loco. The older crew balanced the turntable, and pushed it round with one hand!Incidentally, in Britain it was common to use a vacuum driven motor to operate the larger turntables, as the locos in Britain commonly used vacuum brakes in the steam era. Reply marknewton Member sinceDecember 2002 From: Sydney, Australia 1,939 posts Posted by marknewton on Saturday, April 14, 2007 7:39 AM I think that at one time steam powered turntables were probablyvery common.As I commented previously, in over 30 years of globetrotting, I've neverseen one, never heard mention of one, nor seen any written reference toone in railroad trade or engineering publications. On that basis, Idon't think they were ever common at all.Consider the fact that air brakes were patented in 1893 and wereonly required after 1905.Your dates are wrong. Westinghouse was producing the air brakecommercially by 1880. By 1889, of 29,036 locomotives in US service,17,995 (62%) had had train brake connections. In 1900, 36,217 locos outof 37,663 (96%) were fitted. 1893 was the year airbrakes were mandatedunder the Safety Appliances Act.A lot of turntables were in existance before then. Likewise mostlocomotive facilities would have had a stationary steam boiler to powermachine tools used for servicing engines.Yes, powering a stationary engine that drove everything else via lineshafts and belts. I can't envisage this method being used to drive aturntable, any more than I can envisage a flexible connection supplyinglive steam to an separate engine on the turntable. Likewise, I can'timagine fitting every loco with a suitable connection, and providing alump of hose to supply steam, either.Railroads probably wouldn't have rushed to switch over to airpowered turntable engines just because they had a source of compressedair.No, it'd be more a case of air motors being adopted once locos startedbeing fitted with compressors, but only in those locations whereelectrifying the table wasn't justified.Cheers,Mark. Reply Robert Member sinceJuly 2006 23 posts Posted by Robert on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:51 PM There was a manual turntable in Newnan, GA, there is nothing left of it now. I was curious about what it looked like but I have not found any pictures yet. Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, April 9, 2007 6:40 AM Robert wrote:Once the engine is moved off of the turntable how would the turntable be repositioned?Most of the turntables of the day were set up to move as an "Armstrong" type with the air motor being an option. It is easier to move an empty turntable than one with a locomotive on it. Like I said above, the EBT one is moved as an Armstrong type all the time. The locomotive is centered (by weight) on the table and two or three guys can turn it. There is a manually positioned locking plate that will hold the table in alignment when the loco is moved on or off the table. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MudHen_462 Member sinceApril 2003 From: Missouri 369 posts Posted by MudHen_462 on Sunday, April 8, 2007 1:41 PM Very good question! However, the Montana Western would only use it to turn the locomotive 180 degrees... and would wind up ready for the next "turn", as they only used that one track. Bob Reply Robert Member sinceJuly 2006 23 posts Posted by Robert on Sunday, April 8, 2007 11:10 AM Once the engine is moved off of the turntable how would the turntable be repositioned? Reply Newyorkcentralfan Member sinceMay 2005 293 posts Posted by Newyorkcentralfan on Saturday, April 7, 2007 11:40 AM I don't think that there's anything to keep a steam powered turntable engine from being converted over to compressed air. They both use the same process, a gas is expanded to move a piston which is attached to a crank which applies rotary motion. Iron Goat wrote:Thanks for the reply... so far, my Montana Western sources are divided, as one says "steam", and the other said it was "air" powered. They both agree that it was supplied by the loco on the turntable.Thanks... Bob Reply MudHen_462 Member sinceApril 2003 From: Missouri 369 posts Posted by MudHen_462 on Saturday, April 7, 2007 4:19 AM Thanks for the reply... so far, my Montana Western sources are divided, as one says "steam", and the other said it was "air" powered. They both agree that it was supplied by the loco on the turntable.Thanks... Bob Reply Newyorkcentralfan Member sinceMay 2005 293 posts Posted by Newyorkcentralfan on Saturday, April 7, 2007 2:14 AM I think that at one time steam powered turntables were probably very common. Consider the fact that air brakes were patented in 1893 and were only required after 1905. A lot of turntables were in existance before then. Likewise most locomotive facilities would have had a stationary steam boiler to power machine tools used for servicing engines. Railroads probably wouldn't have rushed to switch over to air powered turntable engines just because they had a source of compressed air. They'd probably wait until they needed to replace the existing turntable with a larger one to service larger engines. marknewton wrote:The length of pipe has an ordinary angle c.o.c.k. on the end of it, which tallies with the OP's statement that this t/t has an air motor. Assuming that EBT engines weren't fitted with main reservoir hoses - were they? - a direct connection would be made to the engine's train pipe hose to power the air motor.I'm not dismissing the possibility that steam was used to power turntables, but I would consider it unlikely - I've certainly never seen any examples in thirty-odd years of visiting engine sheds around the world. I'll also note that steam-era trade publications have numerous advertisements for air motors to operate turntables and traversers, but none for steam engines. If anyone can cite examples, I'd be very interested. Reply 12 Subscriber & Member Login Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more! Login Register Users Online There are no community member online Search the Community ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Model Railroader Newsletter See all Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox! Sign up
marknewton wrote:You'd be wrong. I've visited places like Tindharia on the DHR, El Maiten on the Esquel branch, Cadem on the Hedjaz, and a shed on a Chinese forestry line I can't even spell the name of...Third-world sort of places.
I've seen an astonishing variety of steam-powered kit in sheds and workshops. Cranes, coal grabs, ash plants, traversers, pumps, fans, machines and stationary engines of all sorts. I never once saw a steam-powered t/t.
Nor, as I mentioned before, have I ever seen a printed reference to one.
When I consider that every other type of machine, plant or steam loco specialty was advertised prominently in the trade press, I think that's significant. And the earliest reference I've seen to an electrically-powered t/t was in 1897.
Air power was obviously the intermediary between steam and electricReally? Where, and in what context?.
Personal experience tells me that steam-powered t/t's were very rare, if they existed at all, and the reasons why that was the case.
Regarding Westinghouse, being in production doesn't mean it was in wide use. From what I understand, Westinghouse had a problem selling the system until the ICC became their best salesman.The figures I quoted contradict that. They indicate that airbrake compressors were in widespread use during the last quarter of the 19th century, and came from the ICC itself.
The act went into effect in 1900, after a seven year grace period. The act does not specifically mention air brakes. In 1903, the act was amended to require at least 50% of the cars in a train to be so equipped and in use.Interesting, but irrelevant. The figures I quoted refer specifically to locomotives fitted with air brake compressors - not freight cars.
Interesting, but irrelevant. The figures I quoted refer specifically to locomotives fitted with air brake compressors - not freight cars.
If the railroads weren't using freight cars with air brake system then the capacity of the air compression systen would only have to service the locomotive. So the compressors could be significantly smaller nd not able to supply a converted steam motor.
Why would you run belts and shafts when you can just run an insulated steam line? All you need is a line running into the pit and up through the pivot.If you've ever dealt with piping steam over a distance to actually work a machine, as opposed to piping process steam, you'd know it isn't that simple as providing an insulated pipe. And the state of the art being what it was in the period under discussion, a steam-tight, 360 degree rotating joint would have been a really big ask. Much easier to either turn engines by other means - manual, air, or electric.
Even if you were using locomotive steam, the hose would logically be installed on the turntable not the locomotive. You'd pull steam off the front end near the cylinders, which would be near the end of the turntable where the table engine would be.Again, really? Where exactly would you advocate taking steam off the loco from?
I'd imagine that a stationary air source would be employed, probably using the same steam line that had been used.And yet every example of an air-operated t/t mentioned, or that I've ever seen took air from the loco brake or main res pipe, as there were no "steam lines" to use
A locomotive compressor might not make enough pressure to operate the turntable engine.Sorry, that's just nonsense. When even a single-stage Westinghouse "F" pum Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Saturday, April 21, 2007 10:29 AM Iron Goat wrote: Here is a photo of an "old" turntable motor... it was either air or steam operated by the looks of it. I don't know if it was a conventional T/T, or a "covered table" like the one I am modeling (second photo...), which is just a bashed HO scale Atlas Turntable. Any comments on the motor and it's "energy source", anyone? Bob The first picture you provided is the same one I linked on page one of this thread, it's the East Broad Top turntable while it was being redecked last year. The photo was taken by Lance Myers. The motor is an air operated one that, to my knowledge, has not been used since the EBT bought it from the New York Central. All photos show it being used in the "Armstrong" mode, which is also the only way I've seen it used in the tourist era. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply steamaddict Member sinceJune 2005 14 posts Posted by steamaddict on Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:20 AM I noticed that the editor or an automated program didn't like the word after 'angle' in my post above. This is political correctness gone mad. Anglec__k (o and c are the missing letters by the way) and stopc__k are perfectly legitimate words in the english language (at least in Australia anyway) amongst others and by replacing them with asterisks makes it appear that I was using or intended to use profanity. It may have also been slightly my fault since I used a space between the word stop and c__k but the whole thing seems a bit crazy.I will have to get used to using the word 'tap' instead.Darren Reply Newyorkcentralfan Member sinceMay 2005 293 posts Posted by Newyorkcentralfan on Saturday, April 21, 2007 5:33 AM marknewton wrote:You'd be wrong. I've visited places like Tindharia on the DHR, El Maiten on the Esquel branch, Cadem on the Hedjaz, and a shed on a Chinese forestry line I can't even spell the name of...Third-world sort of places.Well there you go. I was talking about the first world.I've seen an astonishing variety of steam-powered kit in sheds and workshops. Cranes, coal grabs, ash plants, traversers, pumps, fans, machines and stationary engines of all sorts. I never once saw a steam-powered t/t.Well why would all these things be steamed powered BUT turntables not be so powered as well?Nor, as I mentioned before, have I ever seen a printed reference to one.If steam power was the only or the standard way of powering something why would they feel the need to mention it. Dog bites man is not newsworthy.When I consider that every other type of machine, plant or steam loco specialty was advertised prominently in the trade press, I think that's significant. And the earliest reference I've seen to an electrically-powered t/t was in 1897.Electric power turntable in 1897. Man bites dog. That IS significant.Air power was obviously the intermediary between steam and electricReally? Where, and in what context?.I believe that compressed air can be used in a system originally designed to use steam with far less problems than steam can in an air system.Personal experience tells me that steam-powered t/t's were very rare, if they existed at all, and the reasons why that was the case.Well, existing ones would be rare if they had been converted to compressed air and/or later electricity. There would be no personal experience to be gained if the conversion had been done decades before you were born.Regarding Westinghouse, being in production doesn't mean it was in wide use. From what I understand, Westinghouse had a problem selling the system until the ICC became their best salesman.The figures I quoted contradict that. They indicate that airbrake compressors were in widespread use during the last quarter of the 19th century, and came from the ICC itself.If they were in widespread use then why would the government feel the need to enact regulations to mandate their use? There would be little point. A bunch of large railroads with 100% compliance can skew the statistics.The act went into effect in 1900, after a seven year grace period. The act does not specifically mention air brakes. In 1903, the act was amended to require at least 50% of the cars in a train to be so equipped and in use.Interesting, but irrelevant. The figures I quoted refer specifically to locomotives fitted with air brake compressors - not freight cars.If the railroads weren't using freight cars with air brake system then the capacity of the air compression systen would only have to service the locomotive. So the compressors could be significantly smaller nd not able to supply a converted steam motor. Why would you run belts and shafts when you can just run an insulated steam line? All you need is a line running into the pit and up through the pivot.If you've ever dealt with piping steam over a distance to actually work a machine, as opposed to piping process steam, you'd know it isn't that simple as providing an insulated pipe. And the state of the art being what it was in the period under discussion, a steam-tight, 360 degree rotating joint would have been a really big ask. Much easier to either turn engines by other means - manual, air, or electric.Obviously manual is the easiest. If you require power, it depends on what's available. If you're starting from scratch and electricity is available. That's the next easiest. But if you're building the facility prior to electricity then you're left with steam, air or a mechanical drive. The question becomes why would you opt for air and have to obtain, maintain two generation systems when you can go with steam and have to deal with just one? Or worse still, mechanical drive. Running steam lines would have been preferred to running power shafts and gear boxes under the turntable, even if they leaked. Even if you were using locomotive steam, the hose would logically be installed on the turntable not the locomotive. You'd pull steam off the front end near the cylinders, which would be near the end of the turntable where the table engine would be.Again, really? Where exactly would you advocate taking steam off the loco from?See above. What you quoted. Where would you place a valve on a steam locomotive if you wanted to be able to pull off steam?"I'd imagine that a stationary air source would be employed, probably using the same steam line that had been used.And yet every example of an air-operated t/t mentioned, or that I've ever seen took air from the loco brake or main res pipe, as there were no "steam lines" to use If you converted from steam to air and ran it off a locomotive's air supply why wouldn't you remove the former steam piping? Either for ease of maintenance or for the scrap value of the obsolete parts?A locomotive compressor might not make enough pressure to operate the turntable engine.Sorry, that's just nonsense. When even a single-stage Westinghouse "F" pump can give you 110psi in the main res, you can safely reckon you'll have sufficient pressure and volume to run a simple, low-powered air motor.But what if a simple, low Reply steamaddict Member sinceJune 2005 14 posts Posted by steamaddict on Friday, April 20, 2007 7:25 AM The local turntable has a large air reservoir under the deck and it was 'charged' while the turntable hose was connected. With a fully charged reservoir the turntable can be spun 3 full turns which easily allows the turntable to be realigned with any bay/track to accept another loco. The turntable hose has a gladhand and was connected to the loco brake pipe as any freight car would be and the angle **** opened.I agree with some of the other responders that prior to air brakes all the turntable would most likely have been armstrong style as the locos were small enough, labour was more plentiful and people were conditioned to hard work. Using steam would have had complications with connections to the boiler, high pressure steam hoses, condensation in cold pipes and in the motor, etc. Reply marknewton Member sinceDecember 2002 From: Sydney, Australia 1,939 posts Posted by marknewton on Friday, April 20, 2007 7:07 AM Well Mark, the thirty years of globetrotting was presumably within the last fifty. Electricity has been well entrenched since the 1930s. So I doubt you'd see much in the way of steam powered anything.You'd be wrong. I've visited places like Tindharia on the DHR, El Maiten on the Esquel branch, Cadem on the Hedjaz, and a shed on a Chinese forestry line I can't even spell the name of...Third-world sort of places. I've seen an astonishing variety of steam-powered kit in sheds and workshops. Cranes, coal grabs, ash plants, traversers, pumps, fans, machines and stationary engines of all sorts. I never once saw a steam-powered t/t. Nor, as I mentioned before, have I ever seen a printed reference to one. When I consider that every other type of machine, plant or steam loco specialty was advertised prominently in the trade press, I think that's significant. And the earliest reference I've seen to an electrically-powered t/t was in 1897.Air power was obviously the intermediary between steam and electric.Really? Where, and in what context?Since the electricity has taken over with the last one hundred your experience is probably out date. Personal experience is great but it doesn't cover everything.Personal experience tells me that steam-powered t/t's were very rare, if they existed at all, and the reasons why that was the case.Regarding Westinghouse, being in production doesn't mean it was in wide use. From what I understand, Westinghouse had a problem selling the system until the ICC became their best salesman.The figures I quoted contradict that. They indicate that airbrake compressors were in widespread use during the last quarter of the 19th century, and came from the ICC itself.The act went into effect in 1900, after a seven year grace period. The act does not specifically mention air brakes. In 1903, the act was ammended to require at least 50% of the cars in a train to be so equipped and in use.Interesting, but irrelevant. The figures I quoted refer specifically to locomotives fitted with airbrake compressors - not freight cars.Why would you run belts and shafts when you can just run an insulated steam line? All you need is a line running into the pit and up through the pivot.If you've ever dealt with piping steam over a distance to actually work a machine, as opposed to piping process steam, you'd know it isn't that simple as providing an insulated pipe. And the state of the art being what it was in the period under discussion, a steam-tight, 360 degree rotating joint would have been a really big ask. Much easier to either turn engines by other means - manual, air, or electric.Even if you were using locomotive steam, the hose would logically be installed on the turntable not the locomotive. You'd pull steam off the front end near the cylinders, which would be near the end of the turntable where the table engine would be.Again, really? Where exactly would you advocate taking steam off the loco from?I'd imagine that a stationary air source would be employed, probably using the same steam line that had been used.And yet every example of an air-operated t/t mentioned, or that I've ever seen took air from the loco brake or main res pipe, as there were no "steam lines" to useA locomotive compressor might not make enough pressure to operate the turntable engine.Sorry, that's just nonsense. When even a single-stage Westinghouse "F" pump can give you 110psi in the main res, you can safely reckon you'll have sufficient pressure and volume to run a simple, low-powered air motor.All of your comments are no more more than speculation based on what appears to me to be an incomplete understanding of the technology and the way it was applied. If you can cite a reliable reference to a steam-powered t/t, I'd be genuinely interested to hear about it. But otherwise, I'll stick with my statement that they were rare/non-existant.All the best,Mark. Reply MudHen_462 Member sinceApril 2003 From: Missouri 369 posts Posted by MudHen_462 on Friday, April 20, 2007 12:34 AM Here is a photo of an "old" turntable motor... it was either air or steam operated by the looks of it. I don't know if it was a conventional T/T, or a "covered table" like the one I am modeling (second photo...), which is just a bashed HO scale Atlas Turntable. Any comments on the motor and it's "energy source", anyone? Bob Reply marknewton Member sinceDecember 2002 From: Sydney, Australia 1,939 posts Posted by marknewton on Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:34 PM There's two major obstacles to running an air motor on steam. One is lubrication. A typical air motor uses light compressor oil, or at a pinch bearing oil. Attempt to run it on steam and the oil breaks down rapidly, as it's flashpoint is too low. The other is condensate. An air motor usually has no provision for draining condensed water out of the cylinders, so trying to run it on steam would probably damage the thing beyond repair very quickly by water hammer. As for the idea that "it would not be too dificult to pipe some of that steam over to the turntable", I'd suggest the exact opposite. You'd have more problems with condensation and water hammer over a long pipe run, and then further problems keeping a steam-tight joint between the turntable pivot and the bridge.If you don't mind me asking, have you ever had any practical experience with either steam plant or air machines?Mark. Reply Robert Member sinceJuly 2006 23 posts Posted by Robert on Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:15 PM One of the other forum members mentioned that most of the machinery at the facility was driven by steam. It seems it would not be too dificult to pipe some of that steam over to the turntable to run through the "air" motors. The cost and maintenance is already there. I have gone to the historical society and the local building office, neither have any information going that far back except for a Sanborn fire map Thanks Reply Newyorkcentralfan Member sinceMay 2005 293 posts Posted by Newyorkcentralfan on Thursday, April 19, 2007 5:31 PM Try the local town offices. They might still have plans in theire files. Or try a local historical society. They might have plans or pictures. Robert wrote:There was a manual turntable in Newnan, GA, there is nothing left of it now. I was curious about what it looked like but I have not found any pictures yet. Reply Newyorkcentralfan Member sinceMay 2005 293 posts Posted by Newyorkcentralfan on Thursday, April 19, 2007 5:20 PM Robert wrote:So why not use steam to drive an air motor?Because generating steam is more expensive than compressing air. To use steam you have to have a source of steam, which means you need a source of water and fuel. The fuel and sometimes the water costs money, both to buy and store. You have to treat the water to keep the minerals in it from causing damage to your engine.You have to hire someone to watch it make sure you don't run out of water or the boiler explodes. You can't store steam for long periods of time or when it cools it contracts and creates into a vacuum and then destroys the container it's in. With air you have buy a compressor and something to power it. It takes a lot less maintance and supplies, basically lube oil and draining the tank of water periodically or when something breaks. You can keep it compressed nearly indefinitely. You only have to use energy to replace what you use and for the slight losses when you're using IC or electricity.They can be powered equally well from external or internal combustion or electricity. You can switch between them easily if you discontinue an unneeded technology. Reply Newyorkcentralfan Member sinceMay 2005 293 posts Posted by Newyorkcentralfan on Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:53 PM marknewton wrote:As I commented previously, in over 30 years of globetrotting, I've never seen one, never heard mention of one, nor seen any written reference to one in railroad trade or engineering publications. On that basis, I don't think they were ever common at all.Well Mark, the thirty years of globetrotting was presumably within the last fifty. Electricity has been well entrenched since the 1930s. So I doubt you'd see much in the way of steam powered anything. Air power was obviously the intermediary between steam and electric. Since the electricity has taken over with the last one hundred your experience is probably out date. Personal experience is great but it doesn't cover everything. marknewton wrote:Your dates are wrong. Westinghouse was producing the air brakecommercially by 1880. By 1889, of 29,036 locomotives in US service, 17,995 (62%) had had train brake connections. In 1900, 36,217 locos out of 37,663 (96%) were fitted. 1893 was the year airbrakes were mandated under the Safety Appliances Act."Regarding Westinghouse, being in production doesn't mean it was in wide use. From what I understand, Westinghouse had a problem selling the system until the ICC became their best salesman.The act went into effect in 1900, after a seven year grace period. The act does not specifically mention air brakes. What was specifiied was power-driving wheel brake and appliances for operating the train-brake system.In 1903, the act was ammended to require at least 50% of the cars in a train to be so equipped and in use. One can infer from this that this was because the railroads probably were dragging their feet in implementing the rule. marknewton wrote:Yes, powering a stationary engine that drove everything else via line shafts and belts. I can't envisage this method being used to drive a turntable, any more than I can envisage a flexible connection supplying live steam to an separate engine on the turntable.Why would you run belts and shafts when you can just run an insulated steam line? All you need is a line running into the pit and up through the pivot. Then to a cylinder, like a shay or a climax, turning a shaft geared to the bogie wheels running on the pit ring. marknewton wrote:Likewise, I can't imagine fitting every loco with a suitable connection, and providing a lump of hose to supply steam, either. Even if you were using locomotive steam, the hose would logically be installed on the turntable not the locomotive. You'd pull steam off the front end near the cylinders, which would be near the end of the turntable where the table engine would be. marknewton wrote:No, it'd be more a case of air motors being adopted once locos started being fitted with compressors, but only in those locations where electrifying the table wasn't justified.I'd imagine that a stationary air source would be employed, probably using the same steam line that had been used. A locomotive compressor might not make enough pressure to operate the turntable engine. Reply Robert Member sinceJuly 2006 23 posts Posted by Robert on Monday, April 16, 2007 10:27 AM So why not use steam to drive an air motor? Reply Eddie_walters Member sinceOctober 2005 From: Bucks County, PA 151 posts Posted by Eddie_walters on Saturday, April 14, 2007 8:28 AM Remember that before 1900 the locos were a fair bit smaller and lighter, and also, if a turntable is balanced it's relatively easy to push around manually. I remember seeing a graphic demonstration of this some time ago at the metre gauge "Vivarais" line in France (a fantastic ride - I highly recommend it) - the young crew put their loco on the turntable and didn't bother to balance it properly on the turntable. It took both guys a lot of effort to turn the loco. The older crew balanced the turntable, and pushed it round with one hand!Incidentally, in Britain it was common to use a vacuum driven motor to operate the larger turntables, as the locos in Britain commonly used vacuum brakes in the steam era. Reply marknewton Member sinceDecember 2002 From: Sydney, Australia 1,939 posts Posted by marknewton on Saturday, April 14, 2007 7:39 AM I think that at one time steam powered turntables were probablyvery common.As I commented previously, in over 30 years of globetrotting, I've neverseen one, never heard mention of one, nor seen any written reference toone in railroad trade or engineering publications. On that basis, Idon't think they were ever common at all.Consider the fact that air brakes were patented in 1893 and wereonly required after 1905.Your dates are wrong. Westinghouse was producing the air brakecommercially by 1880. By 1889, of 29,036 locomotives in US service,17,995 (62%) had had train brake connections. In 1900, 36,217 locos outof 37,663 (96%) were fitted. 1893 was the year airbrakes were mandatedunder the Safety Appliances Act.A lot of turntables were in existance before then. Likewise mostlocomotive facilities would have had a stationary steam boiler to powermachine tools used for servicing engines.Yes, powering a stationary engine that drove everything else via lineshafts and belts. I can't envisage this method being used to drive aturntable, any more than I can envisage a flexible connection supplyinglive steam to an separate engine on the turntable. Likewise, I can'timagine fitting every loco with a suitable connection, and providing alump of hose to supply steam, either.Railroads probably wouldn't have rushed to switch over to airpowered turntable engines just because they had a source of compressedair.No, it'd be more a case of air motors being adopted once locos startedbeing fitted with compressors, but only in those locations whereelectrifying the table wasn't justified.Cheers,Mark. Reply Robert Member sinceJuly 2006 23 posts Posted by Robert on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:51 PM There was a manual turntable in Newnan, GA, there is nothing left of it now. I was curious about what it looked like but I have not found any pictures yet. Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, April 9, 2007 6:40 AM Robert wrote:Once the engine is moved off of the turntable how would the turntable be repositioned?Most of the turntables of the day were set up to move as an "Armstrong" type with the air motor being an option. It is easier to move an empty turntable than one with a locomotive on it. Like I said above, the EBT one is moved as an Armstrong type all the time. The locomotive is centered (by weight) on the table and two or three guys can turn it. There is a manually positioned locking plate that will hold the table in alignment when the loco is moved on or off the table. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MudHen_462 Member sinceApril 2003 From: Missouri 369 posts Posted by MudHen_462 on Sunday, April 8, 2007 1:41 PM Very good question! However, the Montana Western would only use it to turn the locomotive 180 degrees... and would wind up ready for the next "turn", as they only used that one track. Bob Reply Robert Member sinceJuly 2006 23 posts Posted by Robert on Sunday, April 8, 2007 11:10 AM Once the engine is moved off of the turntable how would the turntable be repositioned? Reply Newyorkcentralfan Member sinceMay 2005 293 posts Posted by Newyorkcentralfan on Saturday, April 7, 2007 11:40 AM I don't think that there's anything to keep a steam powered turntable engine from being converted over to compressed air. They both use the same process, a gas is expanded to move a piston which is attached to a crank which applies rotary motion. Iron Goat wrote:Thanks for the reply... so far, my Montana Western sources are divided, as one says "steam", and the other said it was "air" powered. They both agree that it was supplied by the loco on the turntable.Thanks... Bob Reply MudHen_462 Member sinceApril 2003 From: Missouri 369 posts Posted by MudHen_462 on Saturday, April 7, 2007 4:19 AM Thanks for the reply... so far, my Montana Western sources are divided, as one says "steam", and the other said it was "air" powered. They both agree that it was supplied by the loco on the turntable.Thanks... Bob Reply Newyorkcentralfan Member sinceMay 2005 293 posts Posted by Newyorkcentralfan on Saturday, April 7, 2007 2:14 AM I think that at one time steam powered turntables were probably very common. Consider the fact that air brakes were patented in 1893 and were only required after 1905. A lot of turntables were in existance before then. Likewise most locomotive facilities would have had a stationary steam boiler to power machine tools used for servicing engines. Railroads probably wouldn't have rushed to switch over to air powered turntable engines just because they had a source of compressed air. They'd probably wait until they needed to replace the existing turntable with a larger one to service larger engines. marknewton wrote:The length of pipe has an ordinary angle c.o.c.k. on the end of it, which tallies with the OP's statement that this t/t has an air motor. Assuming that EBT engines weren't fitted with main reservoir hoses - were they? - a direct connection would be made to the engine's train pipe hose to power the air motor.I'm not dismissing the possibility that steam was used to power turntables, but I would consider it unlikely - I've certainly never seen any examples in thirty-odd years of visiting engine sheds around the world. I'll also note that steam-era trade publications have numerous advertisements for air motors to operate turntables and traversers, but none for steam engines. If anyone can cite examples, I'd be very interested. Reply 12 Subscriber & Member Login Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more! Login Register Users Online There are no community member online Search the Community ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Model Railroader Newsletter See all Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox! Sign up
Iron Goat wrote: Here is a photo of an "old" turntable motor... it was either air or steam operated by the looks of it. I don't know if it was a conventional T/T, or a "covered table" like the one I am modeling (second photo...), which is just a bashed HO scale Atlas Turntable. Any comments on the motor and it's "energy source", anyone? Bob
Here is a photo of an "old" turntable motor... it was either air or steam operated by the looks of it. I don't know if it was a conventional T/T, or a "covered table" like the one I am modeling (second photo...), which is just a bashed HO scale Atlas Turntable. Any comments on the motor and it's "energy source", anyone?
The first picture you provided is the same one I linked on page one of this thread, it's the East Broad Top turntable while it was being redecked last year. The photo was taken by Lance Myers. The motor is an air operated one that, to my knowledge, has not been used since the EBT bought it from the New York Central. All photos show it being used in the "Armstrong" mode, which is also the only way I've seen it used in the tourist era.
I noticed that the editor or an automated program didn't like the word after 'angle' in my post above. This is political correctness gone mad. Anglec__k (o and c are the missing letters by the way) and stopc__k are perfectly legitimate words in the english language (at least in Australia anyway) amongst others and by replacing them with asterisks makes it appear that I was using or intended to use profanity. It may have also been slightly my fault since I used a space between the word stop and c__k but the whole thing seems a bit crazy.
I will have to get used to using the word 'tap' instead.
Darren
A locomotive compressor might not make enough pressure to operate the turntable engine.Sorry, that's just nonsense. When even a single-stage Westinghouse "F" pump can give you 110psi in the main res, you can safely reckon you'll have sufficient pressure and volume to run a simple, low-powered air motor.
The local turntable has a large air reservoir under the deck and it was 'charged' while the turntable hose was connected. With a fully charged reservoir the turntable can be spun 3 full turns which easily allows the turntable to be realigned with any bay/track to accept another loco. The turntable hose has a gladhand and was connected to the loco brake pipe as any freight car would be and the angle **** opened.
I agree with some of the other responders that prior to air brakes all the turntable would most likely have been armstrong style as the locos were small enough, labour was more plentiful and people were conditioned to hard work. Using steam would have had complications with connections to the boiler, high pressure steam hoses, condensation in cold pipes and in the motor, etc.
Well Mark, the thirty years of globetrotting was presumably within the last fifty. Electricity has been well entrenched since the 1930s. So I doubt you'd see much in the way of steam powered anything.
Air power was obviously the intermediary between steam and electric.
Since the electricity has taken over with the last one hundred your experience is probably out date. Personal experience is great but it doesn't cover everything.
Regarding Westinghouse, being in production doesn't mean it was in wide use. From what I understand, Westinghouse had a problem selling the system until the ICC became their best salesman.
The act went into effect in 1900, after a seven year grace period. The act does not specifically mention air brakes. In 1903, the act was ammended to require at least 50% of the cars in a train to be so equipped and in use.
Why would you run belts and shafts when you can just run an insulated steam line? All you need is a line running into the pit and up through the pivot.
Even if you were using locomotive steam, the hose would logically be installed on the turntable not the locomotive. You'd pull steam off the front end near the cylinders, which would be near the end of the turntable where the table engine would be.
I'd imagine that a stationary air source would be employed, probably using the same steam line that had been used.
A locomotive compressor might not make enough pressure to operate the turntable engine.
One of the other forum members mentioned that most of the machinery at the facility was driven by steam. It seems it would not be too dificult to pipe some of that steam over to the turntable to run through the "air" motors. The cost and maintenance is already there.
I have gone to the historical society and the local building office, neither have any information going that far back except for a Sanborn fire map
Thanks
Try the local town offices. They might still have plans in theire files.
Or try a local historical society. They might have plans or pictures.
Robert wrote:There was a manual turntable in Newnan, GA, there is nothing left of it now. I was curious about what it looked like but I have not found any pictures yet.
Robert wrote:So why not use steam to drive an air motor?
marknewton wrote:As I commented previously, in over 30 years of globetrotting, I've never seen one, never heard mention of one, nor seen any written reference to one in railroad trade or engineering publications. On that basis, I don't think they were ever common at all.
Air power was obviously the intermediary between steam and electric. Since the electricity has taken over with the last one hundred your experience is probably out date. Personal experience is great but it doesn't cover everything.
marknewton wrote:Your dates are wrong. Westinghouse was producing the air brakecommercially by 1880. By 1889, of 29,036 locomotives in US service, 17,995 (62%) had had train brake connections. In 1900, 36,217 locos out of 37,663 (96%) were fitted. 1893 was the year airbrakes were mandated under the Safety Appliances Act."
The act went into effect in 1900, after a seven year grace period.
The act does not specifically mention air brakes. What was specifiied was power-driving wheel brake and appliances for operating the train-brake system.
In 1903, the act was ammended to require at least 50% of the cars in a train to be so equipped and in use.
One can infer from this that this was because the railroads probably were dragging their feet in implementing the rule.
marknewton wrote:Yes, powering a stationary engine that drove everything else via line shafts and belts. I can't envisage this method being used to drive a turntable, any more than I can envisage a flexible connection supplying live steam to an separate engine on the turntable.
Why would you run belts and shafts when you can just run an insulated steam line? All you need is a line running into the pit and up through the pivot. Then to a cylinder, like a shay or a climax, turning a shaft geared to the bogie wheels running on the pit ring.
marknewton wrote:Likewise, I can't imagine fitting every loco with a suitable connection, and providing a lump of hose to supply steam, either.
marknewton wrote:No, it'd be more a case of air motors being adopted once locos started being fitted with compressors, but only in those locations where electrifying the table wasn't justified.
I'd imagine that a stationary air source would be employed, probably using the same steam line that had been used. A locomotive compressor might not make enough pressure to operate the turntable engine.
Remember that before 1900 the locos were a fair bit smaller and lighter, and also, if a turntable is balanced it's relatively easy to push around manually. I remember seeing a graphic demonstration of this some time ago at the metre gauge "Vivarais" line in France (a fantastic ride - I highly recommend it) - the young crew put their loco on the turntable and didn't bother to balance it properly on the turntable. It took both guys a lot of effort to turn the loco. The older crew balanced the turntable, and pushed it round with one hand!
Incidentally, in Britain it was common to use a vacuum driven motor to operate the larger turntables, as the locos in Britain commonly used vacuum brakes in the steam era.
I think that at one time steam powered turntables were probablyvery common.
Consider the fact that air brakes were patented in 1893 and wereonly required after 1905.
A lot of turntables were in existance before then. Likewise mostlocomotive facilities would have had a stationary steam boiler to powermachine tools used for servicing engines.
Railroads probably wouldn't have rushed to switch over to airpowered turntable engines just because they had a source of compressedair.
Robert wrote:Once the engine is moved off of the turntable how would the turntable be repositioned?
Most of the turntables of the day were set up to move as an "Armstrong" type with the air motor being an option. It is easier to move an empty turntable than one with a locomotive on it. Like I said above, the EBT one is moved as an Armstrong type all the time. The locomotive is centered (by weight) on the table and two or three guys can turn it. There is a manually positioned locking plate that will hold the table in alignment when the loco is moved on or off the table.
Very good question! However, the Montana Western would only use it to turn the locomotive 180 degrees... and would wind up ready for the next "turn", as they only used that one track.
I don't think that there's anything to keep a steam powered turntable engine from being converted over to compressed air. They both use the same process, a gas is expanded to move a piston which is attached to a crank which applies rotary motion.
Iron Goat wrote:Thanks for the reply... so far, my Montana Western sources are divided, as one says "steam", and the other said it was "air" powered. They both agree that it was supplied by the loco on the turntable.Thanks... Bob
Thanks for the reply... so far, my Montana Western sources are divided, as one says "steam", and the other said it was "air" powered. They both agree that it was supplied by the loco on the turntable.
Thanks... Bob
I think that at one time steam powered turntables were probably very common. Consider the fact that air brakes were patented in 1893 and were only required after 1905. A lot of turntables were in existance before then. Likewise most locomotive facilities would have had a stationary steam boiler to power machine tools used for servicing engines. Railroads probably wouldn't have rushed to switch over to air powered turntable engines just because they had a source of compressed air. They'd probably wait until they needed to replace the existing turntable with a larger one to service larger engines.
marknewton wrote:The length of pipe has an ordinary angle c.o.c.k. on the end of it, which tallies with the OP's statement that this t/t has an air motor. Assuming that EBT engines weren't fitted with main reservoir hoses - were they? - a direct connection would be made to the engine's train pipe hose to power the air motor.I'm not dismissing the possibility that steam was used to power turntables, but I would consider it unlikely - I've certainly never seen any examples in thirty-odd years of visiting engine sheds around the world. I'll also note that steam-era trade publications have numerous advertisements for air motors to operate turntables and traversers, but none for steam engines. If anyone can cite examples, I'd be very interested.