BRAKIE You ever fire a steam locomotive?
You ever fire a steam locomotive?
Yes. The hardest job on a steam locomotive is that of the fireman.
I fully believe what my Grandpap said even though his spoken words is unprintable so,I will write in plain english. Any man that likes a steam locomotive has never fire one or is a fool*.
I fully believe what my Grandpap said even though his spoken words is unprintable so,I will write in plain english.
Any man that likes a steam locomotive has never fire one or is a fool*.
I'm an exception to that, I guess. I find it a very satisfying job, though neither easy or glamorous. I like it when I can toss in a shovel full of coal and place it precisely where on the fire I want it to go. I'm getting a bit long in the tooth for the job now, though - don't know if the creaky joints would still handle it.
---
Gary M. Collins gmcrailgNOSPAM@gmail.com
===================================
"Common Sense, Ain't!" -- G. M. Collins
http://fhn.site90.net
aloco I notice there are a lot of steam loco enthusiasts on this forum, and whenever I come across a steam-related thread I just bleep right over it. Why? First, I am too young to remember the steam era. The last steam locomotives were taken out of service the year I was born. Without any real steam locomotives to inspire me, I have no incentive to model them. Second, after having seen a couple real steam locomotives operating at museums I found it much more exciting to see the real thing than to look at a model running on a layout. ( 1) The steam, the smoke, the sparks, the flames, the smell, and the chugging of a real steam loco can't be replicated in miniature, especially not with electrically powered model railroad equipment. Third, real steam locos are built to the railways' specifications. I would not be satisfied with commercial plastic models of USRA Mikados or Pacifics. I'd probably throw everything away except the drive train and wheels and end up scratchbuilding the boiler, cab, and tender and adding prototype specific details. That's a lot of work. (2) But with diesels, there were standard production models purchased by many railways, and less effort is required to model a specific prototype.
I notice there are a lot of steam loco enthusiasts on this forum, and whenever I come across a steam-related thread I just bleep right over it. Why?
First, I am too young to remember the steam era. The last steam locomotives were taken out of service the year I was born. Without any real steam locomotives to inspire me, I have no incentive to model them.
Second, after having seen a couple real steam locomotives operating at museums I found it much more exciting to see the real thing than to look at a model running on a layout. ( 1) The steam, the smoke, the sparks, the flames, the smell, and the chugging of a real steam loco can't be replicated in miniature, especially not with electrically powered model railroad equipment.
Third, real steam locos are built to the railways' specifications. I would not be satisfied with commercial plastic models of USRA Mikados or Pacifics. I'd probably throw everything away except the drive train and wheels and end up scratchbuilding the boiler, cab, and tender and adding prototype specific details. That's a lot of work. (2) But with diesels, there were standard production models purchased by many railways, and less effort is required to model a specific prototype.
(1) Ditto with a box on wheels, (pardon me, Diesels) but at least with a Steam Loco there is all kinds of movement to watch. With the boxes on wheels, all you can do is get dizzy watching the wheels go round. I can do that watching the Merry-Go-Round in the Micro Wave Oven. Real men and Ladies that model the steam era just never get tired of watching and enjoying all the different makes and models of Steam Loco's with all of the moving parts and imagining all that wonderful steam hissing and spitting. At least not this man.
(2) Yep. Every box the same except for the paint job. BUT, you still get to watch the wheels go round. OOOOOH!!!
But then again, it's your railroad. Who am I to tell you what to model. Have fun. That's what it's all about. Isn't it???
Just my worth.
Blue Flamer.
I used to not like steam locomotives. Dad had a couple, mostly 0-4-0's, a 0-6-0 w/tender & his 4-4-0 V&T Reno. Loved it when he brought out the Reno though.
I then started reading about steam in Trains Magazine. Hmmm! Woah! Really? that much horsepower out of that????? WOW!
That's when I started liking steam, no wait, Loving steam. KInda helps that Canadian Pacific has one of the nicest looking steam roster. Note I said one of the nicest! Chill please!
My son has loved steam from a really early stage, probably has something to do with Thomas the Tank Engine & the fact I have several steamers for the layout.
I was born in the late 60's, CN was still doing the excursions around Toronto. Never made on one though.
Biggest thrill was being on CPR's private cars behind 2816 in 2003 & then in the cab of her in 2004 while she was still alive & breathing fire. No cab ride though. It is one noisy working environment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCBgZuihTYU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb_eNClF2I4&NR=1
Please excuse the video, i was juggling the video camera, a 35mm camera & a digital camera all at the same time
Gord
Brought to you by the letters C.P.R. as well as D&H!
K1a - all the way
I remember reading a quote (can't recall who said it) that "this is a hobby, not a religion." I agree. Model whatever you're interested in.
I'm old enough to remember seeing steam locos in service and so I model the year I was born, 1947. I like the atmosphere of the era, the movies, etc., and most of all the railroads of that time. But that's just my preference.
Brakie,
No, I've never fired a steam locomotive but when I took my ride in the Shay I asked the "real" engineer if I could take some coal home with me. He said sure, so I packed a few lumps in my pockets with the idea of grinding them up for a real coal load on my steamers. Never did, I have them on my shelf as a memento of my very interesting ride on Shay #11.
Wayne
---------------
Wayne,I never fired one either but,if I was in good health I would love to fire a steam locomotive for a day or two just to see if my Grandpap was right.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
There's never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.....
BRAKIE sfcouple: Young man, you are missing out on a lot of fun. I rode in the cab of a Shay Locomotive in Cass, West Virginia and let me tell ya that thing is a living breathing beast. It is alive. --------------------------------- You ever fire a steam locomotive? I fully believe what my Grandpap said even though his spoken words is unprintable so,I will write in plain english. Any man that likes a steam locomotive has never fire one or is a fool*. Grandpap was always blunt and to the point. * Even though I was 5 or 6 years I knew the "fool" he was referring to was my other Grandpappy who loved running a steam locomotive more then anything.
sfcouple:
Young man, you are missing out on a lot of fun.
I rode in the cab of a Shay Locomotive in Cass, West Virginia and let me tell ya that thing is a living breathing beast. It is alive.
---------------------------------
Grandpap was always blunt and to the point.
* Even though I was 5 or 6 years I knew the "fool" he was referring to was my other Grandpappy who loved running a steam locomotive more then anything.
Modeling HO Freelance Logging Railroad.
100 years from now someone is going to find a treasure trove of forum topics on an old trains.com site archived by some rather eccentric old gentlemen and discover "The Great Steam Debate Of 2011"
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
richhotrain Hey, seriously though, he replied to another thread about some steam engines that he owns. What's up with that? http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/194085.aspx
Hey, seriously though, he replied to another thread about some steam engines that he owns. What's up with that?
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/194085.aspx
BobH13 Why I'm not interested in why someone's not interested in steam. 1. I doubt I'll convince the person to change their opinion. 2. They like what they like, I like what I like. 3. In the grand scheme of things does it matter? 4. I know that opinion's change as one grows older :)
Why I'm not interested in why someone's not interested in steam.
1. I doubt I'll convince the person to change their opinion.
2. They like what they like, I like what I like.
3. In the grand scheme of things does it matter?
4. I know that opinion's change as one grows older :)
5. In a hundred years who's gonna care?
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
I think that we should start a movement to ban aloco from the forums.
Rich
Alton Junction
I'm waiting for the day where I have enough layout that I can pull a drag of 60' hi-cube boxcars and pneumatic covered hoppers with my USRA Light Pacific.
I used to be clueless, but i've turned that around 360 degrees.
B&O1952 The decline in railroading in this country can be directly connected to the demise of steam power.
The decline in railroading in this country can be directly connected to the demise of steam power.
Yes, it had nothing to do with all the other things that happened between 1925 and 1960.
Diesels are foreign oil guzzeling labor busters. Steam locomotives run on domestic coal, and employ a heck of a lot more people to maintain and operate. The decline in railroading in this country can be directly connected to the demise of steam power. Also, Diesels have no soul. I know, I'm a retired engineer. They're like driving a big rig with 100 trailers. I love hearing the stories of the engineers and firemen on the steamers. They could identify a loco by the sound of the whistle, or the skipped beat of the air pump. They'd tell you about the switcher that would "use water with the air pump running", or the mallet with the ring in her stack. The only cool diesels were the early ones. F units, FA's PA's GP's RS2's Baldwin sharks centipedes, many more. We have a fairly balanced layout representing the transitional period of the early 1950's with 35 steam locos and 37 diesels. Everyone runs what they like here, and I always keep steamers out on the mainline. One more point, steamers needed turntables. That's what people flock to see on our layout, a working turntable with a steam locomotive on it!
-Stan
Interesting scenario here..in Woodstock ON we had a couple of switchers...2-6-0's if I'm not off here...when I was about 6..in 1960...yes, some areas did still have them...but not many.
I was born in 1954, the year of the GP9. By the time I became aware of what a railroad is the steam locomotive was gone. My experience with live steam was at museums or fan trips. So what I modeled was diesel themed, with a few steamers thrown in for context, fantrip engines if you will. There is no native historical context for me to compare what it was like in the steam era, I read profusely on many railroad subjects and could profess knowledge about some parts of it. But what is being said here by many is we often model what we grow up with and closely and clearly remember.
And saying all of the above, I've written a book about a man who dearly loved steam. He saw his first steam locomotive at the age of 8 and decided then and there to become a locomotive engineer. Red Standefer began his Cotton Belt engine service career in 1917 as an engine watchman, became a fireman in 1918, was promoted to engineer in 1939. And when he retired in 1967 he was the #1 seniority Cotton Belt engineer in TEXAS. Red showed me what it was like to appreciate those that follow steam's path.
Ed in Kentucky
Hey, aloco, stick this in your pipe and smoke it!
-----------------------------------------
While I can vividly recall the last days of main line steam I have no real desire to model those things even though the thought has cross my mind from time to time so,I don't think age has anything to do with not modeling steam.
Besides all that modeling the steam era in its truest form may be near impossible.
sfcouple Young man, you are missing out on a lot of fun. I rode in the cab of a Shay Locomotive in Cass, West Virginia and let me tell ya that thing is a living breathing beast. It is alive.
No doubt it'd be fun to get a cab ride in a real steam loco. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, I like to see real steam locos in action. They are interesting to watch.
locoi1saYou can bash steam models all you want. People have died to give you that right. No one ever said that you have to have this or that or you can't be a model railroader.
No, I'm not bashing them - although if I were a steam modeler I'd be kitbashing them.
I don't model steam in HO because I model the year 1974, a period long after the last steam locos were retired.
I model the year 1956 in N scale, and I do have a couple steam locos in my N scale fleet. I would like to add a few more, but the selection is limited. A couple decent running 0-6-0 switchers and a 4-8-2 Mountain would be nice.
Aloco has much to learn. Steam has some charms unique to the genre. I worked in 1972 as the engineer at the National Railroad Museum in Green Bay (they still ran steam then). We ran steam on every weekend from Memorial Day to Labor Day. I had to go out back of the locomotive shed (where we kept most of the static displays) every Saturday and Sunday morning to steam up the locomotive.
Just after sunup, with the air cool and crisp, and the birds singing, I start the air compressor for the blower, climb into the cab, throw some wood into the firebox, shovel in 4 or 5 scoops of coal, toss in a quart or so of fuel oil on top of everything, crank open the blower, toss a lighted fusee into the firebox, and slam the door. Then after I checked the lubricators, and oiled around, I could sit back and relax, and just watch the steam gauge. The occasional whiff of coal smoke was like the sweetest perfume.
And running a steamer, you understand why the Native Americans dubbed them "The Iron Horse": they have a gait like a cantering horse. They (steamers) have moods, too: some mornings the engine would steam on a lit candle - other mornings they'd get cantankerous, and take a hundred pounds of coal, just to move the needle off the peg.
I think the appeal of steam engines to many people is visual, in the way their running gear is going in about 4 directions at once when they're moving (kinda like a woman walking...), and audio (listen to a steam engine blowing for a crossing a mile away on a frosty winter night - sends chills up your spine!), and smell (that whiff of coal smoke, and hot valve oil). Diesels on the other hand are noisy all the time, smelly (not in a good way; like a bus or a truck) and visually uninteresting.
I heard an old engine shop worker describe the difference in another way: With a steamer, a problem can be spotted in 10 seconds, and take two hours to fix; with a diesel, it takes two hours to find the problem and 10 minutes to fix it.
A steamer doesn't hide anything - all its workings are on the outside for all to see. A diesel hides everything behind sheet metal panels, like it's ashamed of it. A steam engine's beauty and appeal lies in the fact that it follows a basic design principle: form follows function. That's one reason why attempts to "streamline" the steam engine rarely improved its visual appeal. That's why many modelers who have never seen a real 1:1 steam locomotive in action are still drawn to them.
"I love the smell of coal smoke and hot valve oil in the morning!"
alocoThird, real steam locos are built to the railways' specifications. I would not be satisfied with commercial plastic models of USRA Mikados or Pacifics. I'd probably throw everything away except the drive train and wheels and end up scratchbuilding the boiler, cab, and tender and adding prototype specific details. That's a lot of work. But with diesels, there were standard production models purchased by many railways, and less effort is required to model a specific prototype.
Actually as a modeler that models both steam and diesel with a bias towards prototype steam I am grateful to be able to respond to this thread. I’ll get this out of the way first by saying that I model 1ate 1940’s Seaboard Air Line and I do like their diesels – some quirky diesels, they operated at this time – I don’t see these as being box cars on wheels but pieces of classic industrial design that I relate to and have a historical interest in.
I was born in 1947, steam was an early fascination and I remember having the stink frightened out of when, as a small boy standing along side this steaming, hissing vibrating, panting, noise making, bell clanging, black behemoth, and then the engineer pulled the whistle cord. Or hearing an engines whistle at the crossing a mile or so distance away tearing out of my house running to the curve in the road above the tracks to see steam in action; smoke and steam and side rods flashing pulling passenger and freight trains – it’s living breathing untiring energy, might and strength and movement with all of its vitality on the outside. The memories of steam locomotives is very real to me and it’s wonderful to have them still in my head.
But back to MRR – I have to agree that with my specific modeling interests I do face the same difficulties that you describe as one of the reasons for you not to model steamers. I don’t, nor would I want, these unfortunate hurdles to put me of modeling steam engines. They say that no two steamers – of the same class, were alike and the fact that what is predominately available for me to choose from in RTR plastic shell steamers are mainly USRA style. Not such as bad thing where these are applicable to the road I model, but pretty darn useless when I need a different model from that of a USRA steamer. So yes, I have to seek out models from other roads, just like the SAL did, but for different reasons than mine, and use those. Unfortunately this requires scouring the internet for cheaper brass models of non-USRA locomotives that I can use or detail as close to the SAL prototypes as I and my limited modeling skills in this area will allow.
A case in point: Recently listed on eBay was a GN 4-6-2, close in most respects to a much sought after Seaboard P3 Pacific. The catch was that I would need to remodel the GN’s Belpaire firebox and goodness knows what other damage I would create attempting this modification. So I wait. A similar situation arises when I need to run other wheel arrangements where either availability or price gets in the way of acquiring the models I would like to have and need to modify to represent a Seaboard prototype. Scratch building brass really is outside of my abilities and deteriorating eyesight. Fortunately I don’t have this problem with Seaboards diesel fleet, other than perhaps with two or three specific examples.
Remember, its not always those who have a personal experience of steam who model this era, often its those guys who relate to these engines and feel a connection with them – steam and the era in which these locomotives operated has this effect on some people.
Bruce
His message is that he just doesn't know steam, and he finds it about as appealing as many of us find an Edsel appealing
Is that really true? I wasn't around when sailing ships were the primary means of ocean transportation, but I find them extremely fascinating. A lack of day to day unfamiliarity really isn't a reason for not likeing something. I also wasn't around when stationary steam engines powered factories, but I'm quite willing to pay to see an industrial steam engine in action. And if someone's got an old steam tractor steamed up, well.....
An Edsel is unappealing because, well, quite frankly, Edsels are ugly (and their mothers dressed 'em funny). They also represent the excesses of the 50's at their worst.
Andre
jeffrey-wimberly One reason steam locomotives stayed around as long as they did was because of something called World War 2.
One reason steam locomotives stayed around as long as they did was because of something called World War 2.
Yep, that's about it. Diesels were starting to make big inroads in th late 1930's. Then with the war every engine that ran on track was needed. No time for any thing new. Since the steamers were there they were used. which made lots of sense.
Just a brief reading of history shows that the railroads were more then ready to give up the high maintenance steam engines. Diesels could be mixed and matched for the power needed with far less cost and effort..
This is my take on it. Oh, by the way I also find diesels to be far more exciting then steam for a model railroad. ever though steam is what I saw a lot of at the SP South San Francisco yard in the 50's
Ken G Price My N-Scale Layout
Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR
N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.
andrechapelon An A-B-B diesel consist replaced three steam engine crews each made up of an engineer, fireman, and oiler. As far as diesel engine maintenance went there too were major reductions in the roundhouses and diesel shops. Not really, the only place an ABB or ABBA diesel was superior to, say, a Santa Fe 5011 class 2-10-4, an SP 4-8-8-2, a UP Challenger or Big Boy was when you needed lots of low speed tractive effort. (i.e. in the mountains). Even then, the N&W tested Y6b's against four unit F7 sets in the kind of lugging service that diesels were really good at and the F7's lost. Nickel Plate also tried F's and bought 2-8-4's. The GP9's and RS-11's that replaced the Berkshires had exactly the same number of engine crew as the 2-8-4s, two. Of course, it took 3 or 4 units to replace a Berk, but we'll overlook that. I remember reading an article (by Lloyd Stagner, I believe), that stated a 5011 class 2-10-4 could actually outperform a four unit F7 set in non mountainous territory. Granted, it didn't have the starting tractive effort of a four unit F7, but it could maintain a flatter TE curve at speed. BTW, it took DM&IR 4 SD9's to replace an M-3 or M-4.Yellowstone. Maybe if other railroads had approached steam locomotives the way N&W did, steam would have lasted quite a bit longer. As it was, Roanoke was building steam locomotives as late as 1953. That probably would have lasted even longer if it weren't for the fact that the railroads who never really learned how to get the best out of steam had jumped ship and the makers of steam locomotive accessories were either going out of business or going into other lines of work. Andre
An A-B-B diesel consist replaced three steam engine crews each made up of an engineer, fireman, and oiler. As far as diesel engine maintenance went there too were major reductions in the roundhouses and diesel shops.
Not really, the only place an ABB or ABBA diesel was superior to, say, a Santa Fe 5011 class 2-10-4, an SP 4-8-8-2, a UP Challenger or Big Boy was when you needed lots of low speed tractive effort. (i.e. in the mountains). Even then, the N&W tested Y6b's against four unit F7 sets in the kind of lugging service that diesels were really good at and the F7's lost. Nickel Plate also tried F's and bought 2-8-4's. The GP9's and RS-11's that replaced the Berkshires had exactly the same number of engine crew as the 2-8-4s, two. Of course, it took 3 or 4 units to replace a Berk, but we'll overlook that.
I remember reading an article (by Lloyd Stagner, I believe), that stated a 5011 class 2-10-4 could actually outperform a four unit F7 set in non mountainous territory. Granted, it didn't have the starting tractive effort of a four unit F7, but it could maintain a flatter TE curve at speed.
BTW, it took DM&IR 4 SD9's to replace an M-3 or M-4.Yellowstone.
Maybe if other railroads had approached steam locomotives the way N&W did, steam would have lasted quite a bit longer. As it was, Roanoke was building steam locomotives as late as 1953. That probably would have lasted even longer if it weren't for the fact that the railroads who never really learned how to get the best out of steam had jumped ship and the makers of steam locomotive accessories were either going out of business or going into other lines of work.
While it may have taken NKP 3 or 4 units to replace a Berkshire. The diesels offered a bit more flexibility as all that power wasn't tied up in one unit. The full power of the Berkshire might not always be required and having several smaller units instead of one big one allowed railroads to better match power to the load. Also if the Berk broke down, the train would be stranded and the line blocked until a rescue engine came. Whereas with a 3-4 unit consist of diesels, if one unit goes down, the other may have just enough strength to limp off the main line.
Too much power tied up in one unit was also contributing factor in the failure of the SD90MAC and AC6000CW.
Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.
www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com
People keep adding perspective, including our friend Jeff, just above. And it is all good.
Personally, this young gentleman's message rings true to me. While I appreciate diesels and what they do, and will enthusiastically remark on them when stuck at a crossing as they roar past, my heart is with steam because I know it...or was exposed to it the earliest when I was more impressionable. His message is that he just doesn't know steam, and he finds it about as appealing as many of us find an Edsel appealing. So, he is right....to him. And those who go 'meh' to Edsels are right to do that for themselves.
Buuuuttt...I think he's just pulling our legs a bit....he has been around long enough to know what will press our buttons, those of us who are Stalwarts in Steam. But we would not be doing him a great service by dismissing his statement...he means what he says. I believe him. And I get it.
Crandell
NittanyLion locoi1sa: It just got too expensive to run and maintain them. If fuel costs $4 a gallon in 1960 I bet today's railroads would have been a lot different. Fuel was never the decisive shot. It was the massive reduction in manpower, maintenance, and infrastructure. I'd wager the price of diesel was almost immaterial by comparison. Never did care for those Rube Goldberg things with all the stuff moving around on the side.
locoi1sa: It just got too expensive to run and maintain them. If fuel costs $4 a gallon in 1960 I bet today's railroads would have been a lot different.
It just got too expensive to run and maintain them. If fuel costs $4 a gallon in 1960 I bet today's railroads would have been a lot different.
Fuel was never the decisive shot. It was the massive reduction in manpower, maintenance, and infrastructure. I'd wager the price of diesel was almost immaterial by comparison.
Never did care for those Rube Goldberg things with all the stuff moving around on the side.
When the railroads switched to diesel engines there was a significant reduction in jobs. An A-B-B diesel consist replaced three steam engine crews each made up of an engineer, fireman, and oiler. As far as diesel engine maintenance went there too were major reductions in the roundhouses and diesel shops.