OvermodA coal pusher is a device on the rear slope sheet of the tender, usually a compressed-air cylinder driving a linkage, that moved coal at the rear of a long bunker down to where the stoker auger could pick it up.
Coal-Pusher by Edmund, on Flickr
timzSo "coal pusher" doesn't imply hand fired? Did lots of stoker-fired engines have them? Why did some need them and some not?
Both. Some roads found more value in 'added accessories' than others did. Pretty much up to the Superintendant of Motive Power as to which engines got the 'bells and whistles' so to speak. The advertizement below explains more —
Coal Pusher DA Type by Edmund, on Flickr
Regards, Ed
Thanks, Ed
These could be steam or air actuated, on either hand-fired or stoker-equipped engines -- the 'general rule' probably being that the bunker size or shape made trimming from the rear difficult.
OvermodThe story I remember from Westing's book was 37-odd miles without adding coal to the fire, made out of Jersey City and not inbound.
(Don't recall whether it was before or after the 1911 Bristol line change -- probably before?)
An MKT 4-6-2 averaged 10 gallons of oil per mile pulling a 15-car passenger train St Louis to Oklahoma City
#110 - Railway age v.75 1923 Jul-Dec. - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library
So I guess a 10-12 car Santa Fe train could do 600+ miles on one load of oil -- lots of their tenders could hold 6000 gallons.
(But maybe the MKT train was wooden cars?)
timzAn MKT 4-6-2 averaged 10 gallons of oil per mile pulling a 15-car passenger train St Louis to Oklahoma City #110 - Railway age v.75 1923 Jul-Dec. - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library So I guess a 10-12 car Santa Fe train could do 600+ miles on one load of oil -- lots of their tenders could hold 6000 gallons. (But maybe the MKT train was wooden cars?)
My understanding is that the first generation of road diesel from the FT's through the F9's had a fuel economy of 2 gallons per mile at max loading, thus making diesels more fuel efficient than steam.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Bunker 5 is a little over 8.4lb/gal, with no water and only about 0.1% ash content. 10gal/mi works out to a little over 24 miles per ton. (This was in the era that MKT took care of its equipment, and it had stack lights and knew how to use them).
Presumably if this is 1923 the locomotive would be one of the then-new Lima H3d Pacifics, whose tenders had 10,000gal water and 4033gal oil. That oil is essentially 17tons. Remember these specs 'for later'.
The coal 'equivalent' would depend on the rank used, but I'd expect no more than 80-85% overall heating value, with water content and unburnt fines and lumps detracting from that. The 295 got special coal, which would lessen the effective difference, but it remains to be documented by how much.
Meanwhile, that 6000 gallons would be a little over 25tons in the bunker; a 'coal equivalent' could be figured if desired. Big ATSF engines had 7000gal or a little over, and Farrington's 'Santa Fe Big Three' has extensive data on how far locomotives could reliably run nonstop with this capacity (timz mentioned on another forum an instance, on the 'east end', that one of the 4-8-4s averaged over 79mph for over 200 miles).
I'd want to know more about speed and contemporary curve and grade before assessing performance, and we should be able to determine the type and weight of contemporary MKT cars (perhaps by asking over on RyPN for knowledge or sources). The problem for railfans, of course, is that unless you have Ophelia Todd at the throttle you won't get between St. Louis and Oklahoma City in less than about 500 miles -- and that's on the comparatively-direct and modern Interstate 44; I somehow doubt MKT in 1923 had as direct and perhaps well-graded a route...
Trudging through the reference (which as usual opened nowhere near the page of interest for me) reveals the actual item, at the bottom of p.82 (#110). The distance is given as 549 miles, the locomotive as 411 (yes, a then-new H3d), BUT the total number of gallons burned as 5420 which of course implies a refueling en route. The average consumption was stated as 0.63 gallons per car-mile (with the train as 14 and sometimes 15 cars) which might be used as a comparison basis for other power.
This same 411, shortly before June 15, was noted as having run nearly 1000 miles without being detached from its train for servicing -- something perhaps comparable to what ATSF did with one of the Ripley 3460 class, a much more 'evolved' design over a decade and a half later...
Plot thickens on the L&N South Wind -- I'm going to commission someone with access to find a contemporary (probably 1940-1941) account in the trade press of actual 'unrecoaled' runs of 295 all the way in either direction. If we take DPM (in November '52) as an authority, he noted the 'big tender' was to allow nonstop running between Louisville and Nashville (205 and a fraction) rather than Nashville and Birmingham (in the earlier reference here).
As background: this was a seven-car Budd lightweight coach train, one of three similar 'every third day' trains scheduled and timed to give daily service between Chicago and Miami. As the South Wind had the longest route of the three, it had to maintain a faster average speed -- the early schedule had the 490 miles covered, net of all stops and slow orders, at 9 hours 15 minutes. The large tender was not the only thing done to facilitate running; Jeff Polston and others note that the coal was carefully picked (from eastern Kentucky) and prepared... it would be interesting to see the criteria used and the resulting equivalent rank and characteristics!
Jeff Polston has a note that the 490 mile operation 'often' resulted in the engine arriving with an empty bunker and 'reduced steam pressure' (from what was already low for an engine running at high speed, regularly in the high 70s according to Morgan, and considering the restricted 'unrefilled' cistern capacity: 210psi) and having to 'run for the house' ASAP after being cut off the train.
Morgan mentions a further practice that likely has a bearing on this question. In the years after the Wind was introduced, it turned out that there was too much weight on the rebuilt K-7's lead truck, so 277 (the one streamlined for the Dixie Flagler) and a rebuild and shrouding of 275 were used to 'cover' until a proper roller-bearing truck could be applied. Whichever engine was assigned to the South Wind on a particular day got the big tender and special coal! (Although I would need to see proof that any engine other than 295 could manage that full 490-mile run on one bunker of that coal...)
Morgan goes on to note that the 'eight-wheel' tenders on other K-5s (explicitly 276 and 279) were given enlarged bunker capacity and 'these became eligible for South Wind service' -- doubtless, under the circumstances, for one of the 205-mile nonstop segments in that case. Since Morgan nearly immediately (in fact, in the next sentence!) mentions that the South Wind before dieselization of the L&N segment was 'conceded to be the longest non-stop coal-powered passenger run in the U.S.' it would strongly indicate that (in regular service rather than for 'bragging rights') this would involve the actual 'nonstop' segments (Louisville-Nashville and Nashville-Birmingham, both given as about 205 miles).
diningcarWater for locomotives was a significant issue on the Santa Fe west from Belen- Albuquerque. The volcanic history dictated that well extraction was sporadic. Therefore dams were created to capture runoff from rain and also from snowmelt. At locations where water was needed for normal station operations and housing for employees water was hauled in tank cars from locations where Santa Fe dug wells and were either temporatevely stored on sidings or emptied into built storage tanks.
At locations where water was needed for normal station operations and housing for employees water was hauled in tank cars from locations where Santa Fe dug wells and were either temporatevely stored on sidings or emptied into built storage tanks.
While I have had no personal experience with this I respond because I, as Right of Way Agent, had to deal with selling some of these sites after they no longer served their original purpose.
Water that was captured from rail and snow runoff did not need treatment. in fact most of the wells in the western portion of the Santa Fe had "good water" because it had come from infiltration of the snow and rain.
Yes, there was some treatment needed and I have no specific info about those sites.
See the linked site @ https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=4-8-4&railroad=atsf
FDoir years I have hears tales of how far the Santa Fe opoerated its passenger steam locomotives. The above linked site is pretty illuminating.
I had also ears some tales aout how the NYC& PRR operated their fast oassenger trains (water troughs, and high capacity coal tenders,etc.)
Ther information, in regards to on Santa Fe's Northern's is amazing, IMHO:
.FTA:"....These locomotives burned coal and had 73" drivers. They were later rebuilt by the AT&SF to have 80" drivers and were converted to oil burners. The first was rebuilt in 1938 and the last in 1941. This group was known as Class 3751.
The AT&SF used its 4-8-4s for passenger service. Since its main line stretching over 2200 miles (Chicago to California), the AT&SF had a real need for excellent motive power.
Convinced that the Northerns could handle its needs, AT&SF ordered 11 more in 1938 with 80" drivers (known as Class 3765 and included road numbers 3765 through 3775) with another 10 ordered in 1941 (Class 3776, including road numbers 3776 through 3785..."
Also gere is another linked site on the Santa Fe "Borthern Class"
linked @https://traintrackshq.com/santa-fe-4-8-4-steam-locomotive/
FTA: [ quoted from 2nd sire link ] "...
The Santa Fe 4-8-4 locomotive was first introduced in 1937, and it quickly became a favorite among railroad enthusiasts and engineers alike. It was a massive machine, weighing in at over 400,000 pounds, and it boasted a maximum speed of 100 miles per hour.
The locomotive’s was inspired by the success of the earlier 4-8-2 Mountain type locomotive, which was also built by the Santa Fe Railway. The Northern type locomotive featured a larger boiler, a longer frame, and four-wheel trailing trucks for improved stability at high speeds.
The Santa Fe Railway ordered a total of 90 4-8-4 locomotives from the Baldwin Locomotive Works between 1937 and 1944..."
Overmod(timz mentioned on another forum an instance, on the 'east end', that one of the 4-8-4s averaged over 79mph for over 200 miles).
But: Farrington's book says the 2909 took a 14-car 850-ton Chief from Dodge City to La Junta in 163 minutes. That's a 1571-foot climb.
FWIW.
In this area larger locomotives or more than one locomotive would
be required over colder months and heavy weather account
higher steam needs for train heating and cooler bearings on train.
Think -30 F and lower.
Thank You.
NDG FWIW. In this area larger locomotives or more than one locomotive would be required over colder months and heavy weather account higher steam needs for train heating and cooler bearings on train. Think -30 F and lower. Thank You.
The PRR had track pans. I remember seeing them between Lewistown and Huntingdon PA. on the mainline. If I remember correctly, they were still being used in the late 1940s and perhaps into the 1950s.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
BackshopWhat area are you talking about?
See the climate records for International Falls, MN, too...
timzIf I said that, I was wrong. It was a 4-6-4 that allegedly pulled the 12-car Super Chief 202.4 miles La Junta to Dodge City in 152 minutes in Sept 1944.
The later 4-8-4s were notable for being reliably faster than the 3460 Hudsons -- they were less valve-limited and had those Wagner bypass valves for transient drifting without having to valve steam. I do not know for sure whether the 2900s were quite as fast as the 3765 and 3776 classes... but it would not be too much less...
There was a segment between MP's 510 and 530 where engineers would make up lost time. It was said that 100 MPH was observed frequently to get to La Junta on the advertised.
OvermodNot the Super Chief
Found the reference; it's in a 20-year-old Trainorders thread titled "Santa Fe 2900 Class distance?"
Train given as #7, engine 2900, Dodge City to La Junta nonstop at the average speed given.
LNER engine with booster was ex-Ivatt C1 1419, renumbered 4419 for LNER. A long (and fascinating!) account is here (scroll down...)
https://www.lner.info/locos/C/c1.php
Thanks for finding that. Dunno how I made that mistake; the only 79-mph run in Farrington was the 3461 on train 18.
When I get back to a proper browser I have updates.
Tim was correct about PRR per Westing. There was in fact a great deal more: an organized effort in the early 20th Century to see how much efficiency could be observed.
The MKT experiment (which turns out, as with L&N, to involve atypical adoption of large 12-wheel tenders, produced an interesting tidbit. Over the ~872-mile running, the larger cistern capacity allowed 13 fewer water stops -- each of which would have required 75 gallons of oil!
I have a copy of Farrington's Riding the Locomotive Cabs which should contain some of the L&N runs.
Think it was the 9/62 issue of Trains where John Rehor described an (actual?) trip from Ft Wayne to Bellevue by an NKP 2-8-4 pulling 3487 tons. As I recall he said 119 miles in 130 minutes, nonstop.
I keep forgetting to mention that earlier record distance run, the Jarrett & Palmer "Lightning Express" of 1876. The whole last leg of the trip was said to be made by McQueen 4-4-0 "Black Fox"... with, interestingly, a large 12-wheel tender, which seems to have been far from the only large 12-wheel tender CP was using (see the controversy over tenders for 124 and 149 in the photo documentation at Oakland.
There was a historical article on this in FreightWaves, of all places, a couple of years ago, but I can't find it.
Just a question, Please.
If there were NOT Water Troughs, how many times would an ' Express Train '
have to stop for water Btwn New York City and Chicago
on the Non-Electric Portion?
Lets not get into Tender Size, etc. SVP.
That's a tough question to answer since NYC tenders were designed with water troughs in mind. They would lose coal capacity to allow for increased water capacity.
NDGJust a question, Please. If there were NOT Water Troughs, how many times would an ' Express Train ' have to stop for water Btwn New York City and Chicago on the Non-Electric Portion? Lets not get into Tender Size, etc. SVP. Thank You.
The question can't be answered without resorting to tender size. A 10/10 tender will run out of its contents sooner than a 25/25 tender - when attached to the same locomotive.
Note that steam engines operating in the 21st Century are generally hauling around a 'canteen' to increase the overall water capacity of the locomotive and thus its operating range.
Remember when you are turning thousands of gallons of water into steam - all water is not the same and some water will leave mineral deposits that will interfere with the proper operation of the boiler.
Okay.
If a train with OUT a Water Scoop went over the Route, how many times
would it need to take water, not changing Engine or Tender nor
not adding or removing cars.
Just ONE FRIGGING TRAIN!!!
Don't guess anyone here knows how many cars a K4 with a typical tender could take unwatered Harrisburg to Altoona, or Altoona to Pittsburgh, or Pittsburgh to Crestline. (Maybe no one here knows how many gallons most K4 tenders carried.)
Probably very few passenger trains anywhere in the US regularly made stops just for water. They made stops for passengers and could get enough water while doing that.
As others have noted, we have to get into tender size. As noted, NYC sacrificed tank size to maximize coal load.
Here's a document from the NYCHS specifically about track pans. It includes lists of NYC track pans and a study done on them. https://nycshs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/trackplans2.pdf
A Wikipedia article on "water stops" says a "modern" train could go 100-150 miles between stops.
The route of the 20th Century Limited was 961 miles, NY City to Chicago. Thirty-two of that was electrified territory (Grand Central to Harmon)
If we use the optomistic 150 mile figure, that would require about seven stops for water, probably more.
The Century was scheduled for only four station stops before reaching Chicago. Presumably they could take water at those points. That would require three more stops solely to get water. http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track5/century193809.html
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
timzDon't guess anyone here knows how many cars a K4 with a typical tender could take unwatered Harrisburg to Altoona, or Altoona to Pittsburgh, or Pittsburgh to Crestline. (Maybe no one here knows how many gallons most K4 tenders carried.) Probably very few passenger trains anywhere in the US regularly made stops just for water. They made stops for passengers and could get enough water while doing that.
B&O's Cincinnatian on its original routing ran between Mt. Royal Station in Baltimore to Cincinnati with the streamlined P7d Pacific locomotives. Engine was fully serviced for departure from Baltimore. The train watered the engine at Martinsburg, WV in addition to its passenger stop. The train operated over the Patterson Creek Cut Off, around Cumberland and on to Grafton, WV where the power was changed with freshly serviced power. Between Grafton and Cincinnati the engine took water at Athens, OH. Data that I can find indicate the tenders held 17 tons of coal and 11000 gallons of water.
I have no idea how much water was in the tender where water was added at Martinsburg and Athens, nor how much was still in the tank when the power was changed at Grafton.
YOU DON'T RUN STEAM ENGINES OUT OF WATER.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.