Noteable Steamers

[Murphy Siding]

I've mentioned that steam locomotives didn't do much for me,but I have been doing quite a bit of railroad reading recently-so they might grow on me.[:)]

In the steam era, it appeared that nearly every railroad had almost custom designed engines, specifically for it's route. I'm familiar with some of the more famous ones:Big Boy, Challenger,Berkshire,J-1(? N&W), and a few others. What are some of the other well known types that other railroads had? And can you explain to this *diesel* fan what the signifigance of the type was? I still have a hard time seeing the difference between two similar types.

Thanks!

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I've mentioned that steam locomotives didn't do much for me,but I have been doing quite a bit of railroad reading recently-so they might grow on me.[:)]

In the steam era, it appeared that nearly every railroad had almost custom designed engines, specifically for it's route. I'm familiar with some of the more famous ones:Big Boy, Challenger,Berkshire,J-1(? N&W), and a few others. What are some of the other well known types that other railroads had? And can you explain to this *diesel* fan what the signifigance of the type was? I still have a hard time seeing the difference between two similar types.

Thanks!

A very significant locomotive was Lima's Berkshire (2-8-4)for the Boston and Albany. This was the first super power steam engine with a significantly improved ability to produce much more steam per unit of enery input. They were the ancestor of Big Boys, N&W As and Js, SP Daylights, etc. etc. etc.

For further info take a look at http://www.trains.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/001/810hlyiy.asp

[Murphy Siding]

bobwilcox: Thanks. I read the article on the link. It's not really clear why the AMC designed Berkshire was better than the Lima or Alco Berkshires. Perhaps just a better engineered design? The article talks about the jump from 2-8-2 wheel layout to 2-8-4 as providing more carrying capacity for a bigger firebox. What would be the advantage of the 4 wheel leading trucks on some later designs?

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

bobwilcox: Thanks. I read the article on the link. It's not really clear why the AMC designed Berkshire was better than the Lima or Alco Berkshires. Perhaps just a better engineered design? The article talks about the jump from 2-8-2 wheel layout to 2-8-4 as providing more carrying capacity for a bigger firebox. What would be the advantage of the 4 wheel leading trucks on some later designs?

A bigger firebox. The larger the grate area the more fuel you can burn at one time, the more heat and the more steam. The grate area on a USRA 2-8-2 was 70.8 sq ft., a B&A 2-8-4 100 sq ft and a UP Big Boy 150.3 sq ft.

[Anonymous]

Get your self a good book like mine. "The Steam Locomotive A Century of North American Classics" by Jim Boyd. If this doesn't get you interested in steam, nothing will.

[Anonymous]

I recommend Kalmbach's "Guide to the North American Steam Locomotive" by George Drury.

Old Timer

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

bobwilcox: Thanks. I read the article on the link. It's not really clear why the AMC designed Berkshire was better than the Lima or Alco Berkshires. Perhaps just a better engineered design? The article talks about the jump from 2-8-2 wheel layout to 2-8-4 as providing more carrying capacity for a bigger firebox. What would be the advantage of the 4 wheel leading trucks on some later designs?

A bigger firebox. The larger the grate area the more fuel you can burn at one time, the more heat and the more steam. The grate area on a USRA 2-8-2 was 70.8 sq ft., a B&A 2-8-4 100 sq ft and a UP Big Boy 150.3 sq ft.

Are you saying the AMC designed Berkshires were better because of bigger fireboxes? Or that reason for a 4 wheel leading truck was for a bigger firebox?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

Murphy Siding - the four-wheel trailer was necessary to carry the weight of the larger firebox. C&O and NKP fans will tell you that the AMC Berkshires were better, but they're prejudiced. There were two sizes of the AMC Berks - the C&O was larger (one inch larger cylinders, etc.) and the NKP was smaller.

But neither was as pretty as the L&N Berk, which was a match for the smaller AMC.

Old Timer

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Murphy Siding - the four-wheel trailer was necessary to carry the weight of the larger firebox. C&O and NKP fans will tell you that the AMC Berkshires were better, but they're prejudiced. There were two sizes of the AMC Berks - the C&O was larger (one inch larger cylinders, etc.) and the NKP was smaller.

But neither was as pretty as the L&N Berk, which was a match for the smaller AMC.

Old Timer

I see the reason for the 4 wheel trailer. Wondering why you would need a 4 wheel leading truck?

[selector]

It only had two. Thus, the designation of 2-8-4. The Mountain class were 4-8-2's. Other engines with four wheels in the lead truck were the 4-4-0 (American), the 4-6-2 (Pacific), and the 4-8-4 (Northern). Then, in the big stuff, they had the 4-6-6-4's, and so on.

Although I cannot claim to know it for certain, I suspect that two axles were needed on the front for the same reason as they were needed for the firebox; to support weight. in the case of leading trucks, they also were meant to horse the loco's nose around curves at speed, so they needed mass.

[nanaimo73]

Murphy,
Thank you for starting a steam thread.

I think this is the best thread on the forums:
www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=31139

[Wdlgln005]

You may be starting a bit of a flame war between similar locos on different railroads. No 2 steamers were exactly the same, unlike diesels. some versions could be good steamers, others unlucky or junk. Since they were custom built, a lot depends on the operating character of each RR. It becomes fun to try to compare J class Northerns on N&W with those on UP or any other RR.

The 4 wheel pilot truck was developed fairly early for the steamer to be guided over poorly built track. 2 wheel trucks were used for slow moving freight. Driving wheel diamaters determined speed. Large 60" drivers could easily move the engine at 60 per hour, Smaller ones gave more traction & HP or drawbar pull. Adhesion is the factor that determines how much HP is available to pull a train.

The class number like J, depends on the railroad. Some roads gave the little teakettles A's, the next one B's etc. A J3 would be the third group of locos purchased. Chances are, lessons learned will result in improved locomotives with different valve gear, stokers, & other changes. You would get a huge argument over who had the best Northerns. In the South, they would be called Dixies or Yellowjackets. The Yellowjacket name comes from the yellow painted stripe on the running board edge & tender of locos.

The best stories should come from the engineers that operated & controlled all this machinery. No computers. Not many automatic appliances. Hot in the summer. Cold in the winter, except for the heat provided from the firebox. Yet, the enginemen operated these machines for over a century in all kinds of conditions. Crews on the FEC tried to outrun the hurricane that destroyed the RR. Today, Amtrak was unable to run trains near the zone till the storm passed.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Get your self a good book like mine. "The Steam Locomotive A Century of North American Classics" by Jim Boyd. If this doesn't get you interested in steam, nothing will.

I have that book. Went and got it out to re-read. Anything by Jim Boyd is excellent.[:)]

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Wdlgln005

You may be starting a bit of a flame war between similar locos on different railroads. No 2 steamers were exactly the same, unlike diesels. some versions could be good steamers, others unlucky or junk. Since they were custom built, a lot depends on the operating character of each RR. It becomes fun to try to compare J class Northerns on N&W with those on UP or any other RR.

The 4 wheel pilot truck was developed fairly early for the steamer to be guided over poorly built track. 2 wheel trucks were used for slow moving freight. Driving wheel diamaters determined speed. Large 60" drivers could easily move the engine at 60 per hour, Smaller ones gave more traction & HP or drawbar pull. Adhesion is the factor that determines how much HP is available to pull a train.

The class number like J, depends on the railroad. Some roads gave the little teakettles A's, the next one B's etc. A J3 would be the third group of locos purchased. Chances are, lessons learned will result in improved locomotives with different valve gear, stokers, & other changes. You would get a huge argument over who had the best Northerns. In the South, they would be called Dixies or Yellowjackets. The Yellowjacket name comes from the yellow painted stripe on the running board edge & tender of locos.

The best stories should come from the engineers that operated & controlled all this machinery. No computers. Not many automatic appliances. Hot in the summer. Cold in the winter, except for the heat provided from the firebox. Yet, the enginemen operated these machines for over a century in all kinds of conditions. Crews on the FEC tried to outrun the hurricane that destroyed the RR. Today, Amtrak was unable to run trains near the zone till the storm passed.

Flame Wars![:0] That's certainly not the intention. I read a lot of racing forums, where very few topics get much further than "My driver rocks-your driver sucks".[V] My interest lies in all the reading I do. Every railroad book with some history in it (and which one wouldn't have some history?) will feature the steamer that a particular railroad is known for. I could care less for the arguements of which is better?- a Texan or a Selkirk?
So many European history books I read have frequent phrases and references in French. [sigh] I don't speak French. It can get so annoying! It's easy for me to comprehend an RS-3 or a GP-7. Unfortunatelly , I'll read something like "The railroad's fortunes reversed when they traded their Mikados for Hudsons". [?] I don't speak French! Since there are so many people on here with vast knowledge of steamers, could you share?

( Yes, I know-your driver rocks-mine sucks, so can we please get far past that allready?)
Thanks

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Murphy Siding - the four-wheel trailer was necessary to carry the weight of the larger firebox.

This brings to mind a question left unanswered on the T1 thread. Remember the 4-6-0 locomotives? They had a "gap" between the second and third set of drivers to support the firebox. I have assumed that since larger fireboxes required more width than could be afforded between 4' 8.5" gauge, they had to abandon the idea of supporting the firebox with the drivers and relegate that requirement to a supporting truck under the firebox. The question I had is this: Why couldn't the drivers support a wider firebox by extending outward the connecting rods between the driving axle in front of the firebox and the driving axle behind the firebox? That way you have more weight being supported by the drivers (e.g. more traction) instead of a non-driving trailing truck, while still maintaining the advantage of the larger firebox.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Murphy Siding - the four-wheel trailer was necessary to carry the weight of the larger firebox.

This brings to mind a question left unanswered on the T1 thread. Remember the 4-6-0 locomotives? They had a "gap" between the second and third set of drivers to support the firebox. I have assumed that since larger fireboxes required more width than could be afforded between 4' 8.5" gauge, they had to abandon the idea of supporting the firebox with the drivers and relegate that requirement to a supporting truck under the firebox. The question I had is this: Why couldn't the drivers support a wider firebox by extending outward the connecting rods between the driving axle in front of the firebox and the driving axle behind the firebox? That way you have more weight being supported by the drivers (e.g. more traction) instead of a non-driving trailing truck, while still maintaining the advantage of the larger firebox.

I don't understand the question.[%-)]. Please explain extending outward the connecting rods........ Thanks

[Anonymous]

The side rods are(were) connected on the outside and next to the driving wheels (which are 4' 8 1/2" apart widthwise, give or take material dimensions), so the rods on opposite sides of each other are(were) about 5 - 5 1/2'(?) apart in width. The larger fireboxes were made to maximize the allowable width of a locomotive 10', maybe 10 1/2' wide. So you couldn't have the typical side rods compatable with the wider fireboxes as was done with the 4-6-0 locomotives. But if you could somehow extend outward the connection between the rod and driver wheel by a foot or so, you could conceivably fit a firebox with a 9' or so width between such outwardly extended rods between a front set of drivers and a rear set, and support this firebox between such driver wheels. I do not know if this is technecally feasable, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work as intended.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The side rods are(were) connected on the outside and next to the driving wheels (which are 4' 8 1/2" apart widthwise, give or take material dimensions), so the rods on opposite sides of each other are(were) about 5 - 5 1/2'(?) apart in width. The larger fireboxes were made to maximize the allowable width of a locomotive 10', maybe 10 1/2' wide. So you couldn't have the typical side rods compatable with the wider fireboxes as was done with the 4-6-0 locomotives. But if you could somehow extend outward the connection between the rod and driver wheel by a foot or so, you could conceivably fit a firebox with a 9' or so width between such outwardly extended rods between a front set of drivers and a rear set, and support this firebox between such driver wheels. I do not know if this is technecally feasable, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work as intended.

My guess is that you'd be making the engine wider-maybe too wide for some clearance situations like tunnels?

[Anonymous]

Regarding stories from engineers who drove steam engines.. I am concerned that there may not be many left alive to tell us what they were doing in that era.

I dont have much to offer except what I have learned on trips to tourist steam such as EBT, Strasburg and Cass etc... On strasburg there was a 4-4-0 that used to provide service until it's firebox was deemed unsafe. It was a favorite because it ran really well. I suppose it was "Talky" thru the stack as it hauled the train up and down the gentle hills; compared to the larger engines that did not have much talk in the stack.

If I was to listen to a recording of the EBT's #17 whistle and all I probably can pick it out right away. We would listen for it as we waited at the depot for the next train. That long single blast while it was just coming into view preparing to stop had the people running about getting the children ready.

There was a recording of the Southern's 4-6-2 Cresent Limited I recall as it tried to climb a mountain range (Front royal?) it was a machine under great load and you could almost "See" the crew working to keep that train moving up hill as the steam worked. That must have been a sight for those lucky enough to see it.

Finally books have pictures with captions saying "Engineer closed the smoke as they passed someone's laundry near the tracks" Apparently it was a story of people trying to be good neighbors by not dirtying up someone's wa***hat was on clotheslines drying as the train passed. (Usually white sheets =)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The side rods are(were) connected on the outside and next to the driving wheels (which are 4' 8 1/2" apart widthwise, give or take material dimensions), so the rods on opposite sides of each other are(were) about 5 - 5 1/2'(?) apart in width. The larger fireboxes were made to maximize the allowable width of a locomotive 10', maybe 10 1/2' wide. So you couldn't have the typical side rods compatable with the wider fireboxes as was done with the 4-6-0 locomotives. But if you could somehow extend outward the connection between the rod and driver wheel by a foot or so, you could conceivably fit a firebox with a 9' or so width between such outwardly extended rods between a front set of drivers and a rear set, and support this firebox between such driver wheels. I do not know if this is technecally feasable, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work as intended.

My guess is that you'd be making the engine wider-maybe too wide for some clearance situations like tunnels?

You would keep it all within the specified dimensions.

[Murphy Siding]

I did a bunch of reading on this subject today. However I'm thinking that you're a little dimensionally challenged on this: The driver wheels are 4'-8" apart. The side rods are connected to the outter face of the drivers, at the outside radius. Height wise, the rods are a little taller off the ground than the drivers. No matter how you offset the connecting rods outward, the dimension between the drivers will remain about 4'-8".
The *old* steamers had the fire box between the drivers- therefore less than 4'-8" wide. The *newer* designs looked like the firebox was moved back, behind the drivers and no longer resrained to 4'-8" dimensional width. To carry the firebox weight, it looks like either 2 or 4 trailing wheels were added.

[mersenne6]

Well...probably the best known engine was the 4-4-0 American. The wheel arrangement and suspension were designed specifically for U.S. roads with their poor track and that particular wheel arrangement was the main type during the period when U.S. roads were being built at breakneck speed.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I did a bunch of reading on this subject today. However I'm thinking that you're a little dimensionally challenged on this: The driver wheels are 4'-8" apart. The side rods are connected to the outter face of the drivers, at the outside radius. Height wise, the rods are a little taller off the ground than the drivers. No matter how you offset the connecting rods outward, the dimension between the drivers will remain about 4'-8".
The *old* steamers had the fire box between the drivers- therefore less than 4'-8" wide. The *newer* designs looked like the firebox was moved back, behind the drivers and no longer resrained to 4'-8" dimensional width. To carry the firebox weight, it looks like either 2 or 4 trailing wheels were added.

Murphy - Email your mailing address and I'll send you a drawing so you know what I'm talking about. It would be relatively easy to fit a 9' x 9' firebox in between a set of drivers which are 9.5' apart lengthwise and rods which are extended outward from the drivers at 9.5' apart widthwise.

Whether the weight of a larger firebox can be suspended between the two sets of driving wheels is another question altogether.

[GN-Rick]

A large problem with the concept of the 'extended rods' concept
would be a very serious increase in dynamic augment-the inertia
of extra mass reciprocating around the axles. It seems to me that
you would have a very rough-riding locomotive that would be almost
impossible to properly counterbalance-thereby increasing wear on
bearings and bushings. After all, counterbalancing even the locos
that existed was one of the more difficult tasks given to mechanical
departments and locomotive designers.

A notable steam loco, in my opinion is the class N3 2-8-8-0 as
rebuilt by the GN in 1940-42. An articulated loco with 63 inch
drivers, no trailing truck and only a two wheeled lead truck that
was capable of running with heavy loads at 50-60 mph. And with
an 118,000 lb tractive effort. Impressive-yet undernoticed.

[bobwilcox]

On the issue of how large fireboxes fit on locomoitves. Suggest you find a photo of a 19th century locomoitve (ie. 4-4-0) and see how the firebox fits between the drivers. Then get a look at a superpower locomotive with a four or six wheel trailing truck and see how the firebox is place up over the back drivers. This is particularly noticable on the UP's Big Boys. A picture is worth...

[espeefoamer]

One very notable steamer was the SP cab forward,so designed to keep the engine crew from getting asphyxiated in the long tunnels on Donner pass.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GN-Rick

A large problem with the concept of the 'extended rods' concept
would be a very serious increase in dynamic augment-the inertia
of extra mass reciprocating around the axles. It seems to me that
you would have a very rough-riding locomotive that would be almost
impossible to properly counterbalance-thereby increasing wear on
bearings and bushings. After all, counterbalancing even the locos
that existed was one of the more difficult tasks given to mechanical
departments and locomotive designers.

A notable steam loco, in my opinion is the class N3 2-8-8-0 as
rebuilt by the GN in 1940-42. An articulated loco with 63 inch
drivers, no trailing truck and only a two wheeled lead truck that
was capable of running with heavy loads at 50-60 mph. And with
an 118,000 lb tractive effort. Impressive-yet undernoticed.

Rick: If it is a 2-8-8-0 with no trailing truck, the firebox must be on top of the drivers? Wouldn't construction like that negate the need to do what futuremodal is asking?

[GN-Rick]

In fact, that's true, Murphy. The N3 turned out to be the tallest locomotive
on the GN, in part due to that very thing. Actually, I wasn't really advocating
the N3 as a response to futuremodal, I was simply submitting that loco
as a notable achievement by GN's shop forces. The two paragraphs don't
really dovetail that way. I was just expressing the opinion that longer-extended
rods would create a bad counterbalance problem and then a separate
opinion on the N3. It is intersting to note that GN got as much out of
the N3 as it did with that arrangement-of firebox built on top of the rear
drivers instead of a deep, truck-supported firebox as on most modern
steam locomotives of that time.

[nanaimo73]

Did GN have their steam engines built with Belpaires until they started getting diesels ?

[GN-Rick]

Nanaimo, That is basically true. The only classes of modern steam
power on the GN without Belpaire fireboxes were the class P2 4-8-2s
and the S2 4-8-4s. (The Z6 Challengers don't count-they are not
representative of GN locomotives). Almost all other steam power no
the GN was Bepaire-equipped. The GN had the idea that the Belpaire
design was more efficient in heating (it was) and that design also
added more weight-which the GN liked on their freight locos-the
Belpaire design being heavier than an equivalent radial-stayed
boiler.