selectorRME, not all lubricators use oil. Some are called cake lubricators that use caked grease
No caked lubricators I know of would use steam, or for that matter be called 'mechanical lubricators'. I'm familiar with them being used (e.g. in spring cellars) for driver axles (the Hennessy lubricator being something that "fits" in place of grease-cake lube with the idea of converting to oil without the need for a mechanical lubricator pump - it uses lateral motion to generate its "pumping action")
Likewise, specialized hard grease (Alemite being the most familiar) is used in some applications; I'm most familiar with its use on rods, where it is injected under high pressure into spring 'cellars'. It then acts very much the way a cake would. Again, I don't know of any onboard system that would provide a variable or external-power feed of hard grease from a reservoir to different points, which is what a 'mechanical lubricator' would do.
The lubricator with 'steam oil' will, as you note, only supply the valves and pistons, which need lubrication but are exposed to superheated steam flow. This cylinder oil, if you have seen it, is much more viscous than the lubricating oil used for bearings and so forth (look on steamenginelube.com for some MEGO information on cylinder-oil tribology). Advanced practice does not just 'fog' the oil into the steam path, but injects it near the 'point of use' through dedicated lines (see discussions of Wardale's Red Devil for detail pictures of this) - in some cases feed to multiple points around the circumference of each end of each cylinder is desirable, plus feed to the metallic packing on the piston and valve rods and any tailrods that might be used, which share in elevated surface temperature.
Ask him to TRACE the line from the lubricator to any exhaust point the next time you see him. It does stand to reason that a cylinder-oil lubricator requires elevated preheat, especially in cold weather, but I'd expect on an engine of that vintage that any steam not used for atomization would be spit out through a condensation trap when 'spent'.
Dr DI believe it would be mistaken to think that Pennsylvania Railroad K4 1361 has a Worthington SA feed water system as seems inferred.
.
BigJim,
I agree with you about the un-intended inference concerning PRR 1361, rather its the way in which the different texts came together that implies the venting plume and the Worthington Feed Water Heater Diagram lead to the observation - especially for those readers not intimately familiar with the details of steam locomotive design and appliances. It was an un posted fact that large rosters of steam engines could have a great variation in their equipment.
Further, there seems to be a geat deal of misunderstanding about PRR 1361, it famous history, its long life, and its very misguided restoration condition. America needs to not loose this locomotive. Futher, because so much has been done to already restore it, IT NEEDS TO BE FULLY AND PROPERLY FINISHED! Sometimes it is easier to go ahead than to go backwards and staying still won't do either! PRR 1361 needs a friend a serious bunch of friends with commitment and pockets. Such a famous locomotive should be able to generate this on the interest level of the Pennsy T1 project.
-------------------------
My experience with the Nathan Lubricator was on 2-8-4 Pere Marquette 1225. A large mechanical pumping mechanism attached to the left front side of the locomotive and driven by the crosshead valve gear on the left front cylinder. The Nathan was a fine piece of equipment that worked with wonderful reliability and distributed lubricating oil through many feet of .50 to .750 copper piping all joined with compression fittings. It was amazing the lubrication points that were covered by the system.
When we were restoring the locomotive of course we removed the boiler jacketing and all the lubrication lines which ended up in a very large copper pile. Most of this tubing was work hardened and at the time we wanted to return to use the original piping. Late one summer day, I was assigned to use the acetylene torch to heat this copper tubing foot by foot to a dull red color then to quench it continually with a water hose to provide the annealing. Working out of doors the late afternoon light allowed the "red glow" of the hot copper to stand out clearly.
It was quite a job to re-run all of this lubrication piping matrix into position on the engine, and of course the soft copper was much easier to work with and to re-attach and also less prone to crack and leak. Filling the Nathan lubricator was a responsible task also.
------------------------------
Interestingly PM 1225 had been equipped with oil lubrication of the driving wheel boxes. For some reason the PM 1223 used grease cake lubrication of the drive axles. Our club took the trip to Grand Haven, MI and got permission from the city to remove the grease cake system from PM 1223 and install it on PM 1225. All we had to do was flash our Michigan State University Trust For Railway Preservation title and the city fathers fell right into line!
The oil lubrication of the driving axles required the continued oscillating movement of the locomotive chasis to oil the engine and the Trust at the time felt the lack of continual locomotive operation might lead to problems so they desired the grease cake lube system.
Other parts retrieved with permission from PM 1223 were the entire set of firebox grates. Seems when PM 1225 was on display on the Michigan State University campus that one of the fraternities decided to set a prank fire in the locomotive firebox. The Univesity was alarmed and concerned about the vandalism so removed and scrapped the original fire grates!
------------
Yah, it was high times for 23 year old collage students bent on restoring a great steam locomotive in the 1970's!
Doc
Dr DFurther, there seems to be a geat deal of misunderstanding about PRR 1361, it famous history, its long life, and its very misguided restoration condition. America needs to not loose this locomotive. Futher, because so much has been done to already restore it, IT NEEDS TO BE FULLY AND PROPERLY FINISHED!
Many of the difficulties with 1361 involve a 'full and proper finish' to full operating condition. It would be comparatively simple just to perform a cosmetic job, as was done for the 'Lindbergh' 460, and stuff and mount the pieces. But that would be, in my opinion, both a terrible lost opportunity and a crime against having one of the most famous locomotives in the world ... more famous even than a Mohawk, but I'm not going to digress ... in fully operable condition. Note the 'fully'.
(Be aware that there is a quiet effort to work on 1361 and get as many pieces either in workable shape or temporarily 'stored-serviceable' condition; one overly-optimistic estimate had the locomotive operable by last December. There is intentionally as little publicity as possible about this, and I am not going to contribute (much) more. But 1361 is far from ignored and forgotten.)
Two principal difficulties involved Government involvement in the process of restoration (which involved all sort of things involving costs, work rules, paperwork, etc. and impaired the quality of a working steam restoration done by traditional methods) and -- more importantly -- the discovery that PRR boiler practice does not meet currently applicable safety standards with respect to the staybolting. Interestingly, it appears that it is not possible even by building a new historically-accurate boiler to PRR specs to have it meet the required standards (without double-nutting some of the bolts), and as I recall there are some other issues with the particular design details of the Belpaire firebox (radius of some of the corners, but I don't remember which) that don't meet our currently-defined strength standards.
The discussion was repeatedly raised, and I suspect still continues in some circles, whether the locomotive should be restored to run at a lower pressure (whatever pressure lower than 205 psi the 'legacy' boiler structure can handle at the required factor of safety). This is not necessarily an issue that implies severe derating of the locomotive's pulling capacity -- as Tuplin, for example, kept saying to anyone he had not given MEGO syndrome on the subject, you can trade mass flow for pressure at typical service speeds by using longer cutoff -- but it does imply a less efficient water rate, which shows up both in the cost of boiler treatment chemicals and in the need to stop more often for water. Probably less tendency for priming and carryover of water, too, and within most operating regimens unlikely that steam flow would exceed the capability of the superheater elements. So the issue can be framed: do you want an operating locomotive that looks like a historic K4 but does not quite perform like one, or shoot the moon to get a not-quite-historic K4 that does, involving much more time and money?
We used to have someone on the forum whose greatest preservation credential turned out to be that he had stamped the fake rivets in the stainless sheets that turned out not to work well in the "restored" tender structure. He would be able to tell far better stories than an 'outsider' like me about what actually went on in the 1361 saga, and the things that happened to produce both the current state of affairs and the bad taste so many people have in their mouths whenever 'that number' is mentioned.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD,
Nice company film on the New York Central Railroad steam fleet featuring the HUDSON 4-6-4 passenger engines - over 200 locomotives were owned by the Central.
The HUDSON was always a highly accessorized locomotive and the NYC equipped them with just about everything you could hang on an engine. Called the J1 model these early locomotives had 79" drive wheels with 81 sq foot of grate area, and were feed water heat, stoker, and booster engine equipped.
A second series of engines called the J2 were built with smaller drive wheels and tenders for the Boston & Albany Railroad which was a subsidiary of the New York Central System.
The third series of engines, the J3 were built starting in 1938 and were fully streamlined designs and included among other things a combustion chamber in the firebox. They also had BoxPok or Scullen Disc drive wheels and full roller bearing side rods. Piston bore was reduced by 2.5 inchers and the stroke was increased by 1 inch. Boiler pressure was raised about 50 psi to 275 lbs. Engine weight was reduced by about 75,000 lbs. I believe a power increase of about 10% was achieved with these modifications and speeds over 100 mph were achieved.
The Central eventually evolved a more or less standard upgrade for the HUDSON design for all the variants from J1-J3 replacing the parts and accessories on the early engines that did not get what the later engines had. The ones that had built up frames of steel members riveted together eventually got the solid cast steel frames. The engines were equipped with either ELESCO closed feed water heaters or Worthington SA open systems and kept these distinctive variations throughout their lives.
The early J1s had the Walschaerts valve gear design with sliding block motion but the later ones came with Baker valve gear. The early engines got this change to Baker when they were shopped in the late 1930's. The Baker design featured no sliding block parts, only pivot bearings and shafts and so were easier to repair and service.
About the time the NIAGARA 4-8-4 engines were introduced the HUDSONS lost their locomotive booster engines when they were shopped. The booster steam engine drove the rear axle of the trailer truck with a two cylinder geared steam engine that could be de-clutched at about 30 mph. This 300 horsepower auxilliary steam engine started heavy trains easily providing about 10,000 lbs of additional tractive effort.
The streamline J3 locomotives and the one streamlined J1 - NYC 5344 lost this attractive covering after WW II. Some HUDSONS randomly recieved a large high speed long distance tender similar to that used by Union Pacific on their 4-8-4 locomotives.
Just about all the large steam locomotives on the Central were given "valve pilot indicators" which was an advanced speedometer system which incorporated a mechanical computer which determined the optimum setting for the adjustment of locomotive valve "cut off." This accessory also had an internal paper tape real recorder with pencil trace showing the compliant use of the "cut off" adjustment. This system must have contributed greatly to the power and economy of the locomotives.
New York Central wore out the HUDSON fleet and the locomotives lived out a long service lives - only one NYC 5315 was wrecked so badly it was scrapped. The tender for one engine NYC 5313 was modified into a work car that is the only survior of this famous series of locomotives.
----------------
Dr DThe third series of engines, the J3 were built starting in 1938 and were fully streamlined designs ... They also had Boxpok or Scullin Disc drive wheels and full roller bearing side rods.
Only a few were streamlined, and the designs were much more for esthetic reasons than actual reduction of aerodynamic drag.
Note that only five of the locomotives had the roller-bearing rods, and from what I have been able to find these always used the Scullin drivers (perhaps these were the only ones cored to take roller-bearing-compatible main pins). Quite a bit of weird driver swapping occurred on the J3s (there are numerous examples in Staufer's book on the Hudsons, and an interesting example in the video provided (a Scullin main and Boxpok leading and trailing, with conventional rods).
Piston bore was reduced by 2.5 inches and the stroke was increased by 1 inch. Boiler pressure was raised about 50 psi to 275 lbs. Engine weight was reduced by about 75,000 lbs. I believe a power increase of about 10% was achieved with these modifications and speeds over 100 mph were achieved.
There is a comparative table in Staufer that covers both the numbers and the percentage change, and I will provide some of those data later. It might be noted here that one of these engines was slip-tested up to a cyclic rpm equivalent to 161mph (described in Kiefer's 1947 book on motive-power testing) which is likely to be the limiting speed for the J3 design; at that speed there was 'no appreciable wheel lift'...
The engines were equipped with either ELESCO closed feed water heaters or Worthington SA open systems and kept these distinctive variations throughout their lives.
If Staufer and I remember correctly, most J3s were built with Elesco and were retrofitted with open FWH 'programmatically' starting in wartime. The J2s had Coffins; there's probably a story about why. Some of the J1s got experimental installations - one of the two that went to TH&B had a coil heater with a distinctive silhouette.
By the time the NIAGARA 4-8-4 engines were introduced the HUDSONS lost their locomotive booster engines when they were shopped.
And they missed them! The booster essentially worked as an additional coupled axle at low speeds, but could be almost completely disconnected both in terms of machinery drag and balance. Remember that as late as the mid-Thirties Baldwin was convinced there could be no such thing as a high-speed eight-coupled locomotive, and fairly sophisticated engineering was necessary to produce the successful designs (with the original UP FEF class being perhaps the first) so a booster was a useful appliance even on the Water Level Route - one of its principal benefits being better acceleration of the train, rather than just starting the consist. It might be interesting to study NYC's logic in removing them (not to second-guess their decision).
Some HUDSONS randomly received a large high speed long distance tender similar to that used by Union Pacific on their 4-8-4 locomotives.
The PT deserves more credit than that - it might be argued that these were the apotheosis of centipede tender design; they certainly represented the finest flower of track-pan water pickup development!
You can see a few clips about this in the video provided, I think right about 13:10. It helps to know a bit about the system and how it worked to understand what you see; note in particular the example 'trace' that is provided. The system was notable for a direct 'user interface' which required a hard-working engine crew only to 'match needles' to keep cutoff reasonably optimized.
The tender for one engine NYC 5313 was modified into a work car that is the only survivor of this famous series of locomotives.
Water car, actually - it's at Steamtown, where I think it startles railfans on a fairly regular basis. I'm tempted to note that if anyone with access to a magnetometer can find the 'missing' trailing truck from the Gulf Summit Curve accident, and makes Steamtown a proper offer, they'll have a big leg up on restoring a Hudson...<vbg>
RME,
You and I are true HUDSON fans! And well met!
About 15 years ago I was on a business trip to up-state New York and got off the Interstate with Staufer's book. Using the photos I went to Gulf Curve to explore the sight of the famous wreck.
Of course the NYC main line - now Norfolk Southern - is still located in about the same area as it was in 1947. The area is quite overgrown compared to the old NYC photos. I walked about a mile of the track eventually finding the aproximate location rock retaining wall where NYC 5315 went off the track right into that immovable object at speed some distance from the track.
The New York Central Railroad knew the "Gulf Curve" was a dangerous curve and always had a speed restriction on that sight. But for some reason that train, heading west, went into that curve, on that day, running about 20 mph too fast - and would have stayed on the rails.
For some never discovered reason the locomotive throttle was suddenly shut - at the critical moment - causing the engine to slow down and the slack "run in" from the following passenger train to pile into the tender coupler and shove the NYC 5315 hard - lifting it off the tracks and right into the rock retaining wall. It was a disaster!
For some other strange and unknowable reason the Road Forman of Engines was riding in the cab that day - and survived the accident - and the boiler explosion.
He could never did credably account exactly what transpired - but the alarming fact was that the throttle never should have been shut at the critical moment! Something went very wrong - and in the way the story is told makes one wonder if the Road Forman - who felt the engineer was not obaying rules - went over himself and suddenly shut the throttle himself causing the wreck? And over riding the engineer's control of the train? Whatever caused the accident - it was the reason for the disaster.
NYC 5315 went headfirst into the rock wall on its right side which uncovered the firebox shell from the protective cooling water. The fire apparently still raging went onto the right side of the firebox wall. When the hot steel of the uncooled firebox quickly melted - the boiler then "blew up" and out through the funneled shape of the firebox and the grates, ash pan and trailer truck of the engine.
Laying on its side the explosion blew through the trailer truck and booster engine bending the frame of NYC 5315 back under the drivers - bending the locomotive side rods and blew the rear driver loose to a position underneath the front two drivers. That's one hell of an explosion!
The entire trailer truck and booster engine flew off like a huge steel missile - and it was never found.
When the wreck was cleaned up the ICC report stated the rear truck was assumed to have gone into the Mohawk River which runs along the main line 30 feet below grade, past several buildings several hundred yards away.
Where it likely still is! And on a bright sunny day if it went far enough away into the part of the river that is still unchanged it could be seen by air - a magnometer would be another way to find it - so would side scan sonar with a boat. I mean depending on the force of the explosion, just how far could it go?
---------------------
The passenger train behind NYC 5315 then piled into the Gulf Curve engine wreck with fairly large loss of life creating one truely catastrophic New York Central passenger train wreck in 1940.
-------------------
Complete details and the ICC report are available on the internet.
My peaceful visit to the Gulf Curve in 1998 saw a sleepy New York community that used to be astride the mainstreet of America! Daily many multiple passenger trains like the 20th Century Limited carried American travelers to their appointed destinations.
Today only the heavy freight of America travels through there instead - and a few lucky Amtrack passengers. A two lane New York state highway winds along the main line at Gulf Curve and there was a long highway overpass right at the sight. If one hunts along the shoulder of the road they come across - a commerative bronze plaque on a stone boulder maker - placed some years ago after the time of the wreck - now long forgotten and weed covered, noting for all history the events of that tragic day in 1940.
No I didn't see any signs of NYC 5315 lost Delta trailer truck with Franklin Equipment supply booster steam engine. I hadn't read the ICC report and did not catch that it was still there. But I am sure it could still be there among the weeds of the river where it came to rest.
They found the RMS Titanic on the bottom of the trackless Atlantic Ocean 3 miles down. How much trouble can a 2 ton steel truck be to find if it was never located - it's not the kind off thing scrappers or scavengers could make off with in a pick-up truck.
Now the problem is that in 1947 the New York Central did a track re-alignment moving the main line tracks into the north shore of the Mohawk River. It appears they filled the area with a heavy rock grade cutting off the sharp river bend making the trapped water into a kind of pond. For this reason the resting place of the rear engine truck of NYC 5315 could have found a number of fates.
(1) It landed far enough into the river where the curve re-allignment did not disturb it. (2) It landed on the river bank part of the river - now pond area - where it would be in the water not covered by the new 1947 railroad grade. (3) It is buried under the 1947 new main line of the New York Central now the Norfolk Southern. (4) In the process of relocating the new line it was discovered, not reported and junked.
Anyway RMC - I am game to go look as I am sure some residents might already have done - wouldn't be hard to charter a small aircraft for a fly over on a sunny days to look into the water of the Mohawk River. Yes, I am game to go look! To look for enough parts to restore long ago wrecked NYC 5315 - that is if you think a Delta trailer truck and the remnants of a locomotive tender from NYC 5313 would do it!
It sure would be a more original locomotive than a reproduction Pennsy T1 - and a lot less expensive one too!
None of the 425 PRR K4s locomotives ever had a feedwater heater. This device was first adopted by the Pennsy on the second (1922-23) batch of I1s 2-10-0's, partly at Baldwin's recommendation. The M1 4-8-2's didn't have them for clearance reasons, but from then on (K5, M1a, etc.) all PRR steamers had them.
It's true that Pennsy was very stingy about adopting such devices as stokers and feedwater heaters, feeling that, at least in the case of the latter, the Belpaire firebox and boiler design was free-steaming enough that maintaining the FWH wasn't worth the expense for the benefit produced.
Speaking more generally, whether this was the right viewpoint is questionable, since I know from family sources that when the K4s were equipped with stokers in the 30's, they achieved sustained speed and efficiency levels the railroad had never dreamed of.
Pennsy's viewpoint on these subjects went 180 degrees in the mid 30's when the old guard locomotive designers retired, hence the much more liberal application of such items on later locomotives like the S1, Q1, Q2 and T1.
As for 1361, according to what I've heard, she was, like most of the remaining K4s's in 1957, pretty well worn out and sitting dead, along with others at the 52nd St. Engine House in Philadelphia when the word went out from Headquarters that they wanted to put a K4s out on the Horseshoe Curve. Since that engine was to be simply a static display, the crew at 52nd St. simply grabbed the last engine in the dead line, which just happened to be 1361, and shipped her off to Altoona.
Images of the New York Central "Hudson" NYC 5315 wrecked at Gulf Curve, NY in the spring of 1940. Whose rear engine truck was never recovered from the Mohawk River.
Images of the New York Central "Hudson" NYC 5313 locomotive given to Toronto Hamilton & Buffalo the NYC subsidary that crosses Canada between New York and Detroit, MI. According to Al Staufer the Central considered NYC 5313 to be an unlucky number "13" and handed it off. Photo of NYC 5313 aka TH&B 503 headed for the scrapper in Canada and a photo of the surviving tender from NYC 5313 which is at Steam Town USA property of the National Park Service? Guess it wasn't such an unlucky number as its the only part of a surviving NYC "Hudson."
If the rear truck of NYC 5315 was located and the tender of NYC 5313 were gathered would this constitute enough of a New York Central "Hudson" to make one surviving locomotive - with a few reproduction parts?
-----------
BaldwinguyIt's true that Pennsy was very stingy about adopting such devices as stokers and feedwater heaters, feeling that, at least in the case of the latter, the Belpaire firebox and boiler design was free-steaming enough that maintaining the FWH wasn't worth the expense for the benefit produced. Speaking more generally, whether this was the right viewpoint is questionable, since I know from family sources that when the K4s were equipped with stokers in the 30's, they achieved sustained speed and efficiency levels the railroad had never dreamed of.
The FWH is less important on engines with lower pressure, and on a 205psi K4 would be a fuel-economy device, not a performance enhancer (like a stoker) or a 'safety enhancer' (like a power reverse). One thing about feedwater heaters on PRR was that apparently they stopped feeding on many occasions, with many points of failure but one common result -- all the boiler feed being thrown on the one injector. (Isn't there a description or discussion of this in Set Up Running?) We won't go into the Turbo-Inspirator issues on the T1s again, although to me that's an interesting discussion...
Ross Rowland has had little problem running 614 without a formal feedwater heater, so it's not exactly a mandatory device to make a modern engine workable. However, I think it is relatively easy to establish that both water rate and boiler maintenance are positively influenced when a working FWH is present.
RMERoss Rowland has had little problem running 614 without a formal feedwater heater, so it's not exactly a mandatory device to make a modern engine workable.
Two injectors. There was originally one injector, and the pump/feedwater heater was replaced with a second injector.
This is claimed in Wardale's "Red Devil and other Tales of the Age of Steam" account of the operation of the 614.
On the other hand, some Web sources suggest that some of that class of locomotive never had a feedwater heater but instead had an exhaust-steam injector, a poor-man's feedwater heater in that it provides some degree of energy and water recovery. Whatever 614 had, whether a "shell" (heat-exchanger) type or "mixing" (open) type feedwater heater or an exhaust-steam injector, it got replaced with a second (live-steam) injector.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.