Trains.com

BIGGEST TENDER

4208 views
34 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 195 posts
BIGGEST TENDER
Posted by BEAUSABRE on Sunday, April 25, 2021 5:55 PM

OK, now for something a little off beat, Which steam engines had the heaviest tender (when loaded with fuel and water)

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,330 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, April 25, 2021 8:53 PM

New York Central C1a, for coal capacity.  But this was facilitated by having a relatively small cistern, the result of intensive track-pan use.

The answer for water is going to depend on whether you count A-tanks/water bottles/auxiliary tenders as part of the "heaviest tender" (railroads would certainly consider them so).

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 20,543 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, April 25, 2021 9:21 PM

B&O built a number of 25 Ton 20K gallon tenders for use on a number of locomotives including the EM-1's

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 1,888 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Sunday, April 25, 2021 11:13 PM

Sante Fe 3776 and 2900 4-8-4 locomotives pulled 8-axled tenders holding 7,000 gallons of oil and 26,495 gallons of water, weighing in at 464,700 lbs.

https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=4-8-4&railroad=atsf

https://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/atsf2923.htm

https://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/atsf2929.htm

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,265 posts
Posted by M636C on Monday, April 26, 2021 8:49 AM

kgbw49

Sante Fe 3776 and 2900 4-8-4 locomotives pulled 8-axled tenders holding 7,000 gallons of oil and 26,495 gallons of water, weighing in at 464,700 lbs.

https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=4-8-4&railroad=atsf

https://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/atsf2923.htm

https://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/atsf2929.htm

 

I think the Santa Fe has it...

The B&O EM-1 tenders weighed 382 000 lbf.

The Niagara PT-6 tender weighed 420 000 lbf.

The C-1a tender described by Overmod weighed 445 000 lbf. (and wasn't built)

ATSF had the 464 000 lbf. tenders on 3776 class, 2900 class and 5011 class locomotives.

Peter

 

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,391 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, April 26, 2021 10:09 AM

How would you classify the tenders on SAR's Class 25 condensing 4-8-4's?

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 1,987 posts
Posted by timz on Monday, April 26, 2021 10:17 AM

Next question: whose tender had the greatest total capacity -- weight of coal/oil plus water? Do I remember right that the VGN 2-6+6-6s carried 26500 gallons of water? If so, they're likely winners.

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 1,215 posts
Posted by Backshop on Monday, April 26, 2021 10:35 AM

Not quite the biggest but the Pennsy's coast-to-coast tenders were very large, too.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,330 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, April 26, 2021 11:17 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH
How would you classify the tenders on SAR's Class 25 condensing 4-8-4's?

Mostly empty space.  These were air-cooled condensers often operating in decidedly hot air... and the actual mass of water in the physical condenser structure likely not that significant.

Remember there are limits on how much heat you can put in tender-cistern water before the injectors get into trouble.  With the latent heat of condensation capable of raising considerable mass of water from ambient to boiling... 

If we count the mass of the condensers, fans, etc. in the weight -- renember that this is Cape gauge with no more than 22ton axle load, and those tenders ran on six axles.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,265 posts
Posted by M636C on Monday, April 26, 2021 8:39 PM

timz

Next question: whose tender had the greatest total capacity -- weight of coal/oil plus water? Do I remember right that the VGN 2-6+6-6s carried 26500 gallons of water? If so, they're likely winners.

 

I only have details for the smaller C&O H-8 tenders with 25 000 gallons and 25 tons, the heaviest of which weighed 437 000 lbf.

The Condensing tenders of the South African Class 25 weighed 113 long tons 18 cwt (=113.9 long tons) = 255 136 lbf.

Peter

  • Member since
    February 2021
  • From: Germany
  • 142 posts
Posted by Sara T on Thursday, April 29, 2021 1:35 PM

At least the relative biggest in relation to the loco were the sixteen wheel tenders of the Pennsy for the I1s, loco had only twelve wheels.

Although the naming as "Coast to Coast tenders" was largely overdone, the States were much wider from coast to coast than the tenders were long, heeheehee.

Sara

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,265 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, April 29, 2021 11:17 PM

Sara T

At least the relative biggest in relation to the loco were the sixteen wheel tenders of the Pennsy for the I1s, loco had only twelve wheels.

Although the naming as "Coast to Coast tenders" was largely overdone, the States were much wider from coast to coast than the tenders were long, heeheehee.

Sara

 

Outside the USA there was a more extreme version of the PRR Coast to Coast tenders, which deserved the name more since they were used on the Trans Australian Railway, although coast to coast operation did not start until 1970, 18 years after steam was taken out of service.

The Commonwealth Railways C class was a 4-6-0 weighing 88.1 long tons, 197344 lbf., (similar in dimensions to the German Class 38-!0, the Prussian P8). This was coupled to a tender weighing 120 long tons, 268800 lbf, longer than the locomotive and with one more axle. These locomotives and tenders were built in 1938 to operate the passenger trains on the line which had been extended to Port Pirie the previous year.

Since most oof the line was through desert with little available water, the tenders were truly neccessary. They carried 12100 English gallons (larger than US Gallons) and 17.5 long tons of coal.

These locomotives were used on passenger trains, and the tender represented 27% of the load of the train.

Peter

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,265 posts
Posted by M636C on Friday, April 30, 2021 1:22 AM

A typical PRR Long Haul tender was the type 210F84 which was fitted to the j1 and J1a 2-10-4s. This carried 21 000 gallons of water and 59 000 lbf of coal. It weighed 411 500 lbf loaded.

This is smaller than the largest ATSF tenders.

Peter

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,330 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, April 30, 2021 11:23 AM

A few notes for further research:

Probably the poster child for Sara's version is one particular tender, the nominal 250F82a that was taken off S1 6100 and converted (it appears to have had the same deck height as the Decapods, which will give some hint about the Big Engine's size; the "a" apparently involves changing the stoker-engine arrangements from Berkley to Duplex, which I think is a flag for an engine type with no trailing truck).  The 'regular' big tenders for the I1s were 210F82a (again with Duplex) apparently converted from "210F75" which is a somewhat suggestive deck height (the stoker-equipped K4s were 75")

On the S1 the tender was 451840#.  I don't know how that weight would change with the swap to Duplex and removal of the passenger lines.  Still likely short of the ATSF in weight, but perhaps longer...

There are claims that there were additional 250F82 tenders applied to I1s.  These would almost certainly have been modified from the 10 250P75s put on K4s (see below) by raising the deck height and removing the steam and signal lines etc. -- the procedure to convert these to the 82" deck being little if any different for what was involved with a 210P75 as described above.  These would be runner-up to the Big Engine tender in the 'length' department, but to my knowledge so far those 10 did not get the 4F5T1 eight-wheel truck conversion.

Somewhere in the now-expanded scope of the question here will be those 10 K4s with 250P75, which we have discussed a few times here.  One example:

This has the same 6 axles as the I1 does, but like Mr. Clark's only three are driver axles; moreover these are 80" which translates both into slipping and drawbar TE concerns.

(Of course the I1 is massively shorter than a K4s -- the wheelbase is 22'8" vs. 36'2").  I will have to look this up in the Locomotive Cyclopedia but I'm nowhere near it right now.

 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,265 posts
Posted by M636C on Saturday, May 1, 2021 12:27 AM

(Of course the I1 is massively shorter than a K4s -- the wheelbase is 22'8" vs. 36'2")

I was always under the impression that the I-1 and K-4s were very similar in overall size, since the I-1 was said to have been developed from the L-1 2-8-2 which had the same boiler as the K-4s.

Checking the drawings in Kalmbach's "Model Railroader Cyclopedia Volume 1", both locomotives have the same overall length, 46 ft 10-1/2 ins for the K-4s and 1/4 inch less for the I-1. The coupled wheelbase of the I-1 is shown as 22 ft 8 ins but there is an overhang of 11 ft 2-1/2 ins behind the trailing driving axle.

Peter

  • Member since
    February 2021
  • From: Germany
  • 142 posts
Posted by Sara T on Saturday, May 1, 2021 4:36 PM

(Overmod: K4s with fat belly 250P.. tender)

 

Pwwaahh!

Looks as ugly as a 250P(ound) woman!

Eeewwhh - uuuuaah - nooh, brrrr!

Get it off my mind, uuuwaah!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sara

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 6,484 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Saturday, May 1, 2021 5:03 PM

Uh, that K4 with the magnum-sized tender looks bizarre, to say the least!

Try building a model of that set-up and then convincing the judges at an NMRA contest it's prototypical!  

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,330 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, May 1, 2021 5:26 PM

Flintlock76
Uh, that K4 with the magnum-sized tender looks bizarre, to say the least!

And the rationale behind it, more bizarre still.

I suspect at least some of retaining it involves progressive decommissioning of coaling facilities, track pans, and water sources consistent with boiler treatments, as nominal dieselization progressed I'd like to say the 250Ps were hand-me-down use of older tenders from large PRR power scrapped early, like much of the I1 'experience'... but they weren't.

I think the Lehigh Valley 'probably' had the right idea with their proposed adoption of 4-4-6-4 duplexes -- plans show a mysterious pair of B trucks that almost certainly were to carry an auxiliary separable water tender so the locomotive and tender would fit existing turntables.  This was the 'correct' solution for those otherwise pretty good RENFE 4-8-4s that ended up with tiny little tenders...

  • Member since
    April 2016
  • 1,095 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Saturday, May 1, 2021 9:14 PM

Tenders like the one shown more than likely where used on limited stop trains especially in WW2 when the railroads where being pushed to the limit.  Think about it if you can get an engine pulling say the Broadway Limited over Indiana without needing to stop for coal and water on the way your saving time for the railroad and maybe freeing up a spot for another train to run.  Or in my industry we would call those tenders the Coast to Coast range tanks.  Back when fuel was cheap about 2 decades ago there where trucks built with 200 to 250 gallon tanks on each side.  They literally could fuel up in a very low cost state drive across the nation to another low cost state and refuel there.  Right now we carry 200 gallons of useable fuel on the fleet trucks that gives us a range of around 1500 to 1600 miles safely.  There where drivers that had up to 3300 miles of range on a tank.  They literally could cross the nation on one tank of fuel.  There are some of these trucks around today.  Southern Pride transport they routinely haul jet engines around that are broken to repair shops and then bring the repaired ones back.  Those drivers routinely carry 500 gallons of fuel and live in those trucks for months at a time.  But then they normally have 168 inch custom sleepers they are living in that have more useable space in them than some NYC apartments.  These guys have full kitchens washer driers full bathrooms full sized beds and a dining living area in these sleepers.  Yeah they are that nice inside.  But when your truck costs over 400K to buy you better get what your paying for.  

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: St. Paul, Minnesota
  • 2,116 posts
Posted by Boyd on Tuesday, May 4, 2021 12:37 AM

Now I'm wondering if any railroads ran steam locomotives pulling multiple tender? Not including current day UP steam engines. I'm one of the people who have videos of 4014 stop in Baldwin Wiscon during its Midwest tour in 2019. When it left Baldwin there was 1000-2000 people there and there was absolutely no steam exiting the cylinders in the 4014. The diesel was doing all of the work. 

Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,330 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, May 4, 2021 1:36 AM

Boyd
Now I'm wondering if any railroads ran steam locomotives pulling multiple tender?

Many, many, many examples.  Quite a bit of it you have to look carefully to find, as it only occurred for a short time, e.g. as dieselization progressed and steam consists had to run further between remaining water and fueling points (even as locomotive scrappings made additional 'water tenders' attractively inexpensive to provide).

One documented example is Ed King's account of the N&W service from Williamson through Kenova (in his book on the A 2-6-6-4s).  This was a carefully-thought-out operation that could involve multiple auxiliary water tenders.

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 1,888 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Tuesday, May 4, 2021 7:39 AM

Boyd, depending on where the crowd was, they might not have wanted to risk steam being injected in to the crowd. I chased 4014 to Altoona and it was most definitely pulling. What a sight!

 

  • Member since
    January 2016
  • 14 posts
Posted by DR DENNIS GORDAN on Thursday, May 6, 2021 8:22 PM
A distant memory pictured huge tenders on PRR T1's, so just checked Wiki and found it was 442,500 lb loaded, not the biggest, but well up there.
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,391 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, May 7, 2021 10:03 AM

For comparison, a T1 tender is as heavy as a current six-motor road diesel.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,330 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, May 7, 2021 10:32 AM

The prototype T1s apparently had slightly smaller tenders (a bit more water, a bit less coal, 19500gal vs. 19200 and 82000 vs. 85200lb. respectively) but I don't think that accounts for the nominal weight difference.  Prototype number I have is about 433000# loaded.

It was my understanding that both the ATC and much of the inductive-trainphone equipment was carried on the 'production' T1 tenders and this may account for some of the difference.

Interestingly, that 210F75a that the T1Trust acquired (in other words, comparable to the large tender on many I1s, although the deck height reflects its original service behind a 4-8-2) has much less coal capacity, at 31T nominal, so its weight is a mere 412000lb loaded...

  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 195 posts
Posted by BEAUSABRE on Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:01 PM

To go slightly off track, the UP reused tenders from IIRC retired Challengers on its 8500 shp turbines. I guess they converted the water space to space for additional Bunker C 

"Units 51 to 60 were delivered to the Union Pacific. These were essentially identical to the prototype except that they had cabs at only one end. These and later turbines were nearly always equipped with fuel tenders converted from old steam locomotive tenders, with a capacity of 23,000 US gallons (87,000 l). A heating apparatus was installed to make sure that the viscous fuel would flow properly. The tenders were also equipped with MU connections so that trailing diesel locomotives could be controlled as well."

https://www.scaletrains.com/product/rivet-counter-ho-scale-union-pacific-gtel-8500-horsepower-big-blow-turbine-30/

 

 

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,578 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, May 13, 2021 6:38 AM

The tender of PRR S1 was 451,840 lb when loaded (52,900 lb coal + 24,230 gal water), probably one of the heaviest when built?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 16,330 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, May 13, 2021 10:01 AM

Jones1945
The tender of PRR S1 was 451,840 lb when loaded (52,900 lb coal + 24,230 gal water), probably one of the heaviest when built.

See my note Fri April 30 11:23.  I suspect there is some gain in the conversion to Duplex and the higher deck.  I don't think this would come to the weight of the ATSF tenders, though.

  • Member since
    April 2018
  • 1,578 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, May 14, 2021 1:37 AM

Overmod
 
Jones1945
The tender of PRR S1 was 451,840 lb when loaded (52,900 lb coal + 24,230 gal water), probably one of the heaviest when built.

See my note Fri April 30 11:23.  I suspect there is some gain in the conversion to Duplex and the higher deck.  I don't think this would come to the weight of the ATSF tenders, though.

Totally agree with you, the capacity of fuel and water was probably increased after conversion.

If PRR S1 was the "Big Engine", ATSF's 3776 class and 2900 class are "Mega Engine"...

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,265 posts
Posted by M636C on Friday, May 14, 2021 7:28 AM

Jones1945

 

 
Overmod
 
Jones1945
The tender of PRR S1 was 451,840 lb when loaded (52,900 lb coal + 24,230 gal water), probably one of the heaviest when built.

See my note Fri April 30 11:23.  I suspect there is some gain in the conversion to Duplex and the higher deck.  I don't think this would come to the weight of the ATSF tenders, though.

 

 

Totally agree with you, the capacity of fuel and water was probably increased after conversion.

If PRR S1 was the "Big Engine", ATSF's 3776 class and 2900 class are "Mega Engine"...

 

 

The thing about the S1 was that it was almost exactly the same size as a "Big Boy" but had a rigid frame and half the number of driving wheels.

Somewhere I've seen a sketch with the outlines overlaid. To some extent, the steamlining of the S1 increases its overall size.

The ATSF 2900 was big (and heavy, as built) but not quite as big as the S1.

Peter

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy