Trains.com

What steam we haven't seen - relaunch Locked

80132 views
507 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2012
  • 487 posts
Posted by rfpjohn on Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:23 PM

# 391

At 36 tons per driver axle, I think most branch lines would be off limits.

Perhaps secondary service on main lines? I'm curious, too.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:30 PM

#392

In Bill Withuhn's "Spirit of Steam" there is a picture of a CNW 4-8-4 in Omaha, Nebraska. The photo is dated 1942. In the background, a Milwaukee A is visible.

That, combined with 84" drivers, causes to believe that they were simply demoted to lesser passenger duty.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:46 PM

#393

I found a picture of a generally ratty A on ebay-scroll down the page for a larger version.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Milwaukee-Road-4-4-2-1-Hiawatha-8x10-color-photo-/141048003454

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, September 30, 2013 6:01 AM

# 394

daveklepper

When the Hiawathas got too big  for the modern Atlantics, and were replaced by Hudsons, did the Milwaukee find the use of the light fast Atlantics  good for branch lines?

No.  (At least not to my knowledge, and it isn't likely.)  They'd be demoted to shorter passenger trains on the main lines.  Probably NOT well suited to most commuter or 'stopping' services.

These engines were optimized for high-speed service.  Very high axle load, stiff suspension with short-period-optimized compliance, long effective wheelbase due to the rod arrangement, etc.  I suspect very little visibility in reverse movement, and all sorts of fun with the streamlined nose when switching or working service on branch lines.  I'd also have to suspect that, in that era, the oil firing might have been an issue.

The situation with the class G locomotives might have been different in some respects, of course!

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Monday, September 30, 2013 9:40 AM

# 395

I'm curious about the Strasburg Rail Road's plan to operate a L.I.R.R. (PRR) G5s on their excursion trains.  It sure would be nice if they could get a turntable at Leaman Place, and use the Museum's turntable in Strasburg.  With no trailing truck, would flange wear on the rear driver be excessive, since there is no trailing truck?  I know Strasburg's other engines back up all the time with no trailing truck to guide them, but those G5s drivers are taller than the drivers on any other Strasburg Loco.

Also, how about visibility when backing up with that big L.I.R.R. tender, which was much larger than the tender commonly used by PRR on these engines?

I think this is still relevant to the thread because the G5s has been rightly characterized as a good engine for its intended purpose, but we should also keep its limitations in mind. 

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Monday, September 30, 2013 5:26 PM

# 396

I'm sure the Strasburg is aware of the things you mentioned and isn't all that worried about them.  That G5 isn't ever going to operate at the speeds it did on the LIRR, forwards or backwards.

Maybe, just maybe, it might get a chance at a romp on Amtraks main line as some of the Strasburg engines did in the past, and then the things you mentioned might be a concern, but still we'd be talking about a once in a blue moon ocurrance.

Really, it's a "cross that bridge when you come to it" thing.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, September 30, 2013 7:36 PM

# 397

ACY

# 395

I'm curious about the Strasburg Rail Road's plan to operate a L.I.R.R. (PRR) G5s on their excursion trains.  It sure would be nice if they could get a turntable at Leaman Place, and use the Museum's turntable in Strasburg.  With no trailing truck, would flange wear on the rear driver be excessive, since there is no trailing truck?

Not really likely, at the speeds involved.  I agree that the issue is well understood at Strasburg, and they wouldn't be proceeding as they are if there were a significant risk either to operations or to the integrity of the engine.

It would also be possible to make an improved centering arrangement between the tender and locomotive frames, which would act both to steer the rear of the chassis and damp its various motions effectively.  

If there do turn out to be issues with reverse guiding, the flange arrangement used on Stroudley's Gladstone class is one approach that might be tried.

Also, how about visibility when backing up with that big L.I.R.R. tender, which was much larger than the tender commonly used by PRR on these engines?

This is the same non-issue as for the general field of monster Garratts, boilers extended out to the loading gauge, and so forth.  It's the reason God invented the RF back-up camera.  (More capable installations with sensor fusion are, of course, possible, as I have discussed ad nauseam, but s simple version from Radio Shack or Auto Zone would get the job done well enough for all practical purposes...

I think this is still relevant to the thread because the G5s has been rightly characterized as a good engine for its intended purpose, but we should also keep its limitations in mind.

Yes, and particularly when there are approaches to mitigate some of the limitations from an operational point of view ...  this discussion is in my opinion well worth continuing.  On the other hand, since it is a significant drift in most respects from the original thread topic, I think we should establish something like a "G5 improvement thread" and do the discussion there.  

HERE the topic might be 'how would the G5 idea have been evolved in light of later experience -- and what, exactly, would PRR's more modern replacement for the service niche of the G5 class have been.  I'm thinking modern high-speed geared engine...

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Monday, September 30, 2013 8:42 PM

# 398

You're probably right about moving the G5s to another thread.  But first, just one more point.

I seemed to remember a photo of a PRR G5s with a rear-facing chicken coop pilot on its tender.  Looked in Stouffer's first Pennsy Power book & there it was on page 121.  So PRR must not have been too worried about running G5s' in reverse, so I guess I shouldn't worry either. 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, October 1, 2013 3:22 AM

# 399

Was  not the original excursion loco on Strassburg an O-6-0 switcher?   Without pilot wheels front or rear?  Is it still used on occasion?

  • Member since
    February 2012
  • 487 posts
Posted by rfpjohn on Tuesday, October 1, 2013 7:26 AM

**  # 400  **

Good point Mr. Daveklepper,

The only engine I recall Strasburg ever running with a trailing truck was E7s 7002. This engine is one which has not been seen in service for some time. (attempting to stay near topic).

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Tuesday, October 1, 2013 8:43 PM

# 401

Hi Dave!

Strasburgs original steamer was an 0-4-0 switcher, and a Camelback no less!.  It was a Reading shop goat that unfortunately didn't have the steaming capacity that was needed for the trains Strasburg wanted to run.  The 0-6-0 was the next to arrive, and to my knowledge is still operational and used from time to time.

The Camelback is still there, but on static display and not operational.

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Tuesday, October 1, 2013 8:47 PM

# 402

Hi John!

7002 is back under the shed at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania.  One of the staffers told me (and a "Trains" article bore him out)  that the Strasburg had been leasing it from the RMP but retired and returned it when it was found to have severe firebox erosion.  I saw it several years ago, it's still in beautiful shape but not likely to be run again unless someone puts some heavy money into it.  The Strasburg didn't elect to do so as they didn't own it.

  • Member since
    February 2012
  • 487 posts
Posted by rfpjohn on Tuesday, October 1, 2013 9:04 PM

# 403

Mr. Firelock76, greetings!

I was up to Strasburg in June. I saw the 1187 Reading camelback behind the Strasburg shop. Looked pretty rough. A couple of years ago, I took a shop tour at Strasburg (well worth it). In talking to one of the craftsmen, the subject of the 1187 came up. He told me that they were authorized to restore it when time and shop space came available. They've got a lot of irons in the fire, so I'm guessing it will be awhile. But, I'm sure it will be done and done right, some day!

I wandered over to the RR museum of PA and paid homage to the 1223 and 7002. Two beauties. I never got to see 1223 run. Kind of strange, as a friend of mine complained that it was the only engine he ever saw operating there back in the '70s! I did get to ride behind the 7002, however. I seriously doubt we'll ever see them run again. Too bad.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, October 2, 2013 3:30 AM

# 404

7002 is an Atlantic?   An E7?   Were E7's earlier slide-valve Atlantics rebuilt with piston valves and new valve gear, lighter than an E6?    (Rode behind an E6 Little Silver to Princeton Junction summer of 1951 with the assinged doodlebug out of service.   PB54 and P54 two-car train.   I think the track as "The Freehold Secondary Track" is still available for an occasional freight movement.

Mantua had an excellent HO model of the Reading 0-4-0 Camelback.

  • Member since
    February 2012
  • 487 posts
Posted by rfpjohn on Wednesday, October 2, 2013 4:08 AM

# 405

Daveklepper, sir

7002 is indeed an Atlantic. It's actually an E7s (8063, I think) that PRR backdated to represent the original 7002 at the 1939(?) worlds fair. It is a rebuild of an E2, with piston valves and Stephenson valve gear and superheated. The original 7002 was scrapped in the early '30s.

I bet that E6s ride was a fast one! When I was a kid, I had the great fortune of riding with a Pennsy man on the Pemberton branch local freight. His name was "rip" Holt and he would tell my friend and I all the steam stories we cared to hear. I recall him telling of firing on an E6s on the Long Branch jobs. Even though he was an Atlantic district man, he had rights on those Trenton district jobs, as they were reroutes of the Camden-Long branch trains which originally ran via the Pemberton branch and Seaside Heights. At insanely high speeds on the New York division main, all you did was bale coal! He also ran them on Pemberton branch "Lines" and Garden State race track trains out of Broad Street. I wish I could remember half the stuff he told us!

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Thursday, October 3, 2013 8:30 PM

# 406

Love the recollections.  When I was growing up in the '50's & '60's, my local road was B&O in Ohio.  Saw lots of steam on freight, but our passenger trains were mostly diesel in my town.  Jealous of you guys in the East who got to ride behind the high-drivered engines.  Which was my point, actually.  I know Strasburg's engines all lack trailing trucks & have from the beginning (the 4-4-0 and the 4-4-2 were both borrowed & not actually Strasburg engines).  My question involved running HIGH DRIVERED engines in reverse. I demonstrated that this didn't bother PRR when I mentioned the G5s with the tender-mounted pilot.  Also, I believe Strasburg's engines in the pre-excursion, pre-infernal combustion days were all, or almost all, ex-PRR 4-4-0's which were never turned.

I was told the Museum was a bit dismayed when they saw how much wear & tear their engines received in excursion service and they adopted a policy of NOT running irreplaceable engines in their collection.  Too bad if it's true, but I can't blame 'em.

The E7s is fairly close to the appearance of 7002, but I understand the real 7002 (a PFW&C engine) actually had a radial firebox, so the displayed engine isn't really as good a copy as we'd all like.  I'd like to see the Museum put the 7002's original Panhandle number back on the cab sides.  But with the new roundhouse being planned and so many other projects to do, I'm sure they are trying to prioritize.

I kind of regret starting a discussion that has strayed pretty far away from the original topic.  Sorry.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Saturday, October 5, 2013 8:08 PM

# 407

Hello all, I think this thread on the Model Railroader forum may be of interest to those here:

http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/221151.aspx

  • Member since
    February 2012
  • 487 posts
Posted by rfpjohn on Monday, October 7, 2013 5:29 PM

# 408

In an attempt to get back close to topic; as I have proposed in earlier posts, small to intermediate sized power was generally in desperate need of replacement at the time of the diesel challenge. I've already mentioned the Reading's admirable efforts to modernize/replace their passenger locomotive fleet during the late 40's.

I've become fascinated by the extensive use of tank engines in suburban and commuter service throughout Europe until the very end of steam. In particular, West Germany had their 62,64 and 65 class engines which appear to have been quite successful. I am curious (I'm betting a certain contributor with intimate steam knowledge may be able to enlighten me) what sort of range these engines had between water stops, what sort of tonnage were they designed to handle and what sort of efficiencies were these machines achieving.

I know the railways overseas tinkered around with advanced front end arrangements and feedwater heating to a much greater extent than the US roads, as steam was still very much alive decades after we'd tossed in the towel here.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Monday, October 7, 2013 6:56 PM

# 409

Referring to #410, how about tank+tender engines? The adhesion issue is less prominent on branches...

  • Member since
    February 2012
  • 487 posts
Posted by rfpjohn on Monday, October 7, 2013 8:24 PM

# 410

Mr. Northwest, Sir,

Are you perhaps speaking of an auxiliary tank to extend the range of a tank engine? Not a bad idea, I think. Perhaps a water tank auxiliary for runs too long for the capacity of a tank engine set up for short turn service. I would think coal capacity would be less of a problem. If you make the tender a low profile affair, with the appropriate  pilot and headlight setup, the view for the engineer backing up would be no worse than peering past a boiler.

This would add to the potential use of a standardized class of local service tank engines.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Monday, October 7, 2013 10:59 PM

# 411

Yes Sir!

Something along the lines of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:46443_Ivatt_at_Bewdley_station.JPG, but Americanized. Combined with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MRSR17.jpg

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, October 8, 2013 3:35 AM

# 412

The New York Central (Boston and Albany) stayed with tank engines for Boston suburban service right up to dieselization, and some were built as late as 1930.   After dieselization of suburban service (mostly Alco road-switchers) I saw one on a transfer freight move at Vasar Street and Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, in the Spring of 1950.  They would have been ok as branchline power.

  • Member since
    February 2012
  • 487 posts
Posted by rfpjohn on Tuesday, October 8, 2013 9:26 PM

#413

A B&A tank engine in service? Once again you have awakened my envy!  I recently stumbled across a website some generous fellow has constructed of the B&A steam roster in the twentieth century. There are some beautiful pictures of the 2-6-6Ts and 4-6-6Ts. The 4-6-6T engines are especially impressive. Their tractive effort rivals Pennsy's G5s! Given the size of the boiler, European style side tanks would be out of the question. Perhaps some could be fitted to the 2-6-6Ts, but they could not be very large. So, I guess for extending the range, you would have to tack on an auxiliary tender or else factor in frequent service stops.

Saddle tanks, as pictured in Northwest's post of Hammond 2-8-2T #17, would tend to make an engine pretty top heavy and unsuitable for high speed running, so I guess we would have to stick with side tanks ala Europe for increased water capacity. As stated in the previous paragraph, if the boiler gets to fat, the tanks won't fit. So, it looks to me as though a general purpose tank engine has a practical limit in size. If you need to move man sized, heavy commuter trains, either the run has to be pretty short or you're going to have to drag a tender along!

Now if the service demands are not to great, perhaps we could get more bang for our buck with a more efficient small boiler. Set it up to pop at, say, 300lbs, increase the degree of superheat, and trim down the cylinder diameter so it takes smaller gulps of steam to perform the same work and maybe we would have a capable unit. The smaller diameter boiler would allow the side tanks for increased water capacity without the engineer having to employ a periscope for forward viewing and without increasing the engines weight to the point that we have to start laying 152lb rail everywhere!

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Tuesday, October 8, 2013 10:40 PM

#414

rfpjohn
Saddle tanks, as pictured in Northwest's post of Hammond 2-8-2T #17, would tend to make an engine pretty top heavy and unsuitable for high speed running, so I guess we would have to stick with side tanks ala Europe for increased water capacity.

 

True, saddle tanks do restrict the speed of the locomotive, but is speed necessary on branches?

For commuter locomotives, be careful with the side tanks, as you don't want to run into the sloshing instability and derailments suffered by the LB&SCR L class...but this can be helped with a well tank, although they have issues of their own...Any opinions on well tanks?

I agree on the second part of the post. Tanks+tender for branches and just tanks for commuter service.  

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 755 posts
Posted by Juniatha on Saturday, October 12, 2013 7:44 PM

# 415

A tank locomotive was a locomotive by motivation of running short hauls , suburban lines or ironing yard tracks - tasks not demanding as large supplies as tender locos usually carried around - except for some very light BR class 4 2-6-0 with fixed frame triple axle tenders having but small tank body and coal compartment .

By default to equip a tank loco with an auxiliary tender is a contradiction in itself :  why use tanks on the engine frame in the first place when intending to add a tender anyways ?   This would represent an unnecessary doubling of equipment needing unnecessary supports and bracing , water lines and connections to feed pump .  Further it adds a fluctuation factor to adhesion mass - something basically *always* unwelcome in view of best exploitation of axle load limit without surpassing it .

With suitable engine to tender articulation , a tender engine without radial axle below firebox end could be tuned to run backwards as fine as forwards .   That meant a 2-6-0 , a 2-8-0 or a 4-6-0 could be made to run in switchback service going forwards outbound and running backwards on the return leg .    I can see neither need to build a 'double-bubble' type of engine having water tanks on both vehicles or part of the combined vehicle , nor would I see anything gained by such a locomotive .

Saddle tanks have been used with locos of small boiler diameter at the same time sitting pretty low so there was enough room on top of the boiler back for high domes and a saddle tank in between .   The ensemble probably rarely resulted in a higher pitches center of gravity than with locos having side tanks and higher up boiler center line .   Level above rails of center line of gravity was of little meaning for large locomotive running since dynamics of riding were not determined by such extreme factors as relation of engine mass to force needed to lift vehicle and go through curve with wheels in the air on one side or likely turn it over sideways .   That may be so when it comes to model trains on a layout hitting what would scale up as very tight curves at what would be better than 120 mph in a real train - such conditions of 'bouncing & kicking' are *way off-off-off* any acceptable frame limits of save operation to be found in real railroading - perhaps with exception of cases like lately met with the high speed train derailed in Spain .  A high center of gravity even helped *reduce* peak sideways thrust as imposed on rails by heavy vehicle since the vehicle when hitting a lateral rail misalignment or entering abruptly branching switch will momentarily lean over laterally and then straighten up by leveling out suspension loads , which means only part of concerned vehicle mass has immediately to be displaced by rail while the rest of it will follow in a slower movement , the resultant displacement of center of gravity being considerably eased and thus realized on lower peak lateral thrust .   Again :  we are talking of such lateral movements within limits of comfortable and smooth enough running , mind it !   If fast running would have called for low center of gravity such as - for quite different objects - in road holding of cars then such locomotives as SP Daylight 4-8-4 ,  N&W J class or PRR T1 would have been severely restricted .

But , say - wasn't this thread about locomotives we *have not* seen ? 

So let's go saddle up  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V59L7Wvu40I

.. make a U-turn and *ride*  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur8ftRFb2Ac

.. gettin’ caught between full moon and the New York Central 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMdwFkO8xA0

.. and land in - oops? - Helsinki   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dutr2m9IouE

( AirBerlin B-737-800 flight deck with some examples of German and Finnish English - *g* )

Regards

Juniatha

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:30 PM

Juniatha

 A high center of gravity even helped *reduce* peak sideways thrust as imposed on rails by heavy vehicle since the vehicle when hitting a lateral rail misalignment or entering abruptly branching switch will momentarily lean over laterally and then straighten up by leveling out suspension loads , which means only part of concerned vehicle mass has immediately to be displaced by rail while the rest of it will follow in a slower movement , the resultant displacement of center of gravity being considerably eased and thus realized on lower peak lateral thrust .

#416

Slightly off-topic, but that is precisely one of the reasons the PRR went with the DD1 design (body mounted motor with jackshaft and side rod drive). Conversely this is one aspect where a steam locomotive would produce less stress on the rails compared to a diesel or electric with nose or truck mounted traction motors.

- Erik

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, October 13, 2013 12:13 AM

#417

I'd think the issue with stability of high-mounted tanks is not so much the high center of gravity as the potential for movement of water in the tanks.  If you look at the history of the diagnosed reason for the riding problems with SDP40Fs, you can get a feel for the potential magnitude of this issue. 

The fallacy of requiring very low CG for high-speed is as old as the Crampton idea.  Debunked then, as well as now.  Keeping the frontal area low for less air resistance (which usually produces a lower CG as a by-product) is another story... but even this is a relatively minor factor for trains above large-railcar size...

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 755 posts
Posted by Juniatha on Sunday, October 13, 2013 3:21 AM

# 418


Ok , I see - it's all about who's comments are most off-topic .   So we write about anything but late hour steam and how it might have been extended . 

 

Overmod , the idea of contents of a saddle tank sweeping from side to side across the boiler with high and low tides swaying to and fro is a *very* bad one .   This certainly would not help straight and smooth riding but evoke all kinds of unpredictable movements of the vehicle .   That’s why , afaik , saddle tank type of tank engines were never built for anything but shunting or low speed transfer service ( if still anyone should have , it must be considered a gross stupidity )

 

On lateral thrusts :   while full adhesion bogie suspended vehicles with electric traction motors *do* carry a certain mass concentration in their power bogies , the whole arrangement of vehicle axle guidance , I have to say , is by default superior to that of a classic steam locomotive with powered wheel sets in rigid frame .

It would appear proper amount and characteristics of centering forces of leading bogie or leading idler axle has only been approached in the 1930s – and then more by trial and error than by proper calculation .   Before , there have been cases of fatal derailments in curves passed at speed due to overloading flanges of leading coupled axle in combination with laterally stiff mounting of these axles .   Since in a Pacific , for example , position of leading coupled axle is set back from locomotive front by no small amount , any lateral flange force on this axle when mounted laterally rigid meant lateral displacement of a considerable part of the vehicle’s mass – some 1/3 to 1/2 for a rough indication of typical values .   That was what has even lead to frames cracking with laterally stiff bar frames as used in many 1920s American locomotive types and in German steam built to 1925 standardized design . 

When in later American eight coupled passenger and dual purpose power first coupled axle was given spring loaded lateral motion , this situation was partly relieved , partly handed on to the main drive axle which had remained laterally fixed .   Since that axle usually was tolerably near to the center of the vehicle , lateral thrust on it largely had to be handled by elastic deflection of rail , vehicle mass being too large to give quick enough .   This inevitably must have lead to an impression of smooth running when actually it was hard on rails when hitting spots of less than perfect alignment as easily happened with jointed rails on wooden sleepers and basic enough rail/sleeper connection – you know what I mean .  

In this respect lateral motion of power bogies is much lighter on rail since not only are involved masses smaller but also levering is more advantageous . 

 

As concerns the PRR DD1 and other side rodder electrics , I think they were just built before traction motors in bogies had become properly developed ;  further development of electric locos world-wide then had pretty quickly left this early concept of large central motors and steam-like coupling rods .

 

Regards

Juniatha

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, October 13, 2013 10:31 AM

# 419

The DD-1 was developed after the Baltimore Tunnel electrics but before the NYC' S-1 and New Haven's 0-4-4-0's that quickly became 2-4-4-2's and were copied for the B&M Hoosack Tunnel.   Anyone know of other main line railroad electrics this early?  Excuse my use of White numerals for electrics.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, October 13, 2013 11:05 AM

# 420

Before any other comment is necessary -- do you have a stray 26MB storage available and a good monitor or printer?

Download this from Google Books (PDF format)..  It will answer just about any question you might immediately have.

There are some other references, like Condit's book in 1977, but they're not so easily and cheaply accessed.

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