GP40-2The DM&IR M3/M4 didn't need the 4 wheel trailing truck for the all weather cab, they needed it to help support the large 750 sq.ft. firebox. As a reference to how big the firebox was on all the Yellowstone type locomotives, the N&W Class A firebox was only 580 sq.ft. and it needed a 4 wheel training truck just to support that.
This is a specious comparison; the Yellowstone, like the various Challengers and the Big Boy, carries its firebox partially over the rear-engine drivers. It might technically be possible to move the boiler and firebox forward, along the general line of a "big 2-8-8-2" but then the weight on drivers (already just about maxed-out on a Yellowstone) might be too extreme, or the swing of the smokebox over the forward engine too extreme. (In defense, air access to the grate might be better with a 2-wheel. trailer... )
The A, on the other hand, like the Allegheny or, in the 2-8-8-4 world the EM-1, has a deep forebox, which gives better combustion efficiency, or a 'lazier' response to draft at high power (much of the "fuel" in a Big Boy was ignited and burned without ever residing on the grate at all... just the opposite of what is desired in a fire for a coal-burning engine...) By the time you get this up to the 135' of the Allegheny, in a deep firebox, you may be talking six-wheel truck, and designs intended to add additional radiant surface (like Lima's proposed Long Compression/double Belpaire eight-coupled engine from 1949) might need six wheels under there, too. On the gripping hand, of course, there's always the argument that the three axles aren't so much needed for weight bearing as to span the greater longitudinal distance under the firebox with less structural difficulty for the truck frame itself...
I would argue that it's better in a comparison like this to compare grate area rather than heating surface. GA of a Yellowstone was somewhere around 125 square feet. I'll grant you that there are other efficiency concerns (such as extended surface of a longer chamber, or firebox and chamber syphons) but the tone of that "750 square feet' is more suited to a pissing contest than coherent locomotive discussion. In my opinion, there are too many other variables for you to quote HS numbers as though other factors are not as, or more, significant, even if only discussing the degree to which the firebox overhangs the rear driver.
Some of you may find the following interesting and counter to some of what has previously been posted here. This is from the C&O Fireman's Manual and about the "Standard HT Stoker.
.
carnej1 efftenxrfe AC-9---yes until the mass, height and wheelbase of the trailing truck is viewed from an "Engine Picture" broadside shot. The truck is too small in proportion (esthetics only) to the rest of...the whole engine. I'm a fan that sticks with the 2-6+6-6. With the Cab forwards the trailing tuck would have been the pilot truck on a conventional "cab-to-the-rear" design. It wasn't designed to support the firebox like the trailing trucks of almost all other articulateds (the exception that proves the rule is the DM&IR Yellowstones which had extra large all weather cabs that required the four wheel trailing truck, on any other road they would have been built as huge 2-8-8-2s) so it's no wonder the AC-9's looks markedly different...
efftenxrfe AC-9---yes until the mass, height and wheelbase of the trailing truck is viewed from an "Engine Picture" broadside shot. The truck is too small in proportion (esthetics only) to the rest of...the whole engine. I'm a fan that sticks with the 2-6+6-6.
AC-9---yes until the mass, height and wheelbase of the trailing truck is viewed from an "Engine Picture" broadside shot.
The truck is too small in proportion (esthetics only) to the rest of...the whole engine.
I'm a fan that sticks with the 2-6+6-6.
With the Cab forwards the trailing tuck would have been the pilot truck on a conventional "cab-to-the-rear" design. It wasn't designed to support the firebox like the trailing trucks of almost all other articulateds (the exception that proves the rule is the DM&IR Yellowstones which had extra large all weather cabs that required the four wheel trailing truck, on any other road they would have been built as huge 2-8-8-2s) so it's no wonder the AC-9's looks markedly different...
The DM&IR M3/M4 didn't need the 4 wheel trailing truck for the all weather cab, they needed it to help support the large 750 sq.ft. firebox. As a reference to how big the firebox was on all the Yellowstone type locomotives, the N&W Class A firebox was only 580 sq.ft. and it needed a 4 wheel training truck just to support that. The final two types of Yellowstones built (the M3/M4 and EM-1) had fireboxes equal in size to the C&O Allegheny - they were simply huge. There is no way you could support a firebox that size with a 2 wheel trailing truck.
selector Big Jim, I may be wrong, but so would the person suggesting how to fire an engine with a stoker at this site: http://www.southerncape.co.za/history/transport/railways/locomotives/the_standard_mechanical_stoker_1956.php See the section further down on 'Suggestions to the Fireman", the first warning given. Crandell
Big Jim, I may be wrong, but so would the person suggesting how to fire an engine with a stoker at this site:
http://www.southerncape.co.za/history/transport/railways/locomotives/the_standard_mechanical_stoker_1956.php
See the section further down on 'Suggestions to the Fireman", the first warning given.
Crandell
If I'm not mistaken, there is a passage in "Apex of the Atlantics" that tells of an engineer that did just this and saved a lot of coal over the run or something to that effect.
carnej1With the Cab forwards the trailing tuck would have been the pilot truck on a conventional "cab-to-the-rear" design. It wasn't designed to support the firebox like the trailing trucks of almost all other articulateds
Well, I wasn't aware there were cab-forward AC-9s.
In part, they were 'good-looking' because of their styling. I don't recall the trailing truck being insignificant compared to, say, the ones on the PRR T1, which has a tiny wheelbase compared to the room provided for it, or the N&W A (which started a great way back from the rear drivers)
I'll grant you that the lead truck under the firebox on cab-forward AC locomotives looked a bit small, but it certainly supported the weight it needed to, and guided at least adequately enough for main-train speeds in WWII...
One of the overall best book on firing and running steam is John Orr's "Set Up Running: The Life of a Pennsylvania Railroad Engineman, 1904-1949" (ISBN-13: 978-0271027418.) This is the son's tale of his father's work on the Pennsy. You'll learn some of the art of firing from 40+ yeats in the cab. Well worth reading twice as there is lots of details and afterwards you will understand why the shovel was the Fireman's tool.
One problem to be avoided was piling coal near and under the distributor plate. If it were not kept bathed in air and steam, it could heat and warp with the intense heat in the firebox, particularly during heavy demand and the commensurate heavy stoking.
It is my understanding that you are quite wrong about that. The steam men I worked with told me that the first thing a fireman would do to prepare his fire bed was to turn off the stoker jets and run the stoker to get what was called "a good Heel" in front and beside the stoker plate.
Had those bitter Minnesota winters not required that the Missabe M-3/4 Yellowstones have an all-weather cab, the locomotives would have looked exactly like the Western Pacific 251 2-8-8-2's,(save for a slightly smaller coal-burning vs. oil-burning firebox) as that's the locomotive on which Baldwin based the M-3/4's. And the M-3/4 locos were not just relegated to ore trains, as they proved during the winters of WWII when they did yeoman service on the Rio Grande, Northern Pacific, Great Northern and (reportedly) Western Pacific hauling all kinds of freight. In fact, engineers on the Rio Grande said that the big Yellowstones were the best locomotives they'd ever fired.
I don't know if they're the 'best' articulated ever built (is there such an animal?), but hands down, those 18 M-series Yellowstones are certainly MY favorite articulated.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
timz So all big US locomotives had to carry shovels? The stokers couldn't do all the firing on any 4-8-4, for instance? How about 4-6-4s and 4-8-2s? Did Hiawatha firemen have to shovel those 4-6-4s up to 100+ mph?
So all big US locomotives had to carry shovels? The stokers couldn't do all the firing on any 4-8-4, for instance? How about 4-6-4s and 4-8-2s? Did Hiawatha firemen have to shovel those 4-6-4s up to 100+ mph?
Yes, all coal-fired steamers, including those in Canada, carried shovels, but only for initial dressing/preparation of the fire prior to the work to be done, and only to correct minor problems in the distribution of the coal bed inside the firebox due to rocking, clearing the grates, engineer's idioscynchracies in the use of throttle and reverser, etc. IOW, the shovel was a useful tool in a limited way once the locomotive had a mechanical stoker. I just finished doing more reading prior to answering, and it seems that on British steamers, at least, there were five jets, one for each rear firebox corner, one for each close firebox corner, and the line jet for the middle of the firebox. So, it was undertaken from the outset to engineer and use a reasonable appliance that could meet every demand placed upon the firebox by the engineer. That's the theory. In practice, it seems the fireman had to stand up on occasion, take a closer look, heave a sigh, turn and reach for his scoop, retrieve some coal, open the clamshell, and throw in some coal in certain spots by hand.
So it seems to be to my read. Maybe others will have another take on it all.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
On the basis of esthetics only, I'd also go with the Alleghenies. Unfortunately, they seemed to be used more for their tractive effort than their horsepower. It would have been interesting to see how they would have performed with a produce block on Union Pacific or Santa Fe.
Stokers were pretty much standard by the 30s and 40s and I believe they were popular in the 20s. And the shovel was really more for shaping the fire, not for feeding the engine.
how about the AC-9 ?/ THEY DIDNT GET MUCH LOVE BUT THEY WERE THE BEST LOOKING ARTICULATED EVER BUILT
carnej1 ... I was under the impression that in many of the big "last of steam" locomotives there were steam jets installed in the firebox to spread the coal evenly?
...
I was under the impression that in many of the big "last of steam" locomotives there were steam jets installed in the firebox to spread the coal evenly?
You are not wrong. However, The nozzles were not exactly steerable. They were fixed on the cab side of a distribution plate over which the pulverized coal was thrust by the stoker. The jets could not properly fill the corners, for example, and most certainly were horrible with the two closest corners on either side of the stoker and distribution plate. At some point, the fireman had to open the clamshell and fire coal sideways into each close corner.
Schuylkill and Susquehanna thomas81z remember the bigger stuff & new stuff had stokers , but still oil would have been easier It's a misnomer that stokers meant that firemen didn't need to shovel. The stoker sprayed the coal out in a fan shape, so the fireman still needs to shovel the corners to keep the fire even. Thus the size of the firebox is still limited because of needing to shovel coal into the back corners. Naturally, an oil burner doesn't require any shoveling.
thomas81z remember the bigger stuff & new stuff had stokers , but still oil would have been easier
remember the bigger stuff & new stuff had stokers , but still oil would have been easier
It's a misnomer that stokers meant that firemen didn't need to shovel. The stoker sprayed the coal out in a fan shape, so the fireman still needs to shovel the corners to keep the fire even. Thus the size of the firebox is still limited because of needing to shovel coal into the back corners. Naturally, an oil burner doesn't require any shoveling.
I read in the book "Pennsy Power" by Alvin Staufer, that the PRR converted at least one E6s #13,based out of Baltimore, 10 L1s mikados, whish were based out of 46th street in Philly ( I guess I should have read a little more before posting my earlier dispatch ) and there is a photo of a 1939 conversion of a B6sb tender. Don't know for sure of others, guess I'll have to dig a little deeper. As for the Santa Fe engines, they were giant 2-10-4s.
It, to answer the first subject, probably is out there: the UP Challenger....fast, agile, not huge, oil-fueled....tho' esthetically, I vote for the totaly impractical C&O 2-6-6-6.
BEDT's 0-6-0T's had 1-man engine crews in the mid-fifties, and were oil-fired. BEDT: 'cross the river from the UN Bldg, the Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal RR, about 4 engines....to answer the second thread subject.
Third subject: yes, to my recollection, the last commercially built engines for a Class 1 were the 2-6-6-2's for the C&O.
But the last built for a Class 1, new, were some 0-8-0's replicating a C&O type, built by N&W at Roanoke.
As far as I know the oil burners on the PRR was a few leased 2-10-2 locos from the Santa Fe that hung out in the Cleveland area. They had no problem hanging wire and running electrics in smoke ordnance areas. Oil burners were just as smoky as rock burners but had little ash.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
rfpjohn C&O 1309, a compound 2-6-6-2. The picture on the museum website shows the loco as looking a bit weathered. I believe one of these mallets was the last commercially built locomotive built for a US common carrier. Even after NKP 779!
C&O 1309, a compound 2-6-6-2. The picture on the museum website shows the loco as looking a bit weathered. I believe one of these mallets was the last commercially built locomotive built for a US common carrier. Even after NKP 779!
I'm pretty sure it was the last steam locomotive built by Baldwin for a US common carrier, perhaps postdating NKP 779 by a few months. Baldwin continued to build steam locomotives for the export market for a few years after that.
I remember a 1964 ad for a model of the C&O locomotives stating that the order "marked and meant the end of steam".
- Erik
C&O 1309, a compound 2-6-6-2. The picture on the museum website shows the loco as looking a bit weathered. I believe one of these mallets was the last commercially built locomotive built for a US commen carrier. Even after NKP 779! I always thought it was a pretty neat looking engine. I suppose one potential problem with a compound is the lack of high speed capability, though the N&W claimed 50mph out of its' Y5/6 engines. But on a secondary or regional line with nice scenery, 30mph is a pretty good pace! As for the oil fired jobs, a little additional research seems to indicate that the Pennsy's fleet was primarily a Baltimore thing. Maybe they got oil cheap at that port city?
A 2-6-6-2 in the B&O Museum? How'd I miss that? Maybe my head was swimming over the size of the 2-6-6-6 Allegheny.
Per the comment on coal miner strikes: it was the frequency of miner strikes in the years after WW2 that were an additional factor in the 'roads decisons to dieselize. If there's ever been a strike in the oil industry I've never heard of it. Not that I blame the coal miners for striking, not at all. The way those people were treated over the years was disgraceful and disgusting.
Perhaps more on topic, how about that cool C&O 2-6-6-2 in the B&O museum. Not huge, maybe more practical for running on more rail lines.
The Pennsy also had more than a few locos converted to oil firing, I believe after ww2, to comply with smoke laws in the Baltimore area and possibly as a hedge against increasingly frequent coal miner strikes. I've also seen pics of Western Maryland Pacifics converted to oil firing for runs into Baltimore. Of course B&O little joe 0-4-0s were oil jobs,too!
LocoI1SA, thanks for the history lesson! It's a wasted day if I don't learn something new. Makes you wonder if the PRR had a bit more institutional experience with articulateds the crews wouldn't have had as much orientation troubles with the T-1's. OK, I know it was a duplex and not an articulated, but the "two engines under one boiler" experience would have been useful.
Oh, and these "best" discussions are fun, but in a way they remind me of when I was working in a gunshop and someone would ask "what's the best handgun?" Our answer? "Well, they're all pretty good. It's like the difference between a Chevy and a Cadillac. Both'll get you where you want to go, how do you want to get there?"
I have to laugh when these "best" steam discussions come up. And for some reason, they come up like clockwork.
There is no such animal as the "best" steam locomotive.
They were all custom designed and built for a particular railroad's operating and economic needs.
What was "best" for one railroad very well may have been an operational and economic disaster for another.
Firelock.
They were not the only artics on the PRR. There was the10, CC2 0-8-8-0 and the HH1s a simple 2-8-8-2. Built by Alco in 1912. And six HH1 that they got from the N&W.
Hump and pusher were some duties. Also transfer runs and mineral trains. It was one of the Lines West superintendent of engines that wanted 120 HC1s. Instead the railroad developed the I1s 2-10-0. To be fair to the crews and the railroad, the major mainline freight power at that time was the H6sb 2-8-0. To place into service a loco with more than twice the tractive effort it is no wonder they suffered pulled couplers and was dissatisfied with the results.
I've heard about those two. I believe they were the Pennsy's only fling with articulateds and were only used in pusher service.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.