Hi, Watching what is involved moving Big Boy 4014 1,200 miles from California to Wyoming has led me to wonder. How was a steam locomotive delivered from factory to buyer in the first place? Let's use a Big Boy as a sample. It had to go from Schenectady to the UP. I assume the piston rods were disconnected? What about lubrication? Would the train transporting the locomotive have to stop periodically to lube everything? I know that some locomotives were delivered under their own power. I also realize that everything was mint out of the box and didn't have the age or deterioration factor working against them. I know that Baldwin ran a "Prosperity Special" back during the depression years, a train hauling about 20 - 30 steam locomotives at once going to a customer as a publicity move. So the question is How was a steam locomotive delivered new from factory to customer? Thanks for any input anyone can give.
Most moves were dead-in-train with the main rods removed, but the connecting rods in place. For engines like the Big Boy there might also be clearance issues that would require a high/wide reroute. Virginian's 2-10-10-2s had to be shipped with their front cylinders removed, accompanied by a gondola filled with the parts that stuck out too far, and even then had to take the long way. Locomotives were almost always accompanied by a messenger - a manufacturer's rep who would arrange to deal with any issues that cropped up during the move. If he got lucky he would ride with the crew in the caboose. In the case of the VGN engines he traveled in makeshift quarters in the engine's cab for more than a week.
Just as a note -- a main rod IS a connecting rod. Those are the rods that go from the crossheads/pistons to the pins on the main driver. The rods that were left on are 'side rods'. Note that the valve gear return crank would also usually be disconnected. This is mainly a matter of lubrication: it is not 'that' difficult to arrange lubrication of the various bearings on the axles, but lubrication of piston/slide valves and cylinders is normally done with a different weight of oil which requires steam temperature and, in some cases, atomization for correct distribution. If the pistons and valves do not need to move, special arrangements to try to keep them lubricated with 'something else' (usually a lighter oil) do not need to be made...
Some railroads used bobweights on the main pins when moving a locomotive mains-off. This balanced the rotating component of the main-rod mass. I do not know whether locomotive builders did this to any extent when delivering power.
Be aware that the route a locomotive takes, and the place at which it is accepted for delivery, is often determined by things like tax concerns.
Did you see this discussion from about a year ago?
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/740/t/213868.aspx
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Here's an excerpt from "Lima's Last Steam Locomotive" by John B. Corns which appeared in the spring 2000 issue of Classic Trains that tells how NKP's last Berkshires were delivered.
"The next morning--Friday the 13th--Lima Hamilton hostler Fred Owens ran 779 on the plant test track, where L-H and railroad employees made their final inspection of the 2-8-4.
After 10 copies of ICC Form 3 had been filled out and signed by L-H locomotive inspectors Grocer C. Myers, Arthur T. Moorman, and Raymond J. McNamarta, the plant's back gate was opened and 779 slowly steamed to the edge of the property and stopped. Since L-H employees were not permitted to operate locomotives on Nickel Plate tracks (and vice versa), several plant workers climbed down from the cab. Diminutive NKP Lima-built 0-8-0 205 coupled into the 779's front coupler to pull the 2-8-4 onto railroad property. The last Lima steam locomotive had been delivered."
The 205 shoved the 779 west to NKP's yard where the tender was filled with coal and topped off with water and the sand dome was filled. A hostler then took her to the roundhouse where she was equipped and prepared for service before departing, with no need of a break-in run, on her first run two hours after delivery.
I can recall the stories told of two (2) locomotive deliveries: EB&L #5 Baldwin and Beebe River #6.
#5 was delivered in 1906. EB&L engineer Louis Boyle was sent to Baldwin (or its designated licensee) and it proceeded under steam with local engineers as "pilots" and Louis at the throttle until it reached EB&L rails in Lincoln, NH.
#6 was a Climax, delivered in 1920, with a Climax rep accompanying the dead locomotive. The driveshafts were simply uncoupled and packed. The rep took care of the gear and journal lube to destination, put the locomotive in running order, familiarized the operating and maintenance crews and answered any questions.
As someone who had family connections at Baldwin, I have some personal knowledge of how things worked at Eddystone.
The plant connected with three roads, PRR, B&O and Reading. Locomotives built by Baldwin destined for those roads were delivered to them at the plant gates, much as the post about Lima and the NKP above relates. Road locomotives sold to nearby roads, such as the C&O, WM, RF&P and so on, were delivered under their own power, traveling as light engines on a connecting road. Locomotives headed elsewhere, like the ATSF or SP, were shipped dead in regularly scheduled trains that happened to be heading that way, with the valve gear and connecting roads disconnected but, usually, side rods installed. As mentioned by someone else, a well-known example of engine delivery was the "Prosperity Special", a 1921 publicity stunt staged by Baldwin that featured 20 SP 2-10-2's sent over the PRR in a single train.
As also previously mentioned above, a delivery engineer employed by Baldwin accompanied all new locomotives to their home roads to oversee set-up and proper operation once they arrived. Depending on the volume of business they did with Baldwin, some roads handled this differently. Pennsy, for example, had employees permanently assigned to the Baldwin plant, and Baldwin people were a common sight in Altoona, though I'm not sure if any were resident there.
friend611N&W had it easy for the locomotives that were built in its Roanoke Shops. They were just fired up and moved out onto the main line, having a few test runs before they were put into regular service. I am certain that with other railroads that built their own locomotives, it was a similar situation. lois N&W steam historian
I'm pretty sure you're right about new locomotives being taken from the erecting shop to test runs to regular service. I seem to recall PRR stories of new locomotives being assigned to locals for their test runs resulting in strange assignments like a J1 on a local turn. I suspect crews were not real thrilled to have to switch with a monster like that.
ChuckAllen, TX
Big Boys left NY with Anthracite coal in the tender, a much cleaner and more efficient fuel then they would live on for 15 years....
The design of steam locomotives often considered the nature of their fuel. The NP Yellowstones are a well-known example, they had a huge firebox (183 sq ft) to get the best use out of the low-grade coal they would burn.
BARFlyerBig Boys left NY with Anthracite coal in the tender
Because it was the nearest coal to buy and thus the cheapest. Even though more expensive generally. Also, it would result in the least ash buildup, tube coating, etc., and have the locomotive delivered in the best condition possible.
Since the locomotive is being moved dead-in-transit, why would the builder fill the tender with any fuel and the boiler with water? I would think that it added unnecessary weight.
RTroyCould a locomotive switch back and forth between soft and hard coal?
Normally no. Locomotives designed to burn anthracite require much larger grate area, must be able to sustain a thinner fire, and have much different primary and secondary air considerations than do btuminous-fired engines. Anthracite has almost no volatile content, but has a higher net heat content.
Compounding the problem is that many, perhaps most 'anthracite' burning locomotives were burning fuel much closer to culm. The combustion-gas-plume characteristics from using bituminous in such a locomotive might be interesting, but certainly wouldn't match what was provided in the firebox and boiler structure to take up the heat from the plume!
RTroySo that begs the question; why would Alco put anthracite into the tender of a Big Boy being delivered to UP? It's not designed, apparently, to be able to effectively burn it. And anthracite is mainly a Pennsylvania product of much higher value then soft coal.
The short answer is 'they probably didn't'. As pointed out, the Big Boys were transported dead-in-train, not working under their own steam. So any 'anthracite' was certainly not for firing them up.
On the other hand, it might be that a rider would benefit from some way to 'keep warm' if the trip was being made in cold weather, and anthracite would be a logical 'heating fuel'. I doubt, however, that this would be produced by lighting a fire inside the firebox space.
Overmod RTroyCould a locomotive switch back and forth between soft and hard coal? Normally no. Locomotives designed to burn anthracite require much larger grate area, must be able to sustain a thinner fire, and have much different primary and secondary air considerations than do btuminous-fired engines. Anthracite has almost no volatile content, but has a higher net heat content. Compounding the problem is that many, perhaps most 'anthracite' burning locomotives were burning fuel much closer to culm. The combustion-gas-plume characteristics from using bituminous in such a locomotive might be interesting, but certainly wouldn't match what was provided in the firebox and boiler structure to take up the heat from the plume!
Pretty sure that the Reading easily converted their anthracite power to burn bituminous coal and that their large Wootten fireboxes were well suited for Reading's famous rebuilding programs since their grate area that was double or so of that of a conventional design was well suited when paired with bituminous coal to supply the needs of more capable boilers.
Leo_AmesPretty sure that the Reading easily converted their anthracite power to burn bituminous coal ...
Yes, you can do that, but it was a 'one-time' conversion; you can't 'switch back and forth' without changing a great deal of equipment...
Angus Sinclair goes into the subject of anthracite burning in early locomotives in some detail. He makes the point about slow heat release but higher heat content.
With a run of a certain model, say the Big Boys, would they have completely assembled and tested any of them before shipping, especially the first one? Or would they have depended on the receiving railroad to work out any bugs with the help of the factory representative that accompanied them?
Since steam locomotives were usually designed by the engineering staff of the railroad, I suspect the railroad was just given them, as the builder just built them.
Overmod RTroySo that begs the question; why would Alco put anthracite into the tender of a Big Boy being delivered to UP? It's not designed, apparently, to be able to effectively burn it. And anthracite is mainly a Pennsylvania product of much higher value then soft coal. The short answer is 'they probably didn't'. As pointed out, the Big Boys were transported dead-in-train, not working under their own steam. So any 'anthracite' was certainly not for firing them up. On the other hand, it might be that a rider would benefit from some way to 'keep warm' if the trip was being made in cold weather, and anthracite would be a logical 'heating fuel'. I doubt, however, that this would be produced by lighting a fire inside the firebox space.
Where else would you burn it to keep warm?
A small portable stove? Big Boy fireboxes are massive, and thus burning the small amount necessary to keep a manufacturer's representative warm in it wouldn't heat the cab up very much.
Yes, but coal is or was inexpensive, and the firebox was there already, and there may be other reasons to have the locomotive steamed up, possibly to have lubrication working properly, not to get any tractive effort out of it, but just to have it hauled hot rather than cold, especially if there was a reason to steam it up at the plant before dellivery.
It may not have been a universal practice, but i suspect it was done on occasion, and sometimes with whatever decent coal was at hand.
Unless I am more than usually mistaken, there is a note in the long story of the L&N M-1 'Big Emmas' (in December 1972 Trains, p.40) that says at least some of the Lima engines were delivered "under steam & in the consist of a Cincinnati-bound B&O freight train" -- apparently all the Lima M-1s were delivered that way.
(This in contrast to the first Baldwin engines, which came in through Covington, probably dead-in-train as the article talks about them being fired up 'the next day' (p.29)
Continuing the tale of steam locomotive deliveries...
The Summer issue of "Classic Trains", just out, has an article called "Limbering Up C&NW Steam Locomotives." The author, an old-time C&NW man, addresses it thusly, I quote:
"When a locomotive was completed at a builder's plant, it was operated under steam on a factory test track to make sure everything was in working order. The builder then prepared the engine for transit to its destination by taking down the main rods, making it freewheeling. The rods, plus other parts and fittings, were placed in the tenders. Bells and headlights were wrapped in canvas to prevent loss and breakage. The cabs were boarded up to prevent vandalism and theft of valuable brass and copper, (holy jeez, even back in those days!), as well as to protect messengers who accompanied the locomotives on route. While in transit, new engines traveled dead in freight trains."
The author, Robert Janz, also explains what happened after delivery, at least how things were done the C&NW way, which I'd assume weren't too different from other roads.
Check out the latest "Classic Trains", it's another home run!
...and if you put coal and water into the engine to test it, you probably wouldn't bother trying to remove them before sending them to the railroad buying them, so it would make sense the engines would have coal and water (at least some) in them. I wonder if some automatic lubricators required steam to operate??
.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.