High all,
I was wondering if anyone could tell me the following; Where does the stoker motor exhaust from on:
1) NKP #765?
2) Pennsy K4 Pacifics (those equipped with stokers)?
3) Union Pacific Big Boys?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards...
Old Dessauer,
I will give you a generic answer to your question.
I have worked on the restoration of PM 1225 - a sister engine to NKP 765 - and which some years ago included a fairly extensive exploration of the locomotive and technical involvement in some fairly complex parts of the project.
If I remember right PM 1225 exhausted its Cylinders Cocks to the ground, its Electrical Turbo Generator from its own vent, its Cross Compound Air Compressors from their own exhaust and its Feed Water Heater Pump also from its own exhaust and so also with the Coal Stoker.
Steam locomotive accessories were variously powered and exhausted depending on the volume of steam they used and the danger that exhaust presented to the crew and public. About every steam locomotive I ever heard running exhausted its Cross Compound Air Pumps in the familiar stacato sound. The Electrical Turbo Generator provided a background whistle.
Another exhaust steam example are the Main Cylinder Cocks that drain and vent the locomotive power cylinders, and which are usually exhausted to the ground at the cylinders on the front of the locomotive - and today are often left partially open to preclude hydraulic damage to the primary engine. You will often see them vent as engines are running at speed. In the movies they provided a dramatic plume of steam often blowing at the feet of standing passengers - for dramatic effect no doubt.
The small Electrical Turbo Generator that supplies electrical power to the locomotive is usually mounted on the boiler top on a bolted platform and when it is turned on and running displays a trail of steam out a small stack on the Turbo Generator Engine.
Coal Stokers such as Duplex and Standard, of which there were many types and considerable development to my knowledge were similarly exhausted from either the locomotive the tender or under the cab of the engine depending on where they were mounted.
----------------------------
Boiler safety valves were always vented off the top of the engine because of the heat and power in the steam. The sound when venting was often deafening.
Auxilliary Steam Booster Engines were used on only select locomotves and only by some railroads. They were used to help start the train at low speeds and disengaged when a specific speed was reached. With these devices the high pressure supply steam, and the high pressure steam exhaust was usually piped the length of to the locomotive - through flexable joint connections - to the stack and exhausted on the top of the engine. Most steam locomotives were not equipped with this device.
-------------------
Most steam locomotives were, however, equipped with a Feed Water Heater systems, some "open" and some were "closed" type design. ELESCO was a "closed" system and Worthington was the popular "open" design. There was also the Coffin type. These evolved over a period of years and were extensive and when first developed included several pumps and tanks and much plumbing. The later systems were thankfully very compact and each system had its various powered pumps with its own exhaust designs.
The Live Steam Injector complimented the just mentioned Feed Water System as a boiler explosion safety device. The injector was used to supliment boiler feed water supply and was usually mounted under the engineer's side of the cab. The fireman could control the water intake with the Feed Water System and the engineer would back this work up if necessary with the Live Steam Injector system.
As a further option to this duel feed water safety design, a few railroads late in steam locomotive design era also used a device called the Exhaust Steam Injector for the fireman rather than the complicated Feed Water Systems just mentioned. I am not familar with the Exhaust Steam Injector do discribe it to you.
------------------------------
To pipe all this steam to the many remote locations needed on the railroad steam locomotive constituted a considerable technical burden and for some persons presented a cluttered appearance to the engines. For this reason many railroads hid the complex piping if possible under boiler jackets and for maintaince reasons excess piping for purposes such as "appliance exhaust" was kept to a minimum where possible.
Thats my experience,
Doc
Wow, that's a very thorough reply! Thanks!
As far as I know, no PRR K4 was ever equipped with a booster. I believe the only booster-equipped PRR locomotives were some or all of the J1 2-10-4's, some of which may have lost them in service as added starting T. E. not worth the maintenance attention. Someone may know more about this.
One other steam exhaust not mentioned is that of the mechanical lubricator heater. It is often the thin short plume you see that seems to accompany the emissions from the smokestack.
daveklepper As far as I know, no PRR K4 was ever equipped with a booster. I believe the only booster-equipped PRR locomotives were some or all of the J1 2-10-4's, some of which may have lost them in service as added starting T. E. not worth the maintenance attention. Someone may know more about this.
Dave, several of them were so equipped, but later the stokers were removed. I didn't ever see a rationale for that decision.
selector daveklepper As far as I know, no PRR K4 was ever equipped with a booster. I believe the only booster-equipped PRR locomotives were some or all of the J1 2-10-4's, some of which may have lost them in service as added starting T. E. not worth the maintenance attention. Someone may know more about this. Dave, several of them were so equipped, but later the stokers were removed. I didn't ever see a rationale for that decision.
The poppet-valve rebuilds had them (5399 and 5436) and so did 3676, given one (in a nonstandard Delta-type trailing truck) in 1941:
http://digital.hagley.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15017coll8/id/3110/rec/9
A good detail shot of the 'business end' of 3676's booster is shown here
(both photos are for sale and the online images have been 'arranged' so they cannot be linked for viewing).
I think it's pretty obvious why K4s weren't given boosters 'en masse' -- they were an obsolescent 205psi design that needed to be doubleheaded for many PRR trains (the added TE of the booster not being 'enough' to justify the various costs of the installation for single-locomotive service, and of course not really necessary when the engines were doubleheaded!)
Of course T1 6111 was famous for having a booster ... initially. That was a design that would derive a positive, and probably frequent, benefit from proper booster use. I believe correspondence survives at the Hagley that describes precisely why boosters were not tried to help with reported issues like stalls or low-speed slipping, where I would think the things would be almost invaluably useful.
The Q1 had a booster, and Staufer had at least one picture of an experimental L1 setup - someone with the Pennsy Power books find the reference. I believe the Q2s had them, but those were really built as 'wartime engines' where the greatest power at the greatest speed would frequently find a use -- that was much less true in postwar years...
[quote user="selector"]
[/quote above]
I think you meant booster, not stoker.
Oops. My mind gave itself the word 'stoker' when I read your comment, and I made a correct statement accordingly. Sorry for misreading your comment...as far as I know, none of the K class had boosters, but.....
RME selector daveklepper As far as I know, no PRR K4 was ever equipped with a booster. I believe the only booster-equipped PRR locomotives were some or all of the J1 2-10-4's, some of which may have lost them in service as added starting T. E. not worth the maintenance attention. Someone may know more about this. Dave, several of them were so equipped, but later the stokers were removed. I didn't ever see a rationale for that decision. The poppet-valve rebuilds had them (5399 and 5436) and so did 3676, given one (in a nonstandard Delta-type trailing truck) in 1941: http://digital.hagley.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15017coll8/id/3110/rec/9 A good detail shot of the 'business end' of 3676's booster is shown here (both photos are for sale and the online images have been 'arranged' so they cannot be linked for viewing). I think it's pretty obvious why K4s weren't given boosters 'en masse' -- they were an obsolescent 205psi design that needed to be doubleheaded for many PRR trains (the added TE of the booster not being 'enough' to justify the various costs of the installation for single-locomotive service, and of course not really necessary when the engines were doubleheaded!) Of course T1 6111 was famous for having a booster ... initially. That was a design that would derive a positive, and probably frequent, benefit from proper booster use. I believe correspondence survives at the Hagley that describes precisely why boosters were not tried to help with reported issues like stalls or low-speed slipping, where I would think the things would be almost invaluably useful. The Q1 had a booster, and Staufer had at least one picture of an experimental L1 setup - someone with the Pennsy Power books find the reference. I believe the Q2s had them, but those were really built as 'wartime engines' where the greatest power at the greatest speed would frequently find a use -- that was much less true in postwar years...
I should not be surprised to see this. The K's were hard-pressed and pretty much consistently doubled on the head end of WW II era trains. It grew costly to operate fast trains with K's on the head end unless they could somehow gain about 10K more pounds of tractive effort as a minimum. As a basic model, the K4s had a bit more tractive effort than a NYC Hudson. Once the Hudsons' boosters were in play, though, it was a different game altogether.
OK, so my original comment concerning K-4s lacking boosters is correct. But do you or anyone have the details on booster-equipped Js? Some had them and some did not and some were removed.
Of course all Js had stokers. I understood that all K-4's WERE eventually equipped with stokers, as did the 2-8-2 L1s. The K-4s that survived to close out steam on the NY&LB trains had them from my memory. The CNJ 4-6-0 camelbacks on the NY&LB did not.
Rode the NY&LB often when at ROTC summer camp summer 1951. Also behind an E-6, Little Silver - Princeton Junction. The againi on the NY&LB when transferred from Fort Dix to Fort Monmouth November 1954 before going to Fort Bragg end of December. In 1954, the camelbacks had gone but the K4s still ran.
daveklepper I understood that all K-4's WERE eventually equipped with stokers, as did the 2-8-2 L1s.
Required by ICC effective some time in 1938 for passenger engines over 160K on drivers as I recall, and for freight engines over 175K (which apparently ruled out requiring them on L1s, as some of those remained hand-fired to the end...)
Harder to believe is that none of the K4s had power reverse, either, until the Government required them (as a "safety device" under the Boiler Inspection Act, which is to put it lightly something of a 'stretch'), and it took a Supreme Court decision to make that 'stick'.
And then there were the K5s, built as hand bombers, which made really no sense at all by then for a locomotive with 70' GA...
The PRR added boosters to at least 2 and maybe 3 K4s locomotives on an experimental basis in 1941. They were #'s 3676, 5436 and possibly 5399. I can't find any information on when or if they were removed.
All J1 and J1a locomotives were built with them. Again, I don't know if they kept them throughout their service lives.
Also T1 #6111 was built with a booster.
RME Harder to believe is that none of the K4s had power reverse, either, until the Government required them (as a "safety device" under the Boiler Inspection Act, which is to put it lightly something of a 'stretch'), and it took a Supreme Court decision to make that 'stick'. And then there were the K5s, built as hand bombers, which made really no sense at all by then for a locomotive with 70' GA...
Power reverse as a safety device? Well, at least safety to the crew as even screw-type reverse (actuating the reverse through a reduction gear offering mechanical advantage along with reduction in back forces) has been known to injure crews when the thing "runs away."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic RME Harder to believe is that none of the K4s had power reverse, either, until the Government required them (as a "safety device" under the Boiler Inspection Act, which is to put it lightly something of a 'stretch'), and it took a Supreme Court decision to make that 'stick'. And then there were the K5s, built as hand bombers, which made really no sense at all by then for a locomotive with 70' GA... Power reverse as a safety device? Well, at least safety to the crew as even screw-type reverse (actuating the reverse through a reduction gear offering mechanical advantage along with reduction in back forces) has been known to injure crews when the thing "runs away."
In case anyone needs an example reference, see "Blue Peter".
Dad was a stoker (fireman in RR parlance) and later an engineer on steamboats for many years. Generally a very, very quiet man, you could get him to "blow his safety valves" by referring to a powered stoker as an automatic stoker. The steamboats he worked were on the river almost 24/7 so if a stoker jammed, the engine room crew had to fix it themselves and immediately. Particularly on the larger boats, there was no way all of the stokers and engineers working together could keep steam up with scoops.
ChuckAllen, TX
selector One other steam exhaust not mentioned is that of the mechanical lubricator heater. It is often the thin short plume you see that seems to accompany the emissions from the smokestack. Thank you! I have often wondered, and the thought that it was a feedwater heater exhaust just didn't quite fit.
Thank you! I have often wondered, and the thought that it was a feedwater heater exhaust just didn't quite fit.
selector One other steam exhaust not mentioned is that of the mechanical lubricator heater. It is often the thin short plume you see that seems to accompany the emissions from the smokestack.
.
Yes the power reverse is a safety device, aka you don't throw your
back out like you can with a manual.
whole lot easier to hook up a steam engine with power
reverse instead of the original Armstrong method. Say your engineer
on a yard switcher, figure you'll have to throw the reverse lever
at least 300 plus times at a minimum On a single 8 hour shift.
power reverse? Apply about 10 to 15 pounds of pressure to a much smaller lever which controls an air valve that moves the piston rod that moves the reverse gear. Having worked on manuals and power reverse from 0-4-4T 2 foot gauge to 4-8-4 ( reading T-1) gimme power reverse any day.
Blackcloud 5229 Paul Milenkovic RME Harder to believe is that none of the K4s had power reverse, either, until the Government required them (as a "safety device" under the Boiler Inspection Act, which is to put it lightly something of a 'stretch'), and it took a Supreme Court decision to make that 'stick'. And then there were the K5s, built as hand bombers, which made really no sense at all by then for a locomotive with 70' GA... Power reverse as a safety device? Well, at least safety to the crew as even screw-type reverse (actuating the reverse through a reduction gear offering mechanical advantage along with reduction in back forces) has been known to injure crews when the thing "runs away." Yes the power reverse is a safety device, aka you don't throw your back out like you can with a manual. whole lot easier to hook up a steam engine with power reverse instead of the original Armstrong method. Say your engineer on a yard switcher, figure you'll have to throw the reverse lever at least 300 plus times at a minimum On a single 8 hour shift. power reverse? Apply about 10 to 15 pounds of pressure to a much smaller lever which controls an air valve that moves the piston rod that moves the reverse gear. Having worked on manuals and power reverse from 0-4-4T 2 foot gauge to 4-8-4 ( reading T-1) gimme power reverse any day.
Me and others here weren't talking about injury from overexertion.
We were talking about engine crew members being maimed when an unlatched "Johnson bar" snaps back or a screw-reverser wheel suddenly starts spinning opposite to how you are turning it.
Under adverse conditions, the forces can be large enough to break an arm, a wrist, or worse.
Paul Milenkovic Me and others here weren't talking about injury from overexertion. We were talking about engine crew members being maimed when an unlatched "Johnson bar" snaps back or a screw-reverser wheel suddenly starts spinning opposite to how you are turning it. Under adverse conditions, the forces can be large enough to break an arm, a wrist, or worse.
In the live steam world you have to be careful as well, really make sure that locking mechanisim falls into place on the johnson bar.
I had a johnson bar snap back because it hadn't "locked" in place and it bruised my hand pretty good. I can't imagine (or maybe I don't want to) what could happen with a 4 foot johnson bar that has 50 or 60 times the force behind it.
JOHNSON BAR
Johnson Bar - aka "manual reversing lever" that controls the valve gear forward - neutral - reverse of the locomotive steam engine. By fine tuning the position of this lever from forward to the middle to reverse, the valve gear stroke and the length of travel of the valve is changed - there by effecting steam admission to the locomotive piston stroke.
This adjustment - forward to neutral to reverse setting - is also known as aka the adjustment position of "valve cut-off" so effects steam usage and exhausting of the steam engine cylinders.
The full forward position gives also a full stroke of valve and uses boiler steam in quantity. The return of the lever towards neutral gives the "cut off" position which effects economy of operation. And at high locomotive speed this "cut-off" also effects the economy of steam forcing the engine to in effect run by "utilization of steam" - by the expansion power hidden in the HOT steam.
This in effect makes the engine perform in an entirely different manner. Both speed and power and economy are accomplished at "cut-off" - TO A POINT.
Because with the standard locomotive valve gears - Walschaerts and Baker designs - cause a STEAM RESTRICTION. They restrict the use of steam with "cut-off" economy and ALSO so effectively restrict the ability of the engine to EXHAUST also. It runs out of breath to speak - in effect achieving this economy - by a sort of a law of diminishing returns.
SO there happens to be a valve gear setting for steam engines - a setting of the degree of adjustment between forward and neutral and reverse position - of valve gear "cut off" which just cannot be passed over.
AND SO it took a very skilled engineer to perform this exacting adjustment of the Johnson Bar running at high speed in the great old 1890's.
-------------------------
Personal Injury - Also noted about being a steam locomotive railway engineer - was that if in the performance of his duties, this Johnson Bar valve gear setting was so unlatched and adjusted by squeezing the lock lever attached to its upper handgrip - that there was the possibility that the moving engine parts COULD effectively seize the Johnson Bar linkage and throw it violently against the person of the locomotive engineer.
So it was with this knowledge that such "cut-off" adjustments to the operation of the engine were performed delicately and with anticipated knowledge of how the engine could and would react.
The Wreck - Imagine the courage it would have taken Casey Jones heading to his death in the famous railroad accident in Vaughn, Mississippi on that fateful night of April 30th 1900 - seeing the freight train stalled ahead of his speeding locomotive The Cannonball Express to - set the engine and train brakes to full emergency position - close the throttle - and to then seize the Johnson Bar and throw the locomotive engine into full reverse position - then open the throttle to spin the drive wheels backwards and attempt to brake the train and prevent collision on the blocked track!
Steam Power Reverse - This modern locomotive appliance was developed to eliminate the JOHNSON BAR and its quadrant mechanism - and was basically a steam powered cylinder which did the moving of the valve mechanism.
This formerly man sized adjustment was then controlled with a small "hand wheel" which the engineer would crank effecting the same movement of the engine valve gear.
Violent forces generally could not effect the person of the locomotive engineer. We might consider it as we would "power steering" in a car today.
--------------------
However, it still remains that moving the "Johnson Bar" was a man sized job in the steam locomotive times of yore - JOHNSON BAR - hence its entrance into the language of popular slang!
aka - use of the term "Johnson!"
"Is there an honest to god MAN in this town with a full set of balls!" To quote the Clint Eastwood movie "High Plains Drifter."
Also the slang meaning attributed to the - aka - "Johnson!"
-----------------------
Shtick - No doubt giving RISE to the famous comedian Ray J. Johnson.
"My name is Raymond J. Johnson. Now you can call me Ray! or you can call me J! or you can call me Johnny, or you can call me Sonny, or you can call me Junie, or you can call me Junior; now you can call me Ray J! or you can call me RJ, or you can call me RJJ Jr. - but you doesn't hasta call me - JOHNSON!"
------------------------
thought this last might be worth including,
BigJim selector One other steam exhaust not mentioned is that of the mechanical lubricator heater. It is often the thin short plume you see that seems to accompany the emissions from the smokestack. I believe that is actually the exhaust from the SA Type feedwater heater. A small vent pipe frequently exits the top of the FWH and runs to the front of the stack.
I believe that is actually the exhaust from the SA Type feedwater heater. A small vent pipe frequently exits the top of the FWH and runs to the front of the stack.
Big Jim, it might indeed be the case with locomotives that have feedwater heaters. In the case of the tank engine locally with which I am most familiar, the firemen told me that the plume on that locomotive is the exhaust from the mechanical lubricator heater.
-Crandell
The 'Engineer' and the Empress.About ten years ago, the Corporate steam engine and train arrived in town and was spotted in the old Freight House Spur outside the Main for the town to come and view.The Pensioners showed up like flies ( even more Pensioners than rail fans!! ) to show off for their Grand kids, to trade lies with their Union 'Brothers' and announce to the amassed all and sundry their proficiency with Steam.One true 'Brother' had on his Engineer's striped jacket and overalls from 'back in the day' and was strutting around like Foghorn Leghorn the Rooster in the old cartoons, pointing out the various Appliances and their function to the gathered masses."This is the Air Pump" he trumpeted " for compressed air to operate the air brakes on the engine and train, dispense sand on poor rail and even ring the BELL!"The crowd gobbled it up, and his aura expanded to Dimensional Shipment parameters.One Problem!The 'Air Pump' had a polished sheet brass plate affixed which screamed 'Elesco' upon it.Air seemingly inhaled from a large pipe thru a large hose from the bottom left front of the Tender, compressed thru the 'Air Pump' and up to the Main Reservoir atop the smoke box ahead of the stack.The true air pump was pounding and drooling away right along side.I did not P on his parade, as what did I know?It appears he had seen steam service back in the day, but, not as an Engineer, as too junior when the Diesels Came, spending much of his 'steam' career on the left hand side of a 539 on nites in the Yard, Sun/Mon off.He DID know how to Push, and Release the Separator Blown Down button by the steam gauge in front of his seat on an A Unit in psgr service.His wife had left him for some reason, but, came back, as it was better than working nites at the Truck Stop, and, after all, there WAS the Pension to think about.Thank You.
I too often wondered about the thin stream of steam in front of the stack in old films.
NDGHe DID know how to Push, and Release the Separator Blow Down button by the steam gauge in front of his seat on an A Unit in psgr service.
Now that's HARSH!!!! (but )
That's almost certainly not going to be from a 'mechanical-lubricator heater.' (We presume this is for the lubricator feeding steam oil, as the ones for 'chassis' lubrication wouldn't involve substantial heating to keep their oil fluid.) Remember that most of the steam to one of these is used for atomizing, and of course goes into the steam passages and is essentially inseparable from any other steam in the visible exhaust. The volume of heating steam required for the necessary preheat in a Nathan DV can be gauged from a source like N&W drawing B46315 (which in part shows an arrangement that eliminates the Nathan throttling heater valve control) and I do not see a separate arrangement for 'exhaust' of this steam; it certainly would not merit its own separate exhaust line up the boiler, nor even if supplied with exhaust steam (rather than supply from the 'air pump' as indicated on the generic N&W mechanical-lubricator connection drawings) would I expect such an 'exhaust' to show pulses visibly in phase with the stack exhaust.
As noted in a previous thread on the forum from 2015 (started by the same user who started this one, and I think for the same purpose), a common place to route the stoker exhaust was at the top of the boiler just BEHIND the stack. I'd expect steam here to be intermittently changing with the speed and demand of the stoker engine -- if anyone can find the URL of the 'pacing' shot of a PRR M1 at speed, it should show this very well over time. I think we clearly see it in this clip:
where atmospheric conditions are 'just right' to keep the superheated (by mixing with combustion gas) exhaust plume invisible close to the lip of the stack, while the condensing stoker-engine exhaust stays clearly visible.
With specific reference to NDG's comment: The NYC Hudson, among others, was notable for having the turbogenerator exhaust piped in front of the stack, with very visible plume possible when the generator was running -- one reference (was it in Staufer's Thoroughbreds?) likened it to a tilting knight's plume. I'd expect many PRR locomotives (either 'original' or with the generator relocated to the smokebox door for maintenance) to show the same sort of effect often (see for example the start in Tyrone from the 'steep steel and slipping stalling steam' video...)
Wow. What a sight! Talk about a no-frills, no-nonsense, all-serious-business locomotive, as subtle as a fist in an iron glove! Thanks for posting that video!
I know it's been explained many times before, but I STILL can't understand how 1361, up and running in 1987, got FUBAR'd into the situation it's in today.
If the Altoona folks were ever serious again about restoring a K4s, if 1361 is as messed up as it supposedly is, I wonder if it would be possible to swap it for the 3750 with the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, since they have made the decision not to be an operating organization. (Although the Altoona folks would have to prove that those with the prior 1361 track record would not be involved.)
It would actually be nice to see a 4-8-2 restored also, such as the Pennsy M1b 6755. One could argue that the Mountain/Mohawk was a much more ubiquitous fast freight locomotive for the Northeast when one considers New York Central, Pennsylvania, Baltimore & Ohio, New Haven, Lackawanna, Boston & Maine, and New York, Ontario & Western.
With all due respect to the magnificant Nickel Plate S class 2-8-4 Berkshires, if one was to see a merchandise fast freight headed for Chicago in the late 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, the odds were very high that a 4-8-2 would be at the head end, bringing revenue to the bottom line for the company as intended.
Watching the M1b roll on its 72" drivers would also be a sight to behold.
Couldn't find a pacing shot but this shows a trickle of steam exhausting just behind the stack.
RME, not all lubricators use oil. Some are called cake lubricators that use caked grease. That has to be heated. I was informed that, since there are two lubricators on the Baldwin 2-8-2T that I know, one supplies steam oil to the steam chest and the other lubricates the engine and trailing truck support bearing and the crossheads.
Who knows, he may have been feeding me a line...
I think we are jumping to conclusions here about our accessory exhaust!
The NYC 4-6-4 Hudsons exhausted their turbo generators from a short stack on the generator. This is also the case with the two surviving Mohawk 4-8-2's The NYC was also famous for exhausting their booster steam engines from a small stack ahead the regular smoke box stack. The Central also equipped the Hudsons with a variety of feed water equipment both open and closed - Worthington, Elesco designs, so the accessory piping all varied and was done on an engine by engine basis.
I believe it would be mistaken to think that Pennsylvania Railroad K4 1361 has a Worthington SA feed water system as seems inferred. The posted diagram of the system shown with stack vent is indeed the Worthington system which is exhausting in the diagram ahead of the stack. However, there is no such system on PRR 1361 - no heat exchanger ahead of the stack and no water pump system mounted on below the running boards of the engine. Likely the plume of steam in evidence is from the electrical turbo generator mounted ahead of the locomotive headlight - this is expecially likely as the headlight is on and there is no plume from the turbo generator where is is located.
I see that K4 1361 is equipped with a cross compound air compressor mounted above the drive wheels, and also a Nathan lubricator mounted below the running board above the cylinders on the right side of the engine. On the left side the engine is a power reverse cylinder. Likely these and the turbo generator are the only accessories PRR 1361 ever had.
K4 1361 is a very old locomotive - probably first had a kerosene headlamp - it is disassembled now enabling a modern post-mortum examination of the engine both disassembled and running - and NO feed water heating systems are in evidence - likely among the many Pennsy K4 passenger locomotives this engine never had one.
A Worthington open system would have a huge square hole cut in the smokebox near the stack for the heat exchanger. If it had the ELESCO closed system there would be a huge bundle heater carried ahead of the stack or on the pilot beam of the engine. If it had the Coffin open type system it would have a large horse shoe tank with piping inside of the smokebox or on the outside of it.
PRR 1361 shows none of the requisite piping for any of these systems.
The Pennsylvania Railroad was always characterized by its great austarity aka "cheap in the spending department" who wouldn't equip their engines with coal stokers, power reverse mechanisms, boosters etc no matter how hard it was on the engine crews. My guess is that among the many steam locomotives they never put any money into PRR 1361 until they decided to save it. Even then it's worn out - the reason it's not repaired! Most railroads saved the best condition steamers like N&W 611 freshly overhauled!
An examination of other PRR K4 photos shows PRR 1734 with no feed water heat, PRR 3807 with no feed water system, however, the photo of PRR 5689 does indeed have the full Worthington SA feed water heater treatment.
Also worth noting is that there is a Pennsylvania RR engine with the full Worthington SA system surviving today, its Mountain type 4-8-2 M1b 6755 which is so equipped as an example of plumbing of the system.
-------------
The nice video shots of PRR 1361 running show steam escaping from poor drive cylinder and valve piston packing on the back of the cylinders. Also the cross compound air compressors show the puffing exhausting of steam from their operation. In my opinion the trail of steam ahead of the stack is the electrical turbo generator.
------------------
Odd that Pennsy was so cost conscious on the condition of its many locomotives yet went in for the ultimate costly experimental 6-8-6 steam turbine engine, the 6-4-4-6 streamline "one of a kind" Worlds Fair - American Railroads steamer, the other Duplex Drive 4-4-4-4 T1 high speed designs, all equipped with "poppet valve gear" - all the toys! So lavish and so cheap a Pennsylvania Railroad all at the same time - yah, that was Pennsy! Who else would also have done such wonderful and elaborate and externsive rail Electrification - and built and designed the GG-1 electric locomotives in mass! Yes, like the K4 Pacific 4-6-2 designs and the T1 Duplex 4-4-4-4 steamers which were all timeless classics of American rail power!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.