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...
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?
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.
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...)
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.....
[quote user="selector"]
[/quote above]
I think you meant booster, not stoker.
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.
Wow, that's a very thorough reply! Thanks!
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
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...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.