Trains.com

Auxiliary Water Tenders

653 views
16 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 293 posts
Auxiliary Water Tenders
Posted by SPer on Tuesday, November 16, 2021 1:07 PM

Like N&W, B&O, and IC, did Union Pacific ever used auxiliary water tenders on steam locomotives in the steam era without stopping for water.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,543 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Tuesday, November 16, 2021 5:10 PM

UP and SP did not use auxiliary water tenders in the steam era.  In some ways this is surprising, but other western roads did not use them much, if at all.

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 293 posts
Posted by SPer on Tuesday, November 16, 2021 6:33 PM

Why no Western railroads used auxiliary water tenders in the steam era at all, what's the reason

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 21,462 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, November 16, 2021 6:42 PM

SPer
Like N&W, B&O, and IC, did Union Pacific ever used auxiliary water tenders on steam locomotives in the steam era without stopping for water.

I don't recall the B&O using canteen's with their steam engines.  Towards the end of steam they tended to use extremely large tenders on the order of 25 Tons of coal and 25K gallons of water.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,559 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, November 17, 2021 10:13 AM

I would think that while auxiliary water tenders could extend a locomotive's range, it would also extend the time necessary to refuel and re-water.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Calgary
  • 1,999 posts
Posted by cx500 on Wednesday, November 17, 2021 12:21 PM

I don't know if it is relevant to your question, but in Canada there was some fairly routine use of auxiliary water tenders.  While routine, it was mostly limited to prairie branch lines with light traffic and behind 4-6-0s.  Maintaining water towers costs money, so it was cost effective to increase the spacing by carrying the extra water with the train, especially if it is a "mixed" once a week in the off-harvest times.  Water quality at some locations could be undesirable too.

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 1,908 posts
Posted by BigJim on Wednesday, November 17, 2021 4:18 PM

CSSHEGEWISCH

I would think that while auxiliary water tenders could extend a locomotive's range, it would also extend the time necessary to refuel and re-water.

An auxiliary water tender would allow a steam locomotive to run an entire district without a need to stop for water. 

.

  • Member since
    April 2015
  • 399 posts
Posted by Enzoamps on Wednesday, November 17, 2021 8:20 PM

One could be filling both tenders at once, so it ought not take any longer.

  • Member since
    June 2012
  • 257 posts
Posted by Fr.Al on Thursday, November 18, 2021 7:28 AM

How would one be able to fill two tenders at once, since usually steam locomotives were filled from overhead water towers? I don't think that the water towers had multiple spouts nor would you have two water towers next to each other. Of course , the second tender could be filled by a hose connected to some auxiliary water source....

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,543 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Thursday, November 18, 2021 9:15 AM

If the main and auxiliary tender are connected by a hose, filling one will raise the water level in the other.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,559 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, November 18, 2021 10:18 AM

rcdrye

If the main and auxiliary tender are connected by a hose, filling one will raise the water level in the other.

 
While that is true, the gallons-per-minute filling rate does not change and two tenders still have to be filled.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June 2012
  • 257 posts
Posted by Fr.Al on Thursday, November 18, 2021 11:02 AM

Much as I love steam, all this points to the practically of the diesel. Santa Fe quickly discovered this when they didn't have to transport a million gallons of water to one location with the coming of the FT units.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 17,961 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, November 18, 2021 1:15 PM

rcdrye
If the main and auxiliary tender are connected by a hose, filling one will raise the water level in the other.

This is in fact how 4014 does it; there is no pumped transfer.

The issue is that the dimensions of the hose to the auxiliary tender dictate the filling rate.  What is perfectly adequate mass flow to serve two Nathan 4000s at full gun is not going to equilibrate the flow going into the cistern from any large standpipe -- so you'd need a comparable-diameter pipe, with proper air relief up top, to be able to fill 'both' from a high-volume source.  And for any steam locomotive of output that justifies the complexity... and that is intended to run over about 130 miles between stops at that output... but still needs to be refilled in 'comparable' time, there needs to be lots of cross-sectional area into that auxiliary.

My suspicion is that 'common sense' will be to size the breakable transfer line to injector or FWH capability, and just stage the A-tanks sequentially under the big spigot and fill 'em separately. Or switch the pumper hose from one to the other tender to get marginally faster fill if you want or need it...

Incidentally, my understanding of a great deal of ATSF practice was to locate somewhat sophisticated water-treatment plants in 'bad water' areas and pump the treated water asynchronously into a large tank -- they would use a larger tank if double tanks needed to be filled rather than transport millions of 'cheaper' gallons around the system...

  • Member since
    December 2015
  • 19 posts
Posted by WILLIAM O CRAIG on Thursday, November 18, 2021 4:36 PM

The Frisco used some auxiliary water cars, primarily I believe in the more arid country at the west of the system, although I sometimes saw them attached to locomotives at the roundhouse in Springfield, Missouri, when I was growing up.

I saw one used by the Strasburg railroad a few years back when they had one of their steam engines on display at a special event in Lancaster, Pa.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 21,462 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, November 18, 2021 6:02 PM

rcdrye
If the main and auxiliary tender are connected by a hose, filling one will raise the water level in the other.

The hose would have to have the flow capacity equal to the volume of water that the standpipe is able to flow.  Standpipes seem to be somewhere between 10 and 15 inches in diameter and the water flow seems to use most of that diameter, otherwise the tender being filled would have to have its filling stopped until the water level equalized with the canteen - the procedure would have to be repeated until both were full.

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 11,245 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Thursday, November 18, 2021 6:23 PM

Overmod

 

 
rcdrye
If the main and auxiliary tender are connected by a hose, filling one will raise the water level in the other.

 

This is in fact how 4014 does it; there is no pumped transfer.

 

The issue is that the dimensions of the hose to the auxiliary tender dictate the filling rate.  What is perfectly adequate mass flow to serve two Nathan 4000s at full gun is not going to equilibrate the flow going into the cistern from any large standpipe -- so you'd need a comparable-diameter pipe, with proper air relief up top, to be able to fill 'both' from a high-volume source.  And for any steam locomotive of output that justifies the complexity... and that is intended to run over about 130 miles between stops at that output... but still needs to be refilled in 'comparable' time, there needs to be lots of cross-sectional area into that auxiliary.

My suspicion is that 'common sense' will be to size the breakable transfer line to injector or FWH capability, and just stage the A-tanks sequentially under the big spigot and fill 'em separately. Or switch the pumper hose from one to the other tender to get marginally faster fill if you want or need it...

Incidentally, my understanding of a great deal of ATSF practice was to locate somewhat sophisticated water-treatment plants in 'bad water' areas and pump the treated water asynchronously into a large tank -- they would use a larger tank if double tanks needed to be filled rather than transport millions of 'cheaper' gallons around the system...

 

With regard to fill rate and pipe size, yes this can be a problem.

An example from another two tank application - the 1901 Queen Anne house I restored in 1996 has two 275 gallon fuel oil tanks for the boiler. The tanks are manifolded together at the bottom with the same 3/8" copper line that feeds the boiler, able to supply a flow rate to the boiler in excess of 1 gallon an hour if needed, and drawing equally from both tanks.

But it would take a long time for that line to fill the second tank by equalization during a fill up.

So the 1-1/2" supply piping is like this - the fill goes into the top of tank one, tank one is connected to tank two, top to top, and the vent line is on tank two.

When the oil truck comes, tank one fills, pushing air thru the connection pipe and out the vent of tank two, until tank one is flooded. Then fuel moves thru the connecting pipe filling tank two. As tank two reaches full capacity, the vent whistle does its thing and the driver knows both tanks are full.

And three or four hours latter, the level is equal in both tanks.........

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 17,961 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, November 22, 2021 1:24 PM

A further approach -- I don't remember seeing it on tenders but I planned for it with 'modern steam' -- is the inverted-siphon approach used on the GATX TankTrains.

This put the large-diameter flexible pipe connection between cars, up high at the top of the fill space, with a siphon pipe down close to the bottom of the tank inside the car.  This put the pipe up out of harm's way, but as you filled one car full you had a large-diameter connection to the next car, which would act as an inverted siphon between cars when all were full: liquid drawn from the 'front' car would induce flow back through all the siphons so all the cars would empty in 'parallel' automatically as long as the bottoms didn't unport...

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter