In ye olden days of steam, was an engine that was primarily designed to be a switcher, such as an 0-8-0, ever used out on the road, especially as a local peddler freight?
Jarrell
yes and no.
Dedicated switchers like the 0-8-0 had extremely small wheels to increase their tractive effort without stalling. So they weren’t very fast. So I have yet to see any that were used in that fashion on a main.
However, I’ve seen them used in urban/city settings where tight radius and short loads were the call of the day) I have seen critters (40-tonners) used to shunt loads from local industries all the time. We had one that ran from the local Lime plant to the local feed mill all the time. (Farmers used lime on their fields on a regular basis to rebalance the soil)
Smaller main line locos became outdated and replaced with larger more powerful engines. These smaller engines like 2-8-0, and 2-6-0 were delegated to yard work.
Classic Trains magazine had a story in the 2005/06 timeframe about a 0-8-0 being pressed into service for a short run of about 30-40 miles when the designated power broke down or was otherwise not available back in the 50’s. So, it has happened.
Would an 0-8-0 switcher ever be called on for line-haul duties?
Only if it was the only locomotive owned by some poverty-stricken short line - and, even then, a loco with a lead truck would have been preferred.
The reason is a phenomenon known as “nosing,” the side-to-side motion imparted by the loco’s reaction to piston thrust. The reciprocating motion of the piston, piston rod, crosshead and cylinder end of the main rod (all loads which cannot be counterbalanced) cause the front end of a locomotive to move away from the applied thrust. A road locomotive’s pilot truck could resist this motion from a point forward of the cylinders. If the loco had no pilot truck, then the side thrust was passed to the front driver, which was well to the rear of the cylinders. The principles of leverage apply - there’s a much longer lever arm between a pilot wheel forward of the cylinders and the natural pivot point at the center of the drivers’ fixed wheelbase than there is between the front driver and that pivot point. A mild sideways shove in a 2-8-0 became a rail-bending SLAM aboard a mechanically identical 0-8-0 under equal load. Since the amount of energy to be dissipated squares each time the velocity doubles, it doesn’t take much speed to develop some seriously nasty force!
The Strasberg Rail Road learned this the hard way. Their #31, an 0-6-0, had to be held to quite low speed because it nosed excessively. (I guess you could call passenger operation on a tourist railroad a couple of miles long road service…)
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
One factor that limited road service for steam switchers is the balancing speed. This was relatively low for switchers and much higher for road engines. This is another reason that longer runs could only be accomplished at low speeds by switchers.
But consider what road service actually means. Many switching districts could be extensive, for instance in a big city or an industrial area. As long as there were continuous opportunities for working industries along the way, there would not be a need for high speeds. So a switch engine could travel relatively long distances and pull a rather long train, as well as need a caboose to accomodate the rest of the crew. It would look like a road train, except for the fact that it had a switch engine and would be stopping every quarter mile, for instance, to switch an industry, instead of going the longer distances between towns. Transfer service for interchanging cuts of cars between two or more lines in an urban area is another case where switch engine might travel a ways with a longer train.
As long as there are no stretches of track requiring speeds higher than those used in normal switching service, it is plausible to use a 0-6-0 or 0-8-0 as motive power.
In the case of the 0-8-0, did any roads keep a lead truck on hand that could be bolted on when the loco was needed for emergency mainline service? I know that the opposite was true; that Consolidations were sometimes converted to switchers with the simple removal of the pilot wheels. That would make temporary return to road service a matter of reinstalling them. I’m just wondering if 0-8-0’s (or any other switcher wheel arrangement) were backwards-compatible with provisions for a pilot truck, which would have allowed greater flexibility on the job.
Doesn’t mean it never happened but I’ve sure never heard of or seen an example. I’m no steam expert but I think there was more to the switcher than just wheel arrangement. The weight and balance was different so switchers were more tolerant of bad tracks. I don’t think just bolting a pair of lead trucks on an 0-8-0 would make it the same as a Consolidation from the factory.
No. The attachment of leading trucks was a little more complicated than simply “bolting” them on. I’m assuming you’re only familiar with leading trucks on models - on a real loco the truck has relatively limited sideplay, and is attached by a centre bearing, radius bars and a compensating beam.
Again, the conversion involved more than simply removing the truck. The frame extension forward of the cylinder saddle would be shortened, the compensating beam arrangement altered, and the weight distribution/spring rigging also altered.
No, it wouldn’t, for the reasons stated above.
No. It wouldn’t make them more flexible, it would merely defeat the purpose of having a specialised switcher.
Cheers,
Mark.
Yes. Several roads 0-8-0’s as “road switchers” (they were replaced with RS3/GP7/AS16 units) and it was quite common for a short run local to operate with an 0-6-0.
The key was what was the main track speed and length of run. Most 0-6-0’s or 0-8-0’s had a low top speed due to no pilot truck, so putting a 25 mph local on a 60 mph main line wasn’t a good idea. But if the line speed was fairly low and the run was fairlly short then an 0-6-0 or 0-8-0 made sense. similarly if the run was short it wouldn’t be a problem since the fuel and water supplies in a switcher tended to be less than a road unit, especially for a slopeback tender, so the switcher’s range was less. The shorter the run the better. Those that were 20-40 miles were probably ideal.
The Reading outfitted some 0-8-0’s with road tenders (ironically they were originally 2-8-0’s that were converted to 0-8-0’s and then got back their road tenders) for uses a local engines on branch lines. Slow speeds (25 mph) and short runs (30-40 miles round trip.
The caveat is that steam switchers were some of the first to be replaced. Diesel switchers were big sellers before WW2. So it would be more likely for a 50’s era road to NOT use a steamer as a local engine just because it would be more likely that they replaced it with a diesel.
Dave H.
The suspension of a steam locomotive was equalized. If you placed a penny on the rail and a steam locomotive ran over it, each wheel would be lifted as it rolled over the coin. As the wheel was lifted, the equalisation (compensation, mentioned above) would press the other wheels down to keep them from losing adhesion.
Due to a locomotive’s long rigid wheelbase, the leading wheel on the outside of a curve had a tendency to climb over the rail, rather than follow it. A pilot truck led the front end into the curve.
Without a pilot truck a loco was limited to slow speeds…15 mph. A two-wheel truck was restricted to slightly higher speeds…30 mph. A 4 wheel truck allowed higher speeds.
All very interesting… anyone else?
Jarrell
Yup: my turn.
0-8-0s and 0-6-0s WERE used as “road” switchers, and quite commonly. Of course, it all depends on your definition of “road” or “mainline”. If you mean ANY mainline, then switchers were all over the place doing things other than shuffling cars in yards. If you mean in the middle of nowhere in a small town, shuffling cars at a local elevator, then the practice was sorta rare, but it DID happen, and probably on a daily basis.
In urban areas, steam switchers DOMINATED the industrial and lineside switching world. Dig through the Library of Congress’ railroad photos and look for shots taken in Milwaukee, St Louis and Chicago. Steam switchers everywhere. I’ve found photos of the Milwaukee, IC, IHB, and dozens of other roads where their pilotless engines were “on the main” handling customers.
Looking through one of my N&W steam videos, I noticed a LOT of 0-8-0s handling true mainline switch jobs, far from mayor urban areas. Remember, the N&W didn’t own any 2-8-0s or 2-8-2s, but they had a LARGE number of 0-8-0s. Even my NKP steam videos show an occasional 0-8-0 out on the main.
And has everyone forgotten about transfer jobs? Those trains went from major yard to major yard via mainlines, and they were regularly handled by switchers, especially those of belt line roads. The P&PU, EJ&E, BRC and others had LOTS of 0-8-0s; ya think they just worked hump yards?
Speed was generally NOT a concern of most railroads…ever. Average freight car train speed was less than 12 MPH. That means for every hour it spent whipping along at 36 MPH, it spend three sitting still. While we’d LIKE to think of all trains zipping down the mainline at 70 MPH behind a Berkshire, the truth was much different. Slow speeds dominated trains, and steam switchers could keep pace quite easily.
So go ahead and use steam switchers a
The Virginian once even ran a railfan excursion behind an 0-8-0. Anything that was possible was probably done.
To some degree, yes, but I was also aware that the prototype trucks were weight-bearing, as well as a guide for the drivers on curves, and not the vestigial attachments you find on models.
Which explains why the Mantua 0-8-0 looked ungainly, since they just omitted the lead wheels from their Consolidation, leaving the pilot with too much overhang ahead of the cylinders. I did read a comment recently that some small roads “switcherized” their Consolidations in this way, but I can’t attest to the accuracy of that statement.
Classic Trains has an index of profiles on different wheel arrangements.
Interesting to note that the 0-8-0 was developed as a low-speed road engine in the mid 19th century.
Ray !! The N&W had many more 2-8-0’s than 0-8-0’s if you look over the whole 20th century. Examples of the G, W, W-1, and W-2 classes of 2-8-0 made it past WWI, and some made it past WWII.
A number of roads did that, and not just small ones. The Santa Fe and the B&O are two examples, among others. Ray can no doubt expand on this, but I believe the IC did as well?
Hmm… Those profiles are very “US-centric”. If you look at the rest of the world, places like the UK, Europe and the former USSR, 0-8-0s were designed and built from the outset as road engines, not switchers. And that continued to be the case up until at least WW1.
Cheers,
Mark.
You have been very conservative with the train speeds.
For example 0-6-0’s on the RDG were limited to 20 mph, 0-8-0’s 30 mph and 2-8-0’s/2-8-2’s/2-10-2’s to 50 mph.
On the other hand diesel switchers were limited to 30-60 mph. Modern day railroads commonly limit diesel switchers with traditional switcher trucks are limited to 40-50 mph.
Dave H.
Not only conservative, but decidedly “US-centric” as well… [:)]
There were plenty of locos without a leading truck in passenger service in Europe and the UK, running at much better than 15mph. As for two-wheel leading trucks being limited to 30mph, that’s nonsense, even in the US. Ever heard of 2-6-2s? AMC 2-8-4s? N&W As?. The UK, France, Austria, Germany, etc. all had passenger power with two-wheel lead trucks, all good for 70mph+ running.
Cheers,
Mark.
New York Central at times would use a 0-8-0 as a pusher on the grade out of West Albany on passenger trains…
True Nigel, and my bad. I should have specified that I was referring to the 1945-1960 period (postwar to the end of steam). By that time the N&W had pretty homogenized on three types of articulateds, two passenger engines, the 4-8-0s, and the 0-8-0s.