I know not in the sense of today’s diesels, but in the sense of something other than just the “brake shoes against the wheels” sense?
I’ve driven a truck for years, and I can remember that before Jake Brakes (engine compression, and functioning like dynamic brakes, although different principle), it could get real hairy, real fast, when going down a long steep grade (think "Wolf Creek Pass, LOL).
I ask this because I just watched a video of C&O Allegheneys hauling a coal train up and down mountains.
I seem to remember that the D&RGW used a “water brake”. I think (and I’m depending on someone to correct if I’m wrong) it worked by introducing a small amount of water from the boiler into the cylinder. The superhot, pressurized water would flash into steam which provided back pressure to slow the locomotive/train.
The “water brake” was called the “Le Chatelier”, and Kevin Smith is correct on the general principle of its workings. It had to be used very carefully to reduce the risk of throwing a rod.
…I have wondered in the past regarding some braking action being concieved via bleeding some steam {of course the right amount}, into the cyl’s. on the return stroke of each cyl…
But from all that I’ve read on the subject over the years, it doesn’t seem like it was ever something that was designed into the valving, etc…Perhaps it would have been too much load on the drive train parts…{rods, journals, etc…}.
I asked this once of the former operators of the GLRR railroad while riding in one of the Shays one day. The answer I got is that it could be done, but was a touchy thing. Using too much could either cause the wheels to start slipping, or induce damage as CSSHEGEWISCH mentioned. Hence, I don’t think it was used all that often.
Just for curiosity, I tried it on MS Train Simulator one day, too. I did notice even on the simulation that slipping wheels were indeed a possibility if one got even a little too heavy handed with it.
i have heard of “drifting valves” located on the steam chest and i was under the assumtion that their purpose was to allow controlled drifting downgrade…corrections are eagerly awaited…[;)]
Here’s some iteresting materail from a International Corespondence Schools Westinghouse Air Brake Book, Copyright 1900:
THE WATER BRAKE.
Principles Involved.
"If the valve gear of the locomotive is reversed while the locomotive is running forwards with the throttle closed, the engine cylinders will be converted into air compressors. As the piston moves either forwards or backwards, a vacuum is created in the cylinder behind it and hot gases from the smokebox are drawn in to fill the vacuum. The gases in the cylinder ahead of the piston are compressed, and offer a resistance that acts to stop the movement of the piston, and thus the speed of the engine is retarded.
With the valve gear in the reverse direction to which the engine is running, therefore, the engine cylinders act as brakes to retard the speed of the train. If the air drawn into the cylinders were cool and free from cinders, this method of braking would be simple and very efficient for use on engines on long down grades. As it is, however, cinders would be drawn into the cylinders and cause trouble; also, the gases in the smokebox are very hot, and, when drawn in, their temperature is still further increased by compression; hence serious injury would result to the cylinders, valves and valve seats, if this method of braking were used without some means of preventing the hot gases and cinders from entering the cylinders.
The water brake (sometimes spoken of as the LeChatelier brake) overcomes the objections to this method of braking by introducing wet steam at a low pressure into the cylinders, thereby excluding the hot gases. Unfortunately, the term “water brake” is a misnomer when applied to the LeChatelier method of braking, and is very liable to create the impression that water is used in the cylinders, whereas, in reality, the braking is done by means of low-pressure wet steam.&n
It seems that all of the larger steam locomotives on the Rio Grande were equipped with the Le Chatalier water brake system, due to the heavy grades in the Rockies and the Wasatch. Oddly enough, there were few runaways on the Rio Grande, despite the often 2-3% grades of some of its lines (Tennessee Pass, for example).
One of the more famous runaways on the Rio Grande occurred during WWII on the Moffat Line, but the locomotive involved was NOT a Rio Grande steamer, but a borrowed Missabe 2-8-8-4. It lost its brakes coming down the 2% of the Moffat grade, and left the tracks near one of the Big Ten curves. I’ve got a video showing photos of the results–which are not pretty, by a long shot–but I understand that the locomotive was repaired and put back into service. The Rio Grande borrowed some of the big Yellowstones for several winters during the War, and always said that they were the best locos they ever fired. I have a feeling if the design hadn’t been frozen by the War Board, Rio Grande would probably have gone to Baldwin for duplicates. Imagine a big, handsome Hunker like that, only this time with water brakes and the flying RIO GRANDE on that big centipede 2-10-0 tender!
The frequency of runaways is an outcome of good train-handling practices, proper air tests, and good train inspections at initial terminals.
Rio Grande couldn’t get rid of steam fast enough once it saw the FT; all steam engines acquired after 1941 were because FT production was insufficient to the need.
I know. Actually, they held some steam on through 1956, about as late as Espee did in California. Sure wish Rio Grande had preserved at least one of their bigger standard-gauge locos, though. Maybe an L-131 or an L-105. But they sent EVERYTHING to the scrapper, excep
The near-complete scrapping of standard-gauge steam is because the rail enthusiast community focused nearly exclusively on the narrow-gauge. The railroad allowed, and I think did so properly, the rail enthusiast community to define the need. If the rail enthusiasts couldn’t then see much value in the standard-gauge steam, why should the railroad think for them?
The decision to keep narrow-guage steam running in 1956 was a Rio Grande decision, and had nothing to do with rail enthusiasts. It was purely a financial decision by the road, as they had no desire to invest in narrow-gauge diesels for the lines that were for the most part, lightly trafficked.
If the managements of SP and ATSF and even WP (which dieselized far earlier than either SP or Rio Grande) could see fit to donate steam locomotives as displays to various towns along their lines, then why couldn’t Rio Grande? That is my question, and it has nothing to do with ‘rail enthusiasts’. It has to do with management totally blind to their own history.
That’s not the point I made. The point I made is that enthusiasts paid virtually no attention to the standard-gauge. They viewed the narrow-gauge as the unique and unusual operation, and their preservation efforts (which began in the 1940s!) focused 100% on the narrow-gauge. And look what was preserved – two major sections as living museums of early 20th century railroad practice.
As a career railroader, having a strong interest in railroad history as do many of my fellow officers and craft employees, and knowing many of the people at the Rio Grande (many now deceased) that did a great deal to preserve the really important parts of Rio Grande history that you probably are not even aware of – the photographic and documentary record, not just the hunks of iron – your characterizations of us are both sententious and tendentious. The Rio Grande could have abandoned the Silverton and what became the C&TS, and instead as corporate policy chose to hang on until the rest of the world caught up to it. You don’t really know what happened inside the 1531 Stout Street headquarters, where many people put their careers on the line to save history at the expense of the stockholders.
My opinions of you and fellow Rio Grande railroaders are NEITHER sententious or tendentious, in fact I have nothing but admiration for you people who worked on a railroad as progressive and dynamic as the D&RGW. I simply made a statement that it would have been nice to have seen some Rio Grande standard steam preserved. That was all it was, as simple statement. So aim your verbal bullets elsewhere. I don’t need them.
Apology accepted. I’ll write off your quote as “totally blind to our own history” as a moment of hyperbole. [;)] We’re all guilty of that sometime. [sigh]
I too wish at least one of the big locomotives had somehow stuck around, but if it was going to be a trade between having 20 of the big locomotives stuffed and mounted in a park, and having the Cumbres & Toltec preserved as a virtual time-machine to the 1930s, I’ll take the latter. And I’m not a narrow-gauge nut, either!
20? Heck, I’d have settled for just one L-105! And not being much of a narrow-guage nut either (though my house was just across from the Nevada County Narrow Guage terminal in Nevada City, CA when I was a child, and my mother said I’d stand in the windows and pee my diaper, LOL!), both Cumbres and Toltec (which I haven’t ridden) and the D&S (which I have), are admirable.
PS: Having ridden the Rio Grande when it WAS the Rio Grande–I MEAN it about my admiration for you people. Now, THAT was a railroad!
The 3700s were pretty but the mechanical department loathed them and with good reason, as well as the similarly nickel-steel boilered 1800s. I’d take 3600 or a 1700 any day.
While I’m wishing, what I’d really love to have around today is a matched A-B-B-A FT set in factory Dulux gold and black. I’d take that over steam. It’s frustrating that the single most important locomotive in American railroad history since the 4-4-0 was only preserved as a few scattered pieces, not a full matched set.