I spent a week on a surprise trip to montana and i got to visit my great grandfather. he is the owner of the largest museum in the state and in it is a working fireless lumber locomotive number S-1 i got do dive it when we came there and I have got to say steam locomotives do not ride as smooth as a diesel locomotive.
That’s a pretty cool engine… Thanks for sharing.
Some history of the locomotive:
Purchased 1926 from H. K. Porter Company.
It was used at the Somers tie plant its whole working life. It worked there until July 1986.
I am sure a fireless locomotive was chosen because of the flammability of wood and creosote.
Here’s a view of where it worked:
Ed
Ed
That’s a pretty [8D] video, thanks for sharing.[tup][tup]
And thanks to Ed for providing some history.
Cheers, the Bear.[:)]
A bit more history:
Here’s quite an incredible document, which appears to list ALL industrial locomotives in Montana. Ever.
There were many.
http://railroads-of-montana.com/MONTANA%20INDUSTRIAL%20LOCOMOTIVE%20LIST.pdf
On the list is S-1, the locomotive under discussion. It appears to have been owned by GN. I think Somers Lumber was a subsidiary.
Built 6/1926, standard gage, 22 x 18 cylinders, 48 tons
There was also S-2, smaller and also fireless:
Built 11/1929, standard gage, 15 x 24 cylinders, 20 (?) tons
I suppose one could burrow quite deeply into this. I keep thinking I read a big article on this operation, but I can’t find it. How can THAT be?
It’s a treat to see the old critter move about. I wish it well, along with the folks who are family. I hope they can someday “steam” it up.
Ed
That’s quite a list that Mr. Taubeneck complied.
I see that Sommers Lumber # S-2 has been preserved also.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=5215509
Cheers, the Bear.[:)]
How cool! So it runs on compressed air. That would make the firemans job easy enough. In it’s day they would fill the reservior with compressed air, or did they use steam from the shop’s or mill’s supply?
Boy, what a great 'bashing project! Dan
Does the crosshead look dry of any lubricant? Would “oiling around” make this thing run more smoothly"
Strictly speaking: neither.
It was filled with superheated water, which contains more energy than compressed air or compressed steam.
The water DOES turn into steam, which drives the engine.
Ed
Lubrication GOOD!
Does look kinda dry.
Ed
Thanks for the link, Ed. I’ve heard of compressed air locos for mining, and I have heard, guessing erronously of charging a reservoir with steam. I can’t imagine anything going far on that. The idea of superheated water is new to me. Dan
Yes, you can kitbash one from a Lilliput model. It is based on a European prototype, that is easily convertible to make a believable North American model. The major difference is the cylinders, located under the cab, which would have been unsual for this side of the Atlantic. So I reversed the cab and boiler to get the proper positioning. I installed DCC. It runs very smoothly, but it is not the greatest puller… Probably like the prototype.
Simon
0-4-0 fireless_0004_zpsvfwofwpt on Flickr
Here’s a link to the Carillon Park in Dayton OH and the Rubicon fireless engine. It is on display at the park. It was used by NCR (National Cash Register) back in the day.
https://gutenberg.org/files/64856/64856-h/64856-h.htm
Joe
I recall some employees of an Indianapolis power plant talking about their fireless cooker which, at the time in 1973, was still in daily operation.
Commonly these fireless engines were charged with pressures in the 400-500 psig reange. The engine (s?) at the Indianapolis plant were charged overnight and again during the crew’s lunch break. I believe some were designed to operate on hot water (steam) at 800 psig. Industrial and power plant boilers generally ran at these higher pressures.
I believe the cookers at National Cash Register in Dayton, Ohio, ran for four hours then swapped out for a freshly charged engine to continue another four. I believe they ran at a lower 150-200 psig.
Operating under air pressure is probably a bit of a challenge since the expansive qualities of air are considerably different than bottled steam.
A couple other photos of the Porters, S1 & S2 here:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/p/206374/2260127.aspx
Regards, Ed
Operating under compressed air – this is any different than running your compressed air tools off a shop air tank? Like with an air compressor and tank, you have to drain off the condensation?
I guess charging with steam works a little differently.
The energy is stored in the water held near the boiling temperature in the tank. If you start with a tank half full of cold water, you can charge it by adding steam. The steam will condense into the water, making the water hotter. This process can continue until the water reaches the boiling point at the pressure of the added steam – at that point, no more steam at that pressure will go into the tank.
The energy is actually stored in the hot water. As you draw steam to ru
I imagine if it was actually running off superheated water/steam instead of a tow along an air compressor it would run smoother. I suspect the air compressor is having trouble keeping up.
A principal issue with compressed air was and is the ‘frost’ issues that come with expansion of the compressed air. Those are not limited to problems with uncondensed water in the power air. I have seen several approaches for heating the compressed air without ‘flame’ including the sort of approach used in soda motors, the use of heated thermal reservoirs, materials like Glauber’s salt, and even catalytic combustion – these would be inadequate for generating ‘power pressure’ but can deal with the cold-exhaust issues.
Most fireless locomotives involve supercritical water (I call it ‘overcritical’ to distinguish from the engineering use of ‘supercritical’ for pressures above about 3206-8psi) at elevated pressure – the pressure not necessarily used to enhance PLAN ihp in the cylinders, but to elevate the heat stored in liquid phase. The ‘normal’ way I’ve seen them charged is to partially fill the ‘boiler’ with water and then sparge the steam low down in the vessel through a large number of downward-oriented slots or pipes to maximize the mixing and condensation of the steam. The final charge would be made to the greatest liquid height that does not produce priming carryover into the feed – whereupon a design consideration for those engines that use relatively high feed pressures arises.
Anyone who has run an engine with a typical dome throttle will appreciate the lack of fun operating such a thing against 500 or more psi is likely to be. This would argue strongly for some kind of demand pressure regulator that would reduce delivered pressure to the locomotive throttle to something more typical of fireless-cooker running gear – perhaps not higher than 180psi. Personally I’d prefer to use a Wagner throttle (patented around 1912) that uses very good servo following to drive the throttle spool to commanded position with high achievable (and repeatable) precision without great human
Or a multiple throttle.
But don’t forget: with a smaller loco (and fireless are usually small), there’d be a smaller (easier opening) throttle.
Ed
I doubt anyone would have paid for the cost and complexity of an American Multiple throttle on a fireless saturated engine. Be like putting Franklin type C shifting-cam poppet valve gear on one.
You could, however, deal with the initial hard opening with a pilot valve very similar to the pilot on a multiple throttle…
I still haven’t quite figured out why the Wagner throttle was not more popular. The idea was revived in '60s fluidic-amplification controls that were very successful, so the idea could be thought of as a half-century ahead of its time.
As much as I would like to see this critter run on steam, I believe it would bring in federal agencies, the FRA in particular.
Running this fella back and forth on compressed air is incredibly safe. “Worst” thing that can happen is you roll over an air line and the cut end whups yer haid.
Steam. Way different. True, there’s no crown sheet above an EXTREMELY hot fire (very bad, sir. very bad) as on a normal steam locomotive. But badness can still happen. I expect the FRA has opinions about this very locomotive. Or will, if contacted.
All that said, congrats to them on having both a very fun toy, and some real history. And if they can get it legal on steam, TRIPLE congrats!
(They will, of course, need a source of superheated water.)
(Perhaps someone will build a solar system nearby, that is based on reflected energy towards a container of water. See where I’m going? A solar powered steam locomotive!!!)
Ed