On older 0-4-0 saddletank locos (Bachmann On30 Porter for example), where was the coal stored, assuming it was a coal burner? Also about how far could such a loco travel before refueling? I’ve read that they never ventured very far, but would that mean 10 miles, 50 miles, or what?
On late model steam locos that were used to pull passengers trains like the 20th Century Limited (a Hudson maybe, just a guess), how far could they travel before stopping to refuel or add water?
The answer for both question is “It depends…”
Coal-fired tank engines could have a proper bunker to the rear of the cab, or they could have a small bunker inside the cab on the fireman’s side, or even let into the tanks in the case of a side-tank loco. In the case of the Porter, since it has an open-backed cab, I’d hazard a guess and say the bunker is within the cab. How far they’d run before needing to coal would depend on how hard they were being worked, and how well they were being fired, but I’d suggest 50 miles is probably more than such locos would ever travel in normal use.
As for the NYC Hudsons, they could take water without stopping, as the NYC used track pans and water sccops on their tenders, so they aren’t a good example. To give you an example from my own experience, I used to fire a modern (1943-built) 4-6-2 on mainline passenger excursions. Leaving Sydney, we’d top the tender off before departure, so we’d start out with 8,000 gallons and 15 tons of coal.
On arrival at Gosford - 48 miles - we’d be down to about 3,000 gallons, and so we’d water there. On arrival at Broadmeadow - 101 miles - we’d be down to about 2,000 gallons, and maybe about 8 or 9 tons of coal. Admittedly that trip involved long sections of nearly 3% grades, plus some lengthy high-speed sections as well, but it gives you an idea.
I’m sure there are people here who can give you specific examples relating to US steam.
Cheers,
Mark.
The 0-4-0’s were for very local work and quickly reload coal.Coal was in a small bin on the rear, hand tossed into the fire.
Many long run steamers had water chutes on the tender and they would pass over water bins between the rails, once over they dropped the chute and picked water on the fly, raising the chute in the nick of time…Prr had long haul tenders.
Say, the engine could easily do a Cleveland to Chicago run.
Many a 0-4-0 only had a box of coal in the corner of the cab on the firemans side ,that box might hold 50-75lbs,others had a larger bunker across the entire back of the cab holding 3 to 4 hundred lbs.
As for your 2nd question there are too many different vartibles as how far or fast a locomotive can go on a tender full of fuel and water. suffice to say that even on some of the best maintained roads water had to be available every 15 to 20 miles even for the larger articulated locomotives.
My 0-4-0T is a model of one built by Hanomag in 1873. It has a full-width bunker, but that bunker is only about 400mm in fore-and-aft dimension. The prototype was used as a yard switcher at a colliery, so it was never more than a few hundred meters from a source of coal. By no coincidence at all, my model is in the same service.
After they were fitted with Niagara-style pedestal tenders, NYC Hudsons could steam all the way across New York and well into Ohio without refueling. There were track pans at several locations enroute, as well as water columns at stations where stops were usually made. Of course, they started from Harmon with 40 tons of coal and 18,000 gallons of water…
Chuck (former NYC fan modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Gee, Chuck, that one got me thinking. Which class of JGR engine is it a model of? Or was it always in private ownership? At first I thought of the Rumoi Railway engines, but they were built later, I think.
Don’t leave me guessing!
Cheers,
Mark.
Hmmm - According to this web site: http://www.steamlocomotive.com/hudson/nyc.shtml the NYC J-1/J-2 Hudson had a tender capacity of 10 000 gallons, while the J-3 had a tender capacity of 14 000 gallons.
The mentioning about track pans and scoops above made me go google for a little more info on track pans and scoops.
Found this great web site: http://jimquest.com/writ/trains/pans/scoop.htm, which contains a wealth of information on track pans, and which mentions that improved NYC scooping in the 1930s meant that they could take on three gallons per foot for a total of 7200 gallons per filling at speeds up to 80 mph.
7200 gallons divided by 3 gallons per feet means track pans here were 2400 feet, or about 800 meters long. 80 mph equals 128 kph, equals 2100 meters per minute - about 22 seconds with scope down at the max.
Impressive and fascinating stuff.
Must have been hard to maintain, though. And you sometimes had bad things happen - like a crash in november 1945 mentioned on the web site above, where an improperly secured water scope on a freight train hit several ties, causing bits of wood to fly all over, damaging a turnout, causing a derailment of freight cars, causing a collision with a passenger train. Or a hobo hiding on the back of the tender who got splashed with water in ice cold weather and froze to death before the next stop.
Thanks for mentioning this, Mark - I would never have gone off to look up this stuff if you hadn’t mentioned track pans and scoops.
Smile,
Stein
The 0-4-0 like that used by the B&O would have been extremely local. For example taking a Newsprint load to a Newspaper Maker downtown a few blocks from wherever the Bailey Yard was at the time (Approx the location of today’s B&O Musuem.) Im making a WAG off a photo of a 0-4-0 pulling a newsprint box out of a News American Newspaper Firm and venturing a few more thoughts as to where it may have come from or is going to.
By Local I mean Local. A few hundred yards from a source of water and fuel at most.
Some engines were even fireless models confined to a industry near a ready supply of steam at a boiler every few hours work.
The NYC is primarily a water road. It followed the rivers and enjoyed some advantages against the PRR, B&O (And perhaps even the Nickel Plate) for the Chicago Routes. Thier engines tended to use really big tenders. It is easier to put a dallop of water here and there or even scoop it on the move; than it is to feed a tender with lots of coal.
Other steam engines burned coal or oil at a certain rate per hour. The amount of steam that you got out of that burn and put to work depends on many factors. Once in a while a Steam engine will pant with thirst and require more water…
As a side note, Ive witnessed the old Case Tractors used for farming at a museum years ago. These tractors would run on sacks of coal for hours at a time. Usually they sit still and drive a conveyor belt as might operate a sawmill. Sometimes they had to roll somewhere. I recall small boxes of coal in the backs of these tractors. They would get a day’s display work out of them.
Although I agree with you when you say that were only used in a limited area, the B&O engines are again an atypical example - they were oil-burners. Judiciously fired, I would expect them to have somewhat better endurance than a comparable coal-burner.
Mark.
My pleasure Stein, glad you found it as interesting as I have. I’ve often wondered what it would be like to take water on the trot. It’s got to be more exciting than simply pulling up under the column, and wandering back with your hands in your pockets to start filling the tender.
All the best,
Mark.
Niagara taking water on the fly - boy does that bring back memories. I could have been right about where the second pass was filmed from, on a cold, cloudy, windy November day. Brrr!!!
Mark, I just took a close look at my 0-4-0T, and I suspect it may be more or less protolanced (Kawai was notorious for that sort of thing.) The cast-in number boards carry #60, so it may have followed an early IGR design - accent on the may. Major differences between it and the Rumoi and Usa Sangu engines - longer side tanks with curved-in front ends, steam dome to the rear of the sandbox. The model has balanced pistons and a more conventional slide valve chamber than Rumoi #15. The story I was given about its origin came from a hobby shop clerk back in 1963 or so, and could have been fabricated from whole cloth for the special benefit of an ignorant gaijin.
BTW, do you have the Charles Small books Rails to the Rising Sun and Rails to the Setting Sun? The first is a railfan’s impression of Japan, the second traced a lot of semi-obscure slim-gauge railroads all over the world - with a fair amount of coverage of the sugar cane lines and other oddities in Australia. Mr Smith’s primary interest seems to be, “Say WHAT???” locomotives.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
With the ability to take water onthe fly both the PRR and NYC only needed one coaling stop between the east coast and Chicago. I think the NYC stop was around Rochester NY and the PRR’s was around the Crestline/Bucyrus area at mainline coaling stops.
Regards
Rick
Thanks a lot, guys. Very interesting stuff that I never knew about.
New York Central had a very large coal facility at Wesleyville, PA, an eastern suburb of Erie. The photos I have seen show it spanning the entire four track main line so trains could stop, refuel and go quickly without unnecessary switching.
Was out for a sandwich at lunchtime and saw this. Thought that this view may at least answer part of your question…
Think it holds about 2 tons or so.
I do research on the N&W because I am interested in thier operations and time period of heightend steam- I know they ran auxillary water tenders to aid in a long haul. How far exactly I’m not sure…
Thanks. I assume there is an opening of some type inside the cab so the coal can be shoveled into the firebox, correct?
Yes there would be an opening - I think actually more like a door - that the fireman could open to access the coal.
The pic is of a British engine, the British used tank engines on branchlines (in both freight and passenger service) more than US railroads did. The engine in the pic appears to be maybe a 2-6-2T?? However, I do seem to recall the Boston & Albany (NYC subsidiary) had some tank engines that they used on commuter trains, maybe 2-6-4T’s or 4-6-4T’s?? They looked kinda like NYC Hudsons kitbashed into tank engines.