I was going to post this on the “Prototype” forum, but I decided to include it here to facilitate discussion.
I was reading in the Nov. 2005 MR magaizne a couple of days ago. Carl Swanson’s Information Desk had an very interesting article entitled, “Making sense of steam” (pg. 26-30). The article starts out with the following statement:
“More than most machines, a steam locomotive’s design reflects its intended use.”
Carl goes on to discuss why steamers were designed the way they were and what ramifications that would have on the type of locomotives (and trains) you might run on your steam layout.
With that said, I was looking at a link this evening that Crandell (selector) had posted for AggroJones to view. One of the pictures on the link showed a cab forward steam locomotive. (Pictured below)
Now, I’ve seen pictures of cab forwards before and thought they were always quite unique looking. However, it wasn’t until this evening that I thought to myself, “Look, there’s a picture of one of those cab forwards. Interesting looking beasts! Now, why was a cab forward steamer designed with the cab on the front and the headlight on the back?” “There’s gotta be a good reason”, I said to myself.
As I write this, I now seem to recollect that a reason why the cab forwards were developed had something to do with the problems that engineers experienced with exhaust has they were going through tunnels. Locomotives with the smoke box up on the front end of the locomotive not only obscured the engineer’s view but also restricted his (and the other crew’s) breathing. A cab forward, on the other hand, had the engineer “up front”, ahead of the smoke box, with a clearer view of the tracks ahead. Am I on the “right track”?
I appreciate your incite and answers. I thought the Information Desk article was also interesting because it explained why ce
I have often thought the same thing about diesels, in general. How does one know which end is the “front”? The end with the engineers cab on it, or the long bare end?
Couldn’t it run in either fashion?
Tom is right. The short hood affords the best field of view, all things considered, but some roads permitted the engines to run long hood forward at the request of the engineers who wanted more meat ahead of them in the event of a collision. I can’t say for certain, but I’m guessing they were former steam engineers who liked their restricted views and that long boiler ahead of them, and who later retrained on diesels. What they must have though when SP offered to build them a cab at the front of the train…only them and a headlight shell between whatever was coming at 'em.
I can see why Aggro has a soft spot for those beasts. They were all business.
The cab forward was developed not just because of tunnels but also because of snowsheds. In one of those flashes of insight that marks the geniuses among us, somebody figured out that w/ an oil burning engine the firebox (and its attached cab) needn’t be in close proximity to the fuel in the tender. The rest is history!
Jimrice 4449’s post says the important thing… Cab ahead COULD be developed with oil fuel. All you need to get the fuel from the tender to the burner in the firebox is more plumbing. Even with mechanical stokers this would not be practical with coal. I’ve been told that coal fired locos with fireboxes over a certain grate size were required by law to have mechanical stokers… in order to not kill firemen by exhaustion. Railroad and Railway men were a bit different in the old days… shovelling ten tons of coal from the bunker into the firebox on the move was just the days job… even at 100mph!
Leading trucks tended to be there to ease the ride and transition into curved. Trailing trucks tended to be there to provide support behind larger firboxes which tended to sit behind the last driver. They also improved the ride. Both leading and trailing trucks tended to be related to speed… hence even the biggest yard switchers didn’t usually have them… which is related to the fact that as soon as you put in a truck axle you have removed some of the locos weight from the driving wheels … where you want weight for traction (adhesion). This tends to be why diesels and electrics don’t have non-powered axles… with their powered trucks rotating on vertical axies they flex in a way that a steam loco usually doesn’t. Some diesel traucks have a further flexible/steered element… this is (I suspect) related to the few steam loco designs that had flexible wheelbases but NOT trucks… Heywood is the design I can recall… this used radial outer axles and (I think) hemisperical ends to the connecting rods… (I can recall the design, can’t think how to describe it briefly). There was also a thing called a Klose Mechanism which used a weird rod linkage to drive a trailing (powered) truck.
First generation diesels tended to run long hood first 'cos that’s the way round you built locos… with the big bit at the front. It didn’t really do a lot to help crews in a smash. You could just as
Without meaning to offend, Carl Swanson’s comment was nonsensical journalistic hyperbole, and maybe even indicated an ignorance of what machine design is.
I’ve been designing machines for over 25 years (man, I’m old). Every machine’s design reflects its intended use - otherwise it would not perform it’s required function! How well the machine is designed impacts how well, and for how long, it functions.
Perhaps he was talking about the design of features that are not a part of the machine’s design - things like galleys on aircraft, stereo systems in automobiles and the like. They would be part of the aesthetic design, not the machine design. The machine does not need the aesthetic design features to operate properly, though it may need them to sell (one of the best examples being automobiles). But part of the machine’s design? Not at all.
Now if he meant that steam locomotives had fewer aesthetic design elements incorporated into them than most other machines, he may have a point. Too bad he didn’t say that.
I felt that, myself, but since I am a fan of both Tom’s and steam’s, and since I understood Tom’s sentiments, I let it go. Tom, if I understood him, was expressing admiration for the “all-business” appearances of that loco, unique though they are. As for Swanson’s hyperbole being nonsensical, there I have to disagree. Hyperbole, perhaps, but nonsensical, no.
I wasn’t meaning to diss Tom’s thoughts at all. And reading back over my post, I WAS in a grumpy mood.
I appreciate the dearth of aesthetic design elements on most steam locos built after about 1890-1900. To me, any machine that performs its function properly has a certain beauty (that’s why I carry a mechanical “skeleton” pocket watch, though it is fancied up quite a bit).
Steam engines were the first energy-generating machines that humans really mastered, I believe. They were invisible in the belly of a steamship, but on magnificent display at the head end of a train.
Sorry if my early morning comments were an irritant to anyone.
Maybe the question of hyperbole or not can be looked at this way…
Thanks to Mickey Mouse, Bambi, the Muppets etc we all fall into anthropomorphic assumptions. We give animal behaviours human interpretations and values.
Maybe what has happened here is similar… we see appearances produced by designs that achieve required functions as characteristic of things that produce the functions… Er… Is that what I mean?
Whatever… especially with steam we expect to see a steam loco looking and sounding a certain way… we see something looking that way we expect it to do a job.
As far as diesels go, the end with the little ‘F’ on the frame is the front. Alco by default set up engines with the ‘long’ hood forward. EMD by default set up the GP series with the ‘short’ hood forward. Either builder would ‘built to suit’ the buyer if they paid enough! The GN ordered all road switchers set up with the ‘long’ hood forward, until the arrival of the GP30’s - at that point EMD started charging extra for anything non-standard - GN bought low/short hood engines. Southern and N&W paid extra for the full height short hood.
As a previous post mentioned, there is more ‘meat’ up front with a long hood forward, but I have seen photos of the entire long hood of a GP cleaned off back through the cab in a wreck - no assurance that this will protect one.
I remember the Milw took delivery of RS1 and RSC2 engines set up with the long hood forward. By the time they took delivery of RS3 & RDS5 engines, they were ordering them with the short hood forward!
No offense taken. I appreciate your comments - “grumpy” or not. [:)]
I wrote what I wrote because I have always been intrigued and fascinated why things are built the way they are. Have any of you ever perused through David Macaulay’s book, How Things Work?
If something is different out of the ordinary from what I’m used to, I think to myself, “Now WHY did they do it THAT way?!?” Since the intricacies and the “why, how’s and what’s” of RRing are almost fathomless, in order to learn about it more, I have to ask those sorts of questions.
I find that even the MRRing gurus assume you know more about RRing than you actually do. That’s why I find some of their books difficult to digest quickly because the experts don’t explain enough of an idea or concept FIRST before they start building on it. They’re are on Step 5 when I’m still mulling over what was being said in Steps 2 or 3.
Indeed, it would be absurd and ignorant of me to believe that EVERYTHING ever built from time past up till today had function and functionality - let alone rhyme and reason - in mind. I have found that, most of the time - especially on locomotives - someone added or changed or designed something with a particular purpose to it. Since no one volunteers the answers ahead of time, I make it my job to ask the questions first.
Anyway, I do appreciate the comments. Thanks for the thought-provoking insights…
With a redesign of the tender for visibility, I would think it would have been a small matter to have ANY steam locomotive run backwards (cab forward). I think most railroad people thought it just doesn’t look right somehow, so no one else ever adopted the principle.
Sorta like Volkswagen Bugs (the first ones). They just didn’t look enough like a car to some of us.
On the other hand, it could be that engineers and firemen simply balked at the idea of being stuck out in front like that. After all, what’s the point of trying to protect a locomotive from a collision using a couple of soft flabby bags of mostly water? [:D]
