Just received a copy of the 1962, “Pennsy Power 1900-1957,” by Alvin Stauffer.
I found pictures of many two-steam engine hook-up(s) with one as the primary steam engine and the other as a helper steam engine quite interesting. Alvin Stauffer made a comment under one picture about how he has feels from observation that the smoke exhaust from each engine is different. These two-engine pictures were usually on grades => Why the helper.
What made this neat is steam engine smoke is seldom modeled, and we usually don’t think about it.
So, what do you think the Smokin’ difference is, if any?
The helper engine is operating with minimum cutoff, to develop maximum power, which results in a higher pressure at the blast pipe, higher exhaust plume and more noise.
The road engineer is controlling speed with a greater cutoff, so the road engine’s exhaust pressure will be lower unless full power is required to (try to) maintain track speed.
Most passenger trains had sufficient power that only the helper needed to run ‘wide open.’ OTOH, a drag freight might have had both locomotives straining as the speed slowly tapered off. If they were both the same class, there might not have been much difference. If they were of different classes, and especially if they carried different boiler pressures, they might have been very different indeed. (Think N&W A, 70 inch drivers, 300# BP, single expansion; with a Y-3 or Y-4 helper, 57 or 58 inch drivers, 270# BP and compound working.)
Unless you model in large (1:12 or bigger) live steam, modeling smoke accurately is the impossible dream. The closest you can come is to photoshop a still photo, working from accurate prototype photos if you can find them.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with steam, and helpers)
Fake steam is unrealistic, and for most scale modelers, creates a toy-like scene to be avoided. I will admit that a significant proportion of Lionel enthusiasts and people of three-rail persuasion enjoy this kind of thing. But there are many diverse ways people enjoy this hobby.
Also, “tin-can-like sounds” of the typical sound units for locomotives create negative realism for me. Imagined sound is much more realistic. Regardless, I hold to a minority opinion on this particular issue.
Here’s the picture comment by author, Alvin Stauffer, under “L Class 2-8-2 Mikados” on pages 56-57 of Pennsy Power inspiring this thread…
July 4, 1922 - “Westward tonnage passes the Altoona Cities watershed on its climb towards Horseshoe Curve. It has been our observation that on double power it is usually the second locomotive that is smoking. Our guess as to a plausible explaination would be that because the lead engine would be the helper, it would tend to have a better fire than the regular locomotive.”
I grew up in SP territory. SP management frowned on a smoking locomotive as inefficiency and didn’t allow official photos with smoke. Smoke can be caused by a number of factors, fuel air mix, change in load/speed, etc. Granted this was easyer to control with oil than coal and most SP locos had a stack light so the fireman could see the smoke at night.
If by “fake steam” you mean smoke coming out of a model engine (like the old Lionel steam engines with the pellets you dropped down the stack) I’d agree. However, I have seen some realistic photo effects done with cotton and such that looks pretty convincing. Even though it should be more realistic, I find “photoshop” smoke that’s added to a picture looks fakier than the moving cotton method, partly because the smoke added by photoshop doesn’t cast a shadow.