I’m too young to have actually seen steamers “live” but still,they appeal to me a lot may be for this reason.I just love them,can’t help it.
Occasionally,I get to watch an old western movie,and most inevitably somewhere in the movie,we are treated with an operating steamer.A delight indeed.But there’s a detail I find strange and this is that in most movies,the train has to stop somewhere in the middle of nowhere to replenish its water reserve from a free standing water tower.The area is desert all around with no water supply visible,wich raises my question…did railroad have special supply trains servicing these service points or there had to be a well somewhere close by with some pumping system?
Another thing I noticed is that locos replenish water but never do so with coal.Does it mean that they consumed much more water than they did coal?Wouldn’t that have made sense to carry a bigger water reserve to cross these deserted areas non-stop?Or is it that what we see in movies is somewhat deviating from truth?Just curious,thanks.
By volume, a steam locomotive uses many times more water than coal. The water tank of the tender will need to be refilled several times as compared to the coal bin. To give an example from my own experience, back in the 60’s I worked with a steam tourist line in PA. One day’s operation would burn about a ton and a half of coal and use about 8000 gallons of water. The tender held 12 Tons and 12,000 gallons. The more of either coal or water they take with them reduces their capacity to haul revenue producing freight. Most tender capacities were intended to give the best balance between loss of revenue pulling capacity and making water stops.
Most water tanks, especially in the west like you’re seeing in the movies, had a way to refill them from wells. Many of these had windmill powered pumps that slowly refilled the tank. If only a couple trains a day needed it and only took a thousand gallons each, there wasn’t much of a hurry.
There were situations in the desert where the Santa Fe had to “ship” water into remote locations to fill tanks for their steam engines - one reason ATSF was such an early purchaser of diesel locomotion.
From my reading on the subject, not based on hands on experience. Steamers went about 20 or 30 miles before the water in the tender began to get low. At that point, there needed to be a water stop. Coal was a different story, and one load frequently lasted for the entire shift of 200 miles or so.
Whatever the local situation, it was easier to load water into the tender than coal. There would be coal loaders at major engine facilities, and smaller ones at small facilities, but generally they tried to make tenders big enough to carry a day’s coal, but expected to be able to fill up the water frequently.
The Flying Scotsman made an 8 hour non-stop run from London to Edinburgh, with one load of coal, two crews, and water picked up on the fly from troughs between the tracks.
The New York Central accomplished both car washing and water replentishment for the tender with “Track Pans” at several places in up state New York.
Out west it was a case of water,water every where but not a drop to drink. While there may have been ground water accessable by well, the water was often “brackish” and contaminated with minerals that necessitated treatment before it was suitable for boiler use.
How two different railroads approached the fuel/water balance in tenders of the same total weight is educational.
On the Union Pacific, the centipede tender used on later Challengers and Big Boys had a rated capacity of 25 tons of coal and 25,000 gallons of water. That allowed a longer run between water stops, at the expense of more frequent refueling.
On the New York Central, a very similar tender frame carried 40 tons of coal, and only 18,000 gallons of water. Since it was equipped to take water from track pans (which the UP didn’t use,) it allowed a single locomotive to run from Harmon, New York, to Chicago with only one coal stop.
Late in its history, the Norfolk and Western adopted the use of ‘canteens,’ water-only second tenders, to eliminate water stops for its articulated locos. The elimination of seventeen water treatment plants saved money, and the tripling of the distance run between water stops saved over-the-road time.
This one was sitting there for a couple of days, but curiosity finally beat me and I have to ask. “Car washing”?? I know about the water replenishment, but car washing I have trouble visualising.
Do you mean water was taken up from pans in the track and sprayed on the cars while rolling down the pike? Can’t quite see how they did it but it would give the passengers a bit of a thrill. Even more so if it was before AC was fitted and the windows could be opened.[}:)][;)][:p][:0][?][:0][:(!]
I think Will was being a bit facetious about the car washing bit. Actually, a pedestal tank (Niagaras came with them, Hudsons were refitted later) taking water at speed would give the entire right-of-way a brisk shower. The first few cars behind the tender looked as if they had just run under Niagara Falls.
Don’t ask me how I know! It was a cold November day.
John: One of the problems with track pans was gauging how much water to pick up. You didn’t want to run out before the next pan, so the fireman would drop the scoop near the start of the pan or wherever he felt would fill the tank. If the tank filled before the end of the pan, the scoop couldn’t be lifted as it was being pushed into the wall of water at 80 mph, so they provided overflow pipes. The overflow could sometimes reach back a couple of coaches.
Water was not picked up at speeds as high as 80MPH, the highest recommended was 55MPH. The speed had to be high enough to force the water up the chute and into the tender tank, but not so high as to force it in too fast and damage the tank.
The scoup HAD to be raised before the end of the track pan, otherwise it would rip out the pan or rip off the scoop. It was operated by a manually controlled pneumatic cylinder and could be raised of lowered at any time.
Overflow AND side spray would “wash” the first few cars behind the tender when picking up water from a track pan.
Which railroad are you referring to, Tom? The NYC’s Niagaras regularly scooped water at 80 to 85mph, their tenders were specifically designed to do so. French engines could and did pick up water at up to 79mph, I’ve seen that at first hand, and gotten rather wet in the process. But what a ride that was! [:)]
The story I’m familiar with is about the Whitmore Track Pans on the Pennsy. The article does make passing mention the NYC design that would allow scooping at up to 80MPH, but the way it’s presented implies that it’s more of a late steam era development but not applied to many locomotives before the end of the era.
Yes Tom, it was a late development. As far as I’m aware, the NYC was the only US road that scooped water at those speeds, and then only with those tenders equipped with overflow jets. Presumably it was limited to the Niagaras, and any Hudson fitted with PT tenders.
The article you linked was very interesting, but I noticed at least one error. The SNCF track pans were in service later than 1963.
The last time this question came up, someone posted a link to a video of an NYC train taking water on the fly…been searching, but can’t find it now. [sigh]
Back in the 60s I knew an ex Great Western driver who told the tail of when he was a fireman he worked a train from Plymouth (IIRC) to London … about 16 coaches of GIs for D Day. They picked up water at speed from troughs, he had trouble lifting the scoop and massively overflowed the tank… trouble was that the leading corridor connection (diaphragm) didn’t have a blanking plate in place… so guess where the overflow went… When they arrived in Paddington they made a rapid exit on the non platform side of the cab leaving the station pilot crew to deal with the (slightly damp) GIs.
[8D]
Recalled two more…
The Baldwin and Alco 60cm gauge locos that were sent over for the trenches in WW1 were fitted with pumps so that they could refill their tanks from streams and standing water. The collection hoses had filters on the ends. I believe that some back woods locos had this as a regular feature in the USA… maybe Shays and the like?
Again back in the 60s a special service using a Beattie tank engine was run on the Hampton Court branch in the last weekend before the end of steam service. When it arrived needing to refill the tanks it was discovered that the water to the tank and watercolumn had been turned off and the tank drained. Much concern followed and the need to dump the fire to avoid the crown sheet getting exposed (producing a boiler explosion) discussed. The USA came to the rescue… a passing American tourist (much loved in those days) mentioned that his local railroad had suffered the same problem and been rescued by the local fire department. A couple of phone calls and a couple of pumps showed up and solved the problem. I would guess that fire departments still provide a similar service at times today in the US??? Could make a neat model scene…