High all,
I was wondering if anyone could tell me the following; Where does the stoker motor exhaust from on:
-
NKP #765?
-
Pennsy K4 Pacifics (those equipped with stokers)?
-
Union Pacific Big Boys?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards…
Old Dessauer,
I will give you a generic answer to your question.
I have worked on the restoration of PM 1225 - a sister engine to NKP 765 - and which some years ago included a fairly extensive exploration of the locomotive and technical involvement in some fairly complex parts of the project.
If I remember right PM 1225 exhausted its Cylinders Cocks to the ground, its Electrical Turbo Generator from its own vent, its Cross Compound Air Compressors from their own exhaust and its Feed Water Heater Pump also from its own exhaust and so also with the Coal Stoker.
Steam locomotive accessories were variously powered and exhausted depending on the volume of steam they used and the danger that exhaust presented to the crew and public. About every steam locomotive I ever heard running exhausted its Cross Compound Air Pumps in the familiar stacato sound. The Electrical Turbo Generator provided a background whistle.
Another exhaust steam example are the Main Cylinder Cocks that drain and vent the locomotive power cylinders, and which are usually exhausted to the ground at the cylinders on the front of the locomotive - and today are often left partially open to preclude hydraulic damage to the primary engine. You will often see them vent as engines are running at speed. In the movies they provided a dramatic plume of steam often blowing at the feet of standing passengers - for dramatic effect no doubt.
The small Electrical Turbo Generator that supplies electrical power to the locomotive is usually mounted on the boiler top on a bolted platform and when it is turned on and running displays a trail of steam out a small stack on the Turbo Generator Engine.
Coal Stokers such as Duplex and Standard, of which there were many types and considerable development to my knowledge were similarly exhausted from either the locomotive the tender or under the cab of the engine depending on where they were mou
Wow, that’s a very thorough reply! Thanks!
As far as I know, no PRR K4 was ever equipped with a booster. I believe the only booster-equipped PRR locomotives were some or all of the J1 2-10-4’s, some of which may have lost them in service as added starting T. E. not worth the maintenance attention. Someone may know more about this.
One other steam exhaust not mentioned is that of the mechanical lubricator heater. It is often the thin short plume you see that seems to accompany the emissions from the smokestack.
Dave, several of them were so equipped, but later the stokers were removed. I didn’t ever see a rationale for that decision.
The poppet-valve rebuilds had them (5399 and 5436) and so did 3676, given one (in a nonstandard Delta-type trailing truck) in 1941:
http://digital.hagley.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15017coll8/id/3110/rec/9
A good detail shot of the ‘business end’ of 3676’s booster is shown here
(both photos are for sale and the online images have been ‘arranged’ so they cannot be linked for viewing).
I think it’s pretty obvious why K4s weren’t given boosters ‘en masse’ – they were an obsolescent 205psi design that needed to be doubleheaded for many PRR trains (the added TE of the booster not being ‘enough’ to justify the various costs of the installation for single-locomotive service, and of course not really necessary when the engines were doubleheaded!)
Of course T1 6111 was famous for having a booster … initially. That was a design that would derive a positive, and probably frequent, benefit from proper booster use. I believe correspondence survives at the Hagley that describes precisely why boosters were not tried to help with reported issues like stalls or low-speed slipping, where I would think the things would be almost invaluably useful.
<
[quote user=“selector”]
daveklepper
As far as I know, no PRR K4 was ever equipped with a booster. I believe the only booster-equipped PRR locomotives were some or all of the J1 2-10-4’s, some of which may have lost them in service as added starting T. E. not worth the maintenance attention. Someone may know more about this.
Dave, several of them were so equipped, but later the stokers were removed. I didn’t ever see a rationale for that decision.
[/quote above]
I think you meant booster, not stoker.
Oops. My mind gave itself the word ‘stoker’ when I read your comment, and I made a correct statement accordingly. Sorry for misreading your comment…as far as I know, none of the K class had boosters, but…
[quote user=“RME”]
selector
daveklepper
As far as I know, no PRR K4 was ever equipped with a booster. I believe the only booster-equipped PRR locomotives were some or all of the J1 2-10-4’s, some of which may have lost them in service as added starting T. E. not worth the maintenance attention. Someone may know more about this.
Dave, several of them were so equipped, but later the stokers were removed. I didn’t ever see a rationale for that decision.
The poppet-valve rebuilds had them (5399 and 5436) and so did 3676, given one (in a nonstandard Delta-type trailing truck) in 1941:
http://digital.hagley.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15017coll8/id/3110/rec/9
A good detail shot of the ‘business end’ of 3676’s booster is shown here
(both photos are for sale and the online images have been ‘arranged’ so they cannot be linked for viewing).
I think it’s pretty obvious why K4s weren’t given boosters ‘en masse’ – they were an obsolescent 205psi design that needed to be doubleheaded for many PRR trains (the added TE of the booster not being ‘enough’ to justify the various costs of the installation for single-locomotive service, and of course not really necessary when the engines were doubleheaded!)
Of course T1 6111 was famous for having a booster … initially. That was a design that would derive a positive, an
OK, so my original comment concerning K-4s lacking boosters is correct. But do you or anyone have the details on booster-equipped Js? Some had them and some did not and some were removed.
Of course all Js had stokers. I understood that all K-4’s WERE eventually equipped with stokers, as did the 2-8-2 L1s. The K-4s that survived to close out steam on the NY&LB trains had them from my memory. The CNJ 4-6-0 camelbacks on the NY&LB did not.
Rode the NY&LB often when at ROTC summer camp summer 1951. Also behind an E-6, Little Silver - Princeton Junction. The againi on the NY&LB when transferred from Fort Dix to Fort Monmouth November 1954 before going to Fort Bragg end of December. In 1954, the camelbacks had gone but the K4s still ran.
Required by ICC effective some time in 1938 for passenger engines over 160K on drivers as I recall, and for freight engines over 175K (which apparently ruled out requiring them on L1s, as some of those remained hand-fired to the end…)
Harder to believe is that none of the K4s had power reverse, either, until the Government required them (as a “safety device” under the Boiler Inspection Act, which is to put it lightly something of a ‘stretch’), and it took a Supreme Court decision to make that ‘stick’.
And then there were the K5s, built as hand bombers, which made really no sense at all by then for a locomotive with 70’ GA…
The PRR added boosters to at least 2 and maybe 3 K4s locomotives on an experimental basis in 1941. They were #'s 3676, 5436 and possibly 5399. I can’t find any information on when or if they were removed.
All J1 and J1a locomotives were built with them. Again, I don’t know if they kept them throughout their service lives.
Also T1 #6111 was built with a booster.
Power reverse as a safety device? Well, at least safety to the crew as even screw-type reverse (actuating the reverse through a reduction gear offering mechanical advantage along with reduction in back forces) has been known to injure crews when the thing “runs away.”
In case anyone needs an example reference, see “Blue Peter”.
Dad was a stoker (fireman in RR parlance) and later an engineer on steamboats for many years. Generally a very, very quiet man, you could get him to “blow his safety valves” by referring to a powered stoker as an automatic stoker. The steamboats he worked were on the river almost 24/7 so if a stoker jammed, the engine room crew had to fix it themselves and immediately. Particularly on the larger boats, there was no way all of the stokers and engineers working together could keep steam up with scoops.
I believe that is actually the exhaust from the SA Type feedwater heater. A small vent pipe frequently exits the top of the FWH and runs to the front of the stack.
Yes the power reverse is a safety device, aka you don’t throw your
back out like you can with a manual.
whole lot easier to hook up a steam engine with power
reverse instead of the original Armstrong method. Say your engineer
on a yard switcher, figure you’ll have to throw the reverse lever
at least 300 plus times at a minimum On a single 8 hour shift.
power reverse? Apply about 10 to 15 pounds of pressure to a much smaller lever which controls an air valve that moves the piston rod that moves the reverse gear. Having worked on manuals and power reverse from 0-4-4T 2 foot gauge to 4-8-4 ( reading T-1) gimme power reverse any day.
[quote user=“Blackcloud 5229”]
Paul Milenkovic
RME
Harder to believe is that none of the K4s had power reverse, either, until the Government required them (as a “safety device” under the Boiler Inspection Act, which is to put it lightly something of a ‘stretch’), and it took a Supreme Court decision to make that ‘stick’.
And then there were the K5s, built as hand bombers, which made really no sense at all by then for a locomotive with 70’ GA…
Power reverse as a safety device? Well, at least safety to the crew as even screw-type reverse (actuating the reverse through a reduction gear offering mechanical advantage along with reduction in back forces) has been known to injure crews when the thing “runs away.”
Yes the power reverse is a safety device, aka you don’t throw your
back out like you can with a manual.
whole lot easier to hook up a steam engine with power
reverse instead of the original Armstrong method. Say your engineer
on a yard switcher, figure you’ll have to throw the reverse lever
at least 300 plus times at a minimum On a single 8 hour shift.
power reverse? Apply about 10 to 15 pounds of pressure to a much smaller lever which controls an air valve that moves the piston rod that moves th