My great grandfather Viktor Heim worked as a civil engineer for the Hungarian State Railway in Croatia under the Austro-Hungarian administration (was it called the MAV in those days?).
Dad told me he had one long word all strung together in German for “Three-cylinder superheated-steam express passenger locomotive.” Between Dimovski and Juniatha, can anyone write that word out for me?
Hi dimovski! Oh, I knew you weren’t being disrepectful, I was trying not to be disrepectful, hence the “Mr.” I put in front of the “dimivski.”
Three-cylinder locomotives never really caught on here in the US in spite of ALCO’s best efforts to make it so. ALCO’s selling point, and it was a good one, was that a multi-cylinder locomotive would be easier to balance, and as a result a lot less damaging to trackage. The problem was American railroaders just couldn’t get past the added maintanance costs of three cylinder engines. An engine in in the shop wasn’t out on the road making money, so “get 'em in, get 'em fixed, get 'em out, and the quicker the better!” was the philosophy. Any three cylinder locomotives that were sold quickly became the “oddballs” that got less than optimum maintanance, with some exceptions like UP’s 9000’s.
As I said, the 9000’s were good performers, but with better things like the Challengers and FEF’s coming they were a UP purchase that wasn’t repeated. Even ALCO gave up the concept.
Steam in your area up to the 1990’s, and into the 2000’s? Wow, how cool was that?
@Paul Milenkovic
I would assume that it was the MAV back in the days. IIRC, before Austria became the dual monarchy of Austro-Hungary, the railways were private. And after the creation of the dual monarchy, the Hungarian parliament nationalized these private railroads under it’s control (so Hungary in itself + Romania + Slavonia + Međimurje + Hrvatsko zagorje + Kordun + Banovina + Gorski kotar + Lika(?) + the city of Rijeka).
I think I’m not capable of creating such a word, but I can give you the “ingredients”. I don’t know in which order they would be. If it was a compounder, it’s a Dreizylinderverbunddampflokomotive. (the most famous one of these is the SNCF 242A1 modified by the legend himself, Andre Chapelon) If it isn’t, it’s a Dreizylinderlokomotive. Notice how lokomotive is at the end. It would also be in the end of that giant word.
Express passenger locomotive translates to Schnellzuglokomotive. Superheated steam is, quiet simply, “hot steam locomotive” > Heißdampflokomotive. My guess would be that the locomotive was then a Dreizylinderheißdampfschnellzuglokomotive. Or a : Dreizylinder-heißdampf-schnellzuglokomotive
If it was a superheated compounder, it was a Dreizylinderverbundheißdampfschnellzuglokomotive. Or a: Dreizylinder-verbund-heißdampf-schnellzuglokomotive. (as “dampf” is mentioned in heißdampf already, I think that it wouldn’t make sense to call it a Dreizylinder-verbunddampf-heißdampf-schnellzuglokomotive. Maybe Dreizylinder-verbund-und-heißdampf-schnellzuglokomotive was used aswell)
Btw, there is a south slavic forum around, http://www.zeljeznice.net/forum/, I assume you can read Serbo-Croatian from your name, so if you would like to collect some pictures of locomotives which your dad and great grandfather might’ve seen, have a look there. There are some of the extremly rare MAV Mallet pics there, too!
I remember reading somewhere that not all of the nines had the Gresley valve gear, some had Walshearts gear for the middle cylinder, two complete sets of gear were hung on one side of the engine…
In the mid-1930s, 8 of the 9000s were rebuilt with a double-Walschearts valve, replacing the Gresley valve gear. They were not delivered as such. These were engines 9006-9009, & 9011-9014.
valorstorm wrote
In the mid-1930s, 8 of the 9000s were rebuilt with a double-Walschearts valve, replacing the Gresley valve gear <<
Right -
and yet this was again a tongue in cheek effort since motion then was derived from one outside return crank and had to be transmitted inside to the middle cylinder’s piston valve . This solution inevitably incorporated unwelcome flexion and more bearings and with their wear increased summation of plays , again abortive to exactitude of valve events in turn causing middle cylinder power output at certain ( lower ) speeds to remain low in relation to outside cylinders , at other ( higher ) speeds summation of bearing plays allowing effective over-traveling of valve caused by mass inertia and thus output became high , causing excessive stress on drive since valve events by over-riding due to play were anything but precision timed ( there was no clearly defined true to design compression , admission and exhaust lead neither was cut-off kept strictly equivalent to that of outside cylinders - that’s why exhaust rythm of worn Nines had become as erratic as can be haéared on rare sound recordings ) All in all the UP Nines as they were had remained confined by original ALCO design concept of having three cylinders yet avoiding to go all the way with consequential valve gear design . Further , inside drive to second coupled axle in view of an arrangement of six coupled axles was in itself a questionable decision continued simply from earlier 4-8-2 and 4-10-2 three cylinder realizations of the company , having become questionable in a 4-12-2 ince it clearly unbalanced distribution of piston thrust via coupling rods with but one forwards but four of them backwards , in view of bearing play - having remained an abortive factor with plain bearings all through the age of steam - again meaning middle cylinder piston force didn’t reach last
I think the 4-6-6-4 would still be kinder to the track, specifically on curves. Larger diameter drivers would make up for some of the counterbalance advantages of three cylinders.
Interesting info! I never saw a photo of the 4-12-2´s in Utah. But it makes sense that before the arrival of the Challengers and Northerns, they ruled the mainline also in Utah. I know they were used in Idaho and Oregon between Pocatello and Portland too, but what about Nevada and California? Did the 4-12-2´s ever operate between Ogden, Las Vegas and Los Angeles at some point of time?
Have you inquired to the UP Historical Society?
The Kalmbach “Steam Locomotive Cyclopedia” has a photo of 9000 working its way very slowly through a crossover at Summit in Cajon Pass. My recollection is that the caption indicates that this was the only time a 9000 ever made its way to Los Angeles, since the 9000s were particularly unsuited to the curves and grades in Cajon Pass…
M636C
Very early on, a small handfull of 4-12-2s were assigned to the OWR&N, actually bringing them to Spokane WA on the “Washy” line. This didn’t last, as they were unsuited for the circuitous route. They were renumbered & returned to the Overland Route. These were NOT the 9500s that spent many successful years on the OSL in Idaho. Never heard of any 9700s going west of Hinkle or 9500s going west of Huntington.
The only known occurance of a 4-12-2 in Nevada & California is the 9000 itself, on its retirement trip to Pomona, which is the run referred to in a following reply.
Thanks for the info. I read that the 4-12-2´s were used as regular power on scheduled passenger trains in the 20´s and 30´s until the arrival of the Challengers and Northerns. So I thought they also came down to LA because the grades of southwestern Utah, Nevada and California would be too much for a 4-8-2 to handle with a long heavyweight train. But I guess the 4-10-2´s did this job on this section then. Still wonder why UP had so many problems with their 4-10-2´s although they also had 3 cylinders, and due to their smaller drivers and less drivers they could also operate easier on more routes than the 4-12-2´s…
Anyone else read that?
I’ve got lots of material on the 9000s (my favorite steam). & I’ve never come across anything that suggested that.
As it concerns gigantic fast freight steam (larger than 10-coupled), the 4-12-2s were the very first. Ever. Betcha’ didn’t know that. They predated ALL articulated high speed steam locomotives. HOWEVER, they were good for an absolute maximum of 50 mph.
Regular passenger power? Challengers: Yes. 9000s: Can’t find evidence of it.
I did a little checking and you asked this back in 2012:
http://cs.trains.com/ctr/f/3/t/203141.aspx
Firelock76 said he found a reference to disc mains, a 60 mph permitted speed, and steam-heat (and presumably signal) lines on some of the 4-12-2s. (I presume this was a wartime thing, but haven’t read Swengel, the reference that was cited.) Since we have several experts and enthusiasts on the Nines watching these discussions, I’d like to see definitive confirmation here, and perhaps some quotes or a citation for that “German magazine”. (Hopefully it wasn’t Arnold Haas making the speed claim!)
Suspect no one can find a timetable allowing 4-12-2s more than 50 mph.
Suspect you’re right, but Firelock76, quoting Swengel, says 60, as part of a clear improvement over the version of the Nines that was allowed 50 mph. Since I have not read Swengel (and do not have quick access to other technical books describing late modifications to the Nine balancing) I pass it along as a technical possibility only. My guess it was not so much a “permitted” speed as one the locomotives might be able to reach with little or no more destructive augment than their unmodified counterparts at 50… and that crews might perhaps occasionally choose to indulge themselves a bit …
Jumping in and then jumping off…
I was re-reading the Swengel book last night, particularly the section on the 9000’s, and to update things a bit Swegel says the 9000’s were used on passenger trains, but not where or when. I suspect they may have been “pinch-hitting”, not being used in regular service.
Again, the book is called “The Evolution Of The Steam Locomotive / The American Steam Locomotive, Volume 1, Evolution,” (it says one thing on the binding and another on the front cover) by F. M. Swengel, copyright 1967. It’s a good one to keep an eye out for at used bookstores and train meets, I usually see a copy or two at the train shows I go too.
By the way, if you’ve never been to train show (or train meet, as some call them) you should go! They’re a LOT of fun, and there’s no telling what you’ll find.
To find one near you check the “Classic Toy Trains” website, click on “Resources” on the top bar, then “Coming Events” on the menu Follow the prompts from on the next menu from there.
You can also find “Coming Events” on the “Resorces” tab on the “Trains” magazine website.
I’ve never seen volume 2, but I’m lookin’!
And Wizlish, thanks for remembering my “Classic Trains” post. I’m flattered!
I read it in 2 different books. One book was in english language and the other one in german language. Can´t remember the title anymore because it´s a long time ago and I browsed trough these books only quickly while being at a friend. But I clearly remember this info. Both books said that the 4-12-2´s were used in freight AND in passenger service in the 20´s and 30´s before the arrival of the Northerns and Challengers. I can imagine that very well. If a heavyweight passenger train reached a certain amount of cars / a certain tonnage, the UP in those times would probably prefer to have a 4-12-2 pulling that train in the mountains instead of two 4-8-2´s…
UP used 2-8-2 Mikados (before they were MacArthurs) in the 1910s on the more mountainous sections of their roads. In the late 1920s, if my understanding of history is correct, there was still a lot of changing locomotives at division points. I guess it is not unfathomable to think that perhaps a 4-12-2 unit was used to get varnish up the Wasatch or over Sherman Hill early in their careers when schedules were not as high speed as in the late 1930s and 1940s. On the Union Pacific timeline in preparation for their 150th Annivesary they have a note for 9000’s delivery in 1926 and the accompanying text indicated they were used primarily on freight at 50 mph from Council Bluffs to Green River, which is over Sherman Hill. So some time on varnish in the late 1920s, either as helper power or occasionally as road power, certainly seems possible.