** # 400 **
Good point Mr. Daveklepper,
The only engine I recall Strasburg ever running with a trailing truck was E7s 7002. This engine is one which has not been seen in service for some time. (attempting to stay near topic).
# 401
Hi Dave!
Strasburgs original steamer was an 0-4-0 switcher, and a Camelback no less!. It was a Reading shop goat that unfortunately didn’t have the steaming capacity that was needed for the trains Strasburg wanted to run. The 0-6-0 was the next to arrive, and to my knowledge is still operational and used from time to time.
The Camelback is still there, but on static display and not operational.
# 402
Hi John!
7002 is back under the shed at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania. One of the staffers told me (and a “Trains” article bore him out) that the Strasburg had been leasing it from the RMP but retired and returned it when it was found to have severe firebox erosion. I saw it several years ago, it’s still in beautiful shape but not likely to be run again unless someone puts some heavy money into it. The Strasburg didn’t elect to do so as they didn’t own it.
# 403
Mr. Firelock76, greetings!
I was up to Strasburg in June. I saw the 1187 Reading camelback behind the Strasburg shop. Looked pretty rough. A couple of years ago, I took a shop tour at Strasburg (well worth it). In talking to one of the craftsmen, the subject of the 1187 came up. He told me that they were authorized to restore it when time and shop space came available. They’ve got a lot of irons in the fire, so I’m guessing it will be awhile. But, I’m sure it will be done and done right, some day!
I wandered over to the RR museum of PA and paid homage to the 1223 and 7002. Two beauties. I never got to see 1223 run. Kind of strange, as a friend of mine complained that it was the only engine he ever saw operating there back in the '70s! I did get to ride behind the 7002, however. I seriously doubt we’ll ever see them run again. Too bad.
# 404
7002 is an Atlantic? An E7? Were E7’s earlier slide-valve Atlantics rebuilt with piston valves and new valve gear, lighter than an E6? (Rode behind an E6 Little Silver to Princeton Junction summer of 1951 with the assinged doodlebug out of service. PB54 and P54 two-car train. I think the track as “The Freehold Secondary Track” is still available for an occasional freight movement.
Mantua had an excellent HO model of the Reading 0-4-0 Camelback.
# 405
Daveklepper, sir
7002 is indeed an Atlantic. It’s actually an E7s (8063, I think) that PRR backdated to represent the original 7002 at the 1939(?) worlds fair. It is a rebuild of an E2, with piston valves and Stephenson valve gear and superheated. The original 7002 was scrapped in the early '30s.
I bet that E6s ride was a fast one! When I was a kid, I had the great fortune of riding with a Pennsy man on the Pemberton branch local freight. His name was “rip” Holt and he would tell my friend and I all the steam stories we cared to hear. I recall him telling of firing on an E6s on the Long Branch jobs. Even though he was an Atlantic district man, he had rights on those Trenton district jobs, as they were reroutes of the Camden-Long branch trains which originally ran via the Pemberton branch and Seaside Heights. At insanely high speeds on the New York division main, all you did was bale coal! He also ran them on Pemberton branch “Lines” and Garden State race track trains out of Broad Street. I wish I could remember half the stuff he told us!
# 406
Love the recollections. When I was growing up in the '50’s & '60’s, my local road was B&O in Ohio. Saw lots of steam on freight, but our passenger trains were mostly diesel in my town. Jealous of you guys in the East who got to ride behind the high-drivered engines. Which was my point, actually. I know Strasburg’s engines all lack trailing trucks & have from the beginning (the 4-4-0 and the 4-4-2 were both borrowed & not actually Strasburg engines). My question involved running HIGH DRIVERED engines in reverse. I demonstrated that this didn’t bother PRR when I mentioned the G5s with the tender-mounted pilot. Also, I believe Strasburg’s engines in the pre-excursion, pre-infernal combustion days were all, or almost all, ex-PRR 4-4-0’s which were never turned.
I was told the Museum was a bit dismayed when they saw how much wear & tear their engines received in excursion service and they adopted a policy of NOT running irreplaceable engines in their collection. Too bad if it’s true, but I can’t blame 'em.
The E7s is fairly close to the appearance of 7002, but I understand the real 7002 (a PFW&C engine) actually had a radial firebox, so the displayed engine isn’t really as good a copy as we’d all like. I’d like to see the Museum put the 7002’s original Panhandle number back on the cab sides. But with the new roundhouse being planned and so many other projects to do, I’m sure they are trying to prioritize.
I kind of regret starting a discussion that has strayed pretty far away from the original topic. Sorry.
# 407
Hello all, I think this thread on the Model Railroader forum may be of interest to those here:
# 408
In an attempt to get back close to topic; as I have proposed in earlier posts, small to intermediate sized power was generally in desperate need of replacement at the time of the diesel challenge. I’ve already mentioned the Reading’s admirable efforts to modernize/replace their passenger locomotive fleet during the late 40’s.
I’ve become fascinated by the extensive use of tank engines in suburban and commuter service throughout Europe until the very end of steam. In particular, West Germany had their 62,64 and 65 class engines which appear to have been quite successful. I am curious (I’m betting a certain contributor with intimate steam knowledge may be able to enlighten me) what sort of range these engines had between water stops, what sort of tonnage were they designed to handle and what sort of efficiencies were these machines achieving.
I know the railways overseas tinkered around with advanced front end arrangements and feedwater heating to a much greater extent than the US roads, as steam was still very much alive decades after we’d tossed in the towel here.
# 409
Referring to #410, how about tank+tender engines? The adhesion issue is less prominent on branches…
# 410
Mr. Northwest, Sir,
Are you perhaps speaking of an auxiliary tank to extend the range of a tank engine? Not a bad idea, I think. Perhaps a water tank auxiliary for runs too long for the capacity of a tank engine set up for short turn service. I would think coal capacity would be less of a problem. If you make the tender a low profile affair, with the appropriate pilot and headlight setup, the view for the engineer backing up would be no worse than peering past a boiler.
This would add to the potential use of a standardized class of local service tank engines.
# 411
Yes Sir!
Something along the lines of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:46443_Ivatt_at_Bewdley_station.JPG, but Americanized. Combined with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MRSR17.jpg
# 412
The New York Central (Boston and Albany) stayed with tank engines for Boston suburban service right up to dieselization, and some were built as late as 1930. After dieselization of suburban service (mostly Alco road-switchers) I saw one on a transfer freight move at Vasar Street and Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, in the Spring of 1950. They would have been ok as branchline power.
#413
A B&A tank engine in service? Once again you have awakened my envy! I recently stumbled across a website some generous fellow has constructed of the B&A steam roster in the twentieth century. There are some beautiful pictures of the 2-6-6Ts and 4-6-6Ts. The 4-6-6T engines are especially impressive. Their tractive effort rivals Pennsy’s G5s! Given the size of the boiler, European style side tanks would be out of the question. Perhaps some could be fitted to the 2-6-6Ts, but they could not be very large. So, I guess for extending the range, you would have to tack on an auxiliary tender or else factor in frequent service stops.
Saddle tanks, as pictured in Northwest’s post of Hammond 2-8-2T #17, would tend to make an engine pretty top heavy and unsuitable for high speed running, so I guess we would have to stick with side tanks ala Europe for increased water capacity. As stated in the previous paragraph, if the boiler gets to fat, the tanks won’t fit. So, it looks to me as though a general purpose tank engine has a practical limit in size. If you need to move man sized, heavy commuter trains, either the run has to be pretty short or you’re going to have to drag a tender along!
Now if the service demands are not to great, perhaps we could get more bang for our buck with a more efficient small boiler. Set it up to pop at, say, 300lbs, increase the degree of superheat, and trim down the cylinder diameter so it takes smaller gulps of steam to perform the same work and maybe we would have a capable unit. The smaller diameter boiler would allow the side tanks for increased water capacity without the engineer having to employ a periscope for forward viewing and without increasing the engines weight to the point that we have to start laying 152lb rail everywhere!
#414
True, saddle tanks do restrict the speed of the locomotive, but is speed necessary on branches?
For commuter locomotives, be careful with the side tanks, as you don’t want to run into the sloshing instability and derailments suffered by the LB&SCR L class…but this can be helped with a well tank, although they have issues of their own…Any opinions on well tanks?
I agree on the second part of the post. Tanks+tender for branches and just tanks for commuter service.
# 415
A tank locomotive was a locomotive by motivation of running short hauls , suburban lines or ironing yard tracks - tasks not demanding as large supplies as tender locos usually carried around - except for some very light BR class 4 2-6-0 with fixed frame triple axle tenders having but small tank body and coal compartment .
By default to equip a tank loco with an auxiliary tender is a contradiction in itself : why use tanks on the engine frame in the first place when intending to add a tender anyways ? This would represent an unnecessary doubling of equipment needing unnecessary supports and bracing , water lines and connections to feed pump . Further it adds a fluctuation factor to adhesion mass - something basically always unwelcome in view of best exploitation of axle load limit without surpassing it .
With suitable engine to tender articulation , a tender engine without radial axle below firebox end could be tuned to run backwards as fine as forwards . That meant a 2-6-0 , a 2-8-0 or a 4-6-0 could be made to run in switchback service going forwards outbound and running backwards on the return leg . I can see neither need to build a ‘double-bubble’ type of engine having water tanks on both vehicles or part of the combined vehicle , nor would I see anything gained by such a locomotive .
Saddle tanks have been used with locos of small boiler diameter at the same time sitting pretty low so there was enough room on top of the boiler back for high domes and a saddle tank in between . The ensemble probably rarely resulted in a higher pitches center of gravity than with locos having side tanks and higher up boiler center line . Level above rails of center line of gravity was of little meaning for large locomotive running since dynamics of riding were not determined by such extreme factors as relation of engine mass to force needed to lift
#416
Slightly off-topic, but that is precisely one of the reasons the PRR went with the DD1 design (body mounted motor with jackshaft and side rod drive). Conversely this is one aspect where a steam locomotive would produce less stress on the rails compared to a diesel or electric with nose or truck mounted traction motors.
- Erik
#417
I’d think the issue with stability of high-mounted tanks is not so much the high center of gravity as the potential for movement of water in the tanks. If you look at the history of the diagnosed reason for the riding problems with SDP40Fs, you can get a feel for the potential magnitude of this issue.
The fallacy of requiring very low CG for high-speed is as old as the Crampton idea. Debunked then, as well as now. Keeping the frontal area low for less air resistance (which usually produces a lower CG as a by-product) is another story… but even this is a relatively minor factor for trains above large-railcar size…
# 418
Ok , I see - it’s all about who’s comments are most off-topic . So we write about anything but late hour steam and how it might have been extended .
Overmod , the idea of contents of a saddle tank sweeping from side to side across the boiler with high and low tides swaying to and fro is a very bad one . This certainly would not help straight and smooth riding but evoke all kinds of unpredictable movements of the vehicle . That’s why , afaik , saddle tank type of tank engines were never built for anything but shunting or low speed transfer service ( if still anyone should have , it must be considered a gross stupidity )
On lateral thrusts : while full adhesion bogie suspended vehicles with electric traction motors do carry a certain mass concentration in their power bogies , the whole arrangement of vehicle axle guidance , I have to say , is by default superior to that of a classic steam locomotive with powered wheel sets in rigid frame .
It would appear proper amount and characteristics of centerin