Folks, I'm watching this week's train video on RFD, and it is on the NYC in Indiana during the '50s. Good stuff, great sound. I don't know alot about steam engine differences and pieces/parts, and I noticed that on a couple of the tenders (6 axles) for some of the units (3103 and 3129 to name two, 4-6-2, I think they were referred to as "Mohawks"?), there was a little access door. It was on the engineer's side (I at least know that much ), in the middle of the tender lengthwise, on the bottom of the side (right under the "YORK" of "NEW YORK CENTRAL"), appox. 2 ft. square, and appeared to be right up against the angled rear wall of the coal bunker itself. In one or two shots, I noticed some steam coming out of there occasionally, and on other shots I could see some "staining" just under the door where some liquid obviously leaked out on occasion. My question is: What would be steam powered in that area of the tender? Was there some kind of 'pre-heater' installed in those tenders, or just something to keep the water in there from freezing in the winter? Any ideas? ---jps
You might be seeing an access door to the tender scoop, used for taking water on the fly from track pans full of water laid between the rails. Are those serial numbers actual? There were several different Mohawk models, last of which were L-3 and L-4. They were 4-8-2's. :teeth:
The engines I saw were in fact 4-8-2s. When I paused the video and wrote the post, the front driver pair was hidden from view, and I didn't notice my error until later on. I also noticed a similar door on one of the "centipede" tenders too. I have heard of that track pan trick NYC tried. But that wouldn't explain the steam that I saw escaping from that hatch. ---jps
You are right, the steam wouldn't be there due to the scoop, the scoops were activated by compressed air. Mohawk tenders had steam connections with the engine. For one thing, they used an injector as one method of pumping water to the boiler, and an injector used steam as a method of propelling the water, in a venturi type of action, so the steam was routed back to the tender for that. The tender also contained a stoker engine, and I don't know how that operated. Someone else, like LEW or Roger will have to comment on that. I suspect it was steam operated, as the 28psi or so from the compressed air wouldn't have enough "oomph" to drive that screw. :teeth: Regarding the track pan, water scoop operation on the New York Central, it wasn't a trick and it wasn't "tried," it was used extensively to extend the range of steam locomotives on the road. There were track pans in many locations along the main line and they were used all the time. That's one reason the Mohawk tenders only had a water capacity of 15,500 gallons, as they could be replenished by scooping. They had 43 tons of coal, which would take them a lot further than 15,500 gallons of water. :teeth:
Jim, there was a TB thread on NYC water pans and scoops a number of years ago, including photos of scooping on the fly, and one of a tender that got ballooned because its overflow vents plugged while scooping. I don't remember how to search the TB archives, do you?
Tenders How about the steam for the coal pusher.The coal pusher was used to push the coal down on the slope sheet of the tender to keep the coal in the conveyer of the tender when the coal was low. You will notice a large cylinder on the slope sheet of the tenders equipped with this feature. LEW
Thanks, LEW, I didn't realize that the coal pusher was steam operated. Am I right about the stoker? Hank, I haven't tried the new search function. On the old site it was very tedious and long. I think we both contributed to that old thread. I know in trying to answer the original question here I dug out some old Trainshed Cyclopedias, including the one on scooping water at 80mph on the NY Central, with a Mohawk. :teeth:
I remember experiencing the pans at Cold Spring, both from trackside and from onboard. My first experience was when I was onboard, our windows suddenly became totally obscured by heavy spray....couldn't see a darn thing for at least 5-10 minutes. Have no idea where our car was in the consist, but having seen the spray from trackside, the car could have been still back at Harmon for all the spray!
tenders I think you will find that MOST stoker engines on the NYC were under the cab. The engines connected by a driveshaft to gears at the rear of the tender trough which turned the screw bringing the coal forward to be spread in the firebox by the jets. LEW
Some interesting info, thanks guys! Oh, you mean like a turbo, where the steam would turn a turbine-looking impeller, which turns a shaft, which turns the pump? Don't steam engines use the same method to turn electrical generators and compressors too (henceforth the high-pitched jet-like sounds that eminate from late steam engines)? Come to think of it, I had heard such a sound in the area of the cab/tender on one roll-by in this past week's video, and I wondered if the microphone was simply located a little further down, or if there was something like that back there. I see. I was under the impression that it was something that was only used in limited locations, for a limited number of units, and for a limited time (I didn't mean to "pan" it...). When I was looking at those tenders, I did think that the water capacity appeared lacking compared to the coal bunker. Not to re-hash the archived track pan thread, but were they used system-wide (I would assume it would at least be limited to the mainlines), or just in certain corridors? ---jps
Injectors didn't involve any rotating machinery. They worked on the venturi principle, and man, I have been out of school for over 40 years, but it involves speed of steam vs. speed of water, and just involves nozzles which when steam is shot through them, reduces the pressure around them and lets the water follow the steam, and eventually the steam dissipates and becomes water itself. The image is from "Basic Steam Locomotive Maintenance," by Buell, and it is just one of many different types of injectors or "inspirators" as they were also known. As far as the NYCS track pans go, according to official documents of the railroad published in 1943, there were 25 locations of track pans, and the main function was to keep the name trains like the 20th Century Ltd and the Empire State Express on time, making it from New York to Chicago and vice-versa in 16 hours. Normally steam engines had to stop about every 100 miles to take on water. The track pans eliminated these stops. Later I will put on a photo of a NYCS train taking water from the pans. It was pretty spectacular. The competing Pennsy also used them extensively and there is a good writeup about the pans here on the net. I just have to find the address of it. :yes:
Uh, I think we have three different subjects going here...in addition to track pans: 1) Injectors; 2) Stokers; and 3) Hammers (for loosening coal in tender bins) However, I have been wrong before and am undoubtedly wrong here. :embarassed: :teeth: :teeth:
Hank, you are not wrong. We just seem to expand the scope of these messages. It's OK with me as long as the forum keeps going. I think I have a pic of the coal pusher that LEW brought up. Got to find it. :yes:
Okay, I think I got "venturi" confused with "centrifugal" anyway. Sure. Was the "Empire State Express" a perishable or 'fast' freight? ---jps
This was "back in the day" as everyone says now. The Empire State Express was a passenger train, and one of the NY Central's finest. Upper management got very upset if this train, like the 20th Century Limited, was not on time at every scheduled stop. In 1944, it only ran from New York city to Cleveland, whereas the Century ran all the way to Chicago. Back then, the ESE left Grand Central in NYC at 0900 and arrived in Buffalo at 1700, went on to Cleveland by 2040. "Back in the day," most people did not own cars, and most travel was by train. Business executives in banking and show business and other industries travelled on these trains. At that time the Central had a four track mainline most of the way, with two tracks for freight, one eastbound and one westbound, and two tracks for passenger, eastbound and westbound.. Those were the glory days. Passenger trains always lost money for the company, but freight made up for it. In some ways, that is why class 1's do not run passenger anymore, and Amtrak can't make money. :sad:
Jim, I wasn't complaining, just enjoying how this topic was wandering through the many aspects of "Tenders".:teeth: Referencing your latest post...did through freights take water on the fly? We always talk about passenger trains using pans to reduce schedule, but rarely mention freights in this context. By the way, the inner tracks of four-track mains also allowed express passenger trains to pass locals. This was especially true on the Hudson Division with all the commuter trafffic between GCT and Poughkeepsie.
I see. I thought all of NYC's high-end passenger trains had "ltd", like Burlington's Zephyrs and Santa Fe's Chief's. I was then going to ask if there were any 'fast' or perishable freights that used the track pans too. And even if you did, few ran well at today's highway speeds, and there were no highways to hustle down. Airlines were still limited, especially during the war. Really? I knew that practically all trains were losing money in the Sixties, but were they actually losing money in the '30s and '40s too? ---jps
You guys are testing my knowledge base. Hank, I don't know if any fast freights used the water pans, but Mohawk tenders had the scoops. Of course, Mohawks were used for both passenger and freights. Maybe LEW or Roger can answer that one. :sad: I know that at some point the passenger trains made money, before the highway and airline competition. During WWII traffic on the RR's was monstrous, but it wasn't long after the war that there were no profits on passenger. Look at what they did: Offered sleeping accommodations for relatively few people per car, plus fantastic dining service. If you find old timetables and ads you see they charged what? $2 for a great dinner back then? Fares were cheap too. The Limiteds and their like were "extra fare" which was a couple of bucks from NY to Chi. I just wish it was still like that rather than the gummint doing everything in its power to kill Amtrak. :sad:
JPS, a few answers to your questions, observations, etc. Most of the Central's passenger trains had non-"Limited" or "Express" names, e.g. Pacemaker, Commodore Vanderbilt, Wolverine, Laurention, just to name a few. The eastern railroads ran their express passenger trains at much faster speeds than cars were able to drive until the late 1960's when the Interstate became available. Federal highways east of the Mississippi River had speed limits in the 50-55 mph range, and State highway speed limits were 40-50. As an example, the Central and the Pennsy ran their extra-fare trains, the 20th Century Limited and the Broadway Limited respectively, from New York to Chicago in under 16 hours. You can drive this same distance in the same time today only because of the Interstate system. If you had to rely on the older federal highway system, it would still take at least 24 hours, if not longer. Purely passenger trains had always lost money. Railroads accepted the loss because they considered that providing excellent service, especially to business customers was good advertising demonstrating the efficiency and excellence of their company, so they wrote off the losses as marketing expenses. Besides, the railroads were also carrying mail and parcels on passenger trains, which was profitable. Airlines, automobiles, and cheap fuel are what killed rail passenger service, that and the Federal Government cancelling mail contracts.
tenders The men on the main line told me they picked up water on the fly with the freight trains also. Hank you are correct.There were many things that caused the end of the passenger train.Also the interstates made the trucks a competitor that the railroads had to change their thinking to compete with. LEW
