This week's video was of Pennsy in Ohio, and lo-and-behold, there were similar doors on the engineer's side of some of those tenders too. ---jps
Besides the New York Central, only a few other roads used track pans, and Pennsy was one of them. I'm certain they used injectors probably more than feedwater heaters, as well. I know little about Pennsy power but would guess that a lot of their steamers used two injectors for water movement. Can anyone verify that fact?
Steam Locos All modern steam locos (i.e. for simplicity's sake- Class 1; post Great War) had FWHs and multiple injectors. The Pennsy did not use (although given their 3,000 or so locos, all things are probable) Loco Soperheater Company FWHs, but rather Worthingtons. The most common of which, were mounted (mostly) on fireman's side of boiler at running board height. FWHs used feedwater pumps. As Boiler pressure went up, forcing water into boiler by venturi alone, became more problematic. Not only that in an engine using 300 PSI+... the construction of the injectors had to be beefed up and so would their cost. Never doubt that these managers would choose the immediately cheapest route, regardless of long term benefits of investing a few dollars more. If you are a baseball fan, you are aware of the expression that you will never go wrong by over estimating the stupidity of a Red Sox manager. Joe McCarthy, and Dick Williams are regarded as the only two smart ones in seventy-five years. Whether that represented the strategies of General Managers, who didn't want any threats to their jobs around; or the desire of the owner Tom Yawkey, to have racist bigots of similar ethnicity around to make him feel comfortable, is beside the point. The net result was that they failed at critical junctions to win. In the case of railway management the net result was similar, regardless of the rationale. Crappy power reverses , built cheaply, cost many injuries. Despite obvious benefits from putting relatively cheap hand brakes on tenders or engines North American railroads had none. DEs had them on board initially, because GM put them there. Only Colvin, in his spare autobiography mentions his talks with managers about the phenomenon of penny wise and pound foolish behaviour. Nevertheless, the reason 'A' , is not being discussed here in this thread. Track pans, were a major factor in maintaining fast passenger and freight service in trunk line territory. The most extensive were, as previously noted, the NYC's (who had the largest non commuter passenger service), and the Pennsy. Between them they ran approximately one third of all express passenger trains in NA. The B&O, Alton, and the CNJ-Reading- B&O joint line in New Jersey had track pans.The New Haven either had them, or was going to install them, if they did not electrify their south western end, from what I read on that road. So CNJ camelback 4-6-0s had tender scoops, along with the Pennsy's Atlantics and Pacifics, and NYC Hudsons and Mohawks; that most folks see in their minds eye, when the subject of locos creating plumes of water racing across track pans is brought to mind. Good-Luck, PJB
This week was Indiana Interurban. No track pans. But I thank all who participated in this thread. It was pretty interesting finding out some of the inner workings of these beasts. ---jps
Think of something else in the history of those great railroads. We like to keep these fallen flag forums active, and the discussions are always interesting and educational. :teeth: I got up close to a couple of my favorite subjects this last weekend. This was at Oaks Park in Portland, OR, where this engine sat rusting until restored by the Pacific Railroad Preservation Association. They ran short excursions last weekend. Spokane, Portland and Seattle 700, a beauty. [img]http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/876/sherwood6212.jpg[/img]
Speaking of the 16 hour Chicago-New York run, were the track pan equipped steam engines then able to make the entire shot w/o coaling or watering on the way? If not, did they just coal/water the engines and send them on, or did they swap out engines and crews on the way ala pony express? Were the first passenger diesels able to make that run w/o refueling/rewatering? ---jps
I believe that both Hudsons and Niagras carried sufficient coal in long-distance tenders to make the entire distance between Harmon to Chicago without coaling. IIRC, the tenders held 26 Tons. I can't speak about intermediate fueling for early passenger diesels, but they did not need to be watered. Diesels use water for engine cooling, but like the automobile it was, and is a closed cycle using radiators. Passenger diesels also used water for train steam heat, but carried enough water for the entire run.
I need to do a little research. Not sure if the engines ran all the way through, but it's not because they didn't have the capability. Territorial restrictions, maybe. I'll be back to you. :embarassed:
I have no personal knowledge of the steam operations back then, but in looking through all my NY Central books, they were obviously written by the PR people. No details on operations. I know there was a big coaling facility in western NY, Can't remember the name of the town. I am just putting up thoughts from here on. The NYC streamlined 10 locomotives for the 20th Century Limited. It ran NY-CHI once a day, actually two trains, one each direction. I'm guessing that power was changed, probably more than once in each direction. Compare the Empire State Express, only two engines done specifically for it, but it only ran to Buffalo as far as I remember, so probably didn't need engine changes. Anyone out there who really knows the facts?
The steamers had to coal at Weedsport, NY, timetable stop. The diesels probably watered at Toledo, Collinwood, Buffalo and Syracuse, possibly Albany, water tanks were small on diesels. They probably fueled at Collinwood and Syracuse, or maybe just Buffalo. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
RIDING THE LIMITED'S LOCOMOTIVES Gentlemen: In the thirties Howard Hill, who was an engineer that worked for an oil company that developped valve oil to withstand the conditions created by using higher pressure , superheated steam in locomotives coming into use at that time, got a chance to ride the TWENTIETH CENTURY and the BROADWAY LIMITED in their loco cabs from end to end of their runs. He may have been the only person (certainly as an outsider) to actually stay on board for the whole run in the cab. He was given the privilege because of his job and the importance of producing new quality steam valve oil. Regardless of that, he provides in this book detailed accounts of the trip. Which, incidentally, includes a ride with Charley Butterworth on the right hand side out of Harmon. The locos involved were NYC J class Hudsons. The Broadway had Pennsy K-4 Pacifics, that doubled the Alleghenies out of Altoona. I believe you will find this book very informative. It also includes a section where he discusses the problems of producing valve oil for use on N&W 'A' class locos. Hill served in WW2 and was an important officer in developping the Army's Railway Service during the war. The Book,( which you are lucky for it can be obtained for a modest amount from ABE.AddAll,Alibris, or whomsoever is your favorite used book service) is as good an investment as you can make if you wish a look , when at their pinnacle, of high speed passenger steam express train operations is: RIDING THE LIMITED'S LOCOMOTIVES; Hill, Howard; Superior Publishing, Seattle, 1972 You won't be disappointed, and not much that costs so little, exists in railroad literature. Good-Luck,pjb
pjb, thanks for the tip. I have found that book on Alibris and ordered a copy. Did Mr. Hill mention in his book if, and when and where the limiteds stopped for coal? Thanks. :happy19pb:
The Answers, from Mr. Hill's Book This will be a long message, multiple parts. First, I would like to thank pjb for alerting me to Mr. Hill's wonderful book. I obtained a copy through Alibris and have pretty much finished it. I hope this rewording of his great prose will answer some of the questions that came up on this thread.:shade: I was right about the territorial question, early on in the NY Central history. Engines were not allowed to stray from their own division, so many engine changes were made in the early days running from New York to Chicago. The company realized that this was costing them time and money, changed philosophy, and let the engines run till they ran out of fuel. Mr. Hill's account of his 1931 ride in the cab of the Twentieth Century Limited is quite fascinating. I'll skip the electric parts, Grand Central to Harmon and Collinwood to Cleveland Union Terminal. Harmon-He boarded the cab of J-1d 5302 and had the (what must have been wonderful) experience of riding with Bob Butterfield, one of NYC's most famous steam hoggers, to Albany. Speed limit on the Hudson division was 65, and Bob didn't exceed it, despite being held up by wet rails, 45 MPH limits in the track pans, taking water, at Clinton Point and Tivoli. They arrived at Albany on time. Stopped for crew change then proceeded on the Mohawk division, speed limit 75. Next stop Utica, 1 minute, then Syracuse, 15 minutes, switching cars. The next SERVICE stop was at Waynesport, NY, to take on coal, 4 minutes. Would like to have seen that coal dump. Next stop was Rochester, for passengers, hit more track pans and stopped at Buffalo. Highballled out of there for Collinwood, where the engine was swapped. 5302 had run 581 miles. Mr. Hill reported that 5302 was a "hard riding engine". The next steamer was J-1b 5246 from Linndale west. First stop Toledo, crew change, then Elkhart, crew change, then Englewood, which is basically Chicago, all on time. Summary: No water stops, one coal stop, one engine swap, 900 plus miles. That was the NEW YORK CENTRAL. Wouldn't it be great if we could experience this today?mg:
Thanks Jim, that is very informative. BTW, the Century HAD to be within 15 minutes of the advertised at ALL stops. She was an Extra-Fare train. If she missed her time for ANY reason, the extra fare was immediately refunded without question. Now that is service....!
