Railway Preservation News :: View topic

Steve J Jr wrote:

Frisco1522 wrote:

I don't think I ever heard of an engine without a petticoat on the stack. I don't think it would work without one. I could be wrong on this.

I have talked to multiple guys at strasburg and they have told me 475 does not have a petticoat pipe. That is why she sounds very drowned out.

During #475's initial restoration, Robert Yuill supplied us with a packet of miscellaneous drawings for the M class engines, including the original front end arrangement from 1906. No petticoat, just a hole in the top of the smokebox, with the stack bolted on top. Against everybody’s best judgment, Linn declared that we were going to install the front end exactly as shown. The result? The best steamer on the railroad.

Dave Griner is an enthusiastic student of front end design and was certain that the petticoat pipe was part of the design, and was simply omitted from that drawing, and was included in some other drawing that we didn’t have. He was also certain, as was I, that the engine would be a complete failure without one. I saw Dave standing in #475’s gangway as she came into town on his first trip firing her, going by with her usual clear stack and steam just under the pops. I called up, “Dave, so how about all those books you have on front end design?” He replied, “I’m going home and burn ‘em.”

In 1999, our steam Thomas was also set up with no petticoat at all. The result, he is tied with #475 as the best steamer on the railroad.

Thomas is also a soak, but has a bark as sharp as a razor, where #475 sounds like she is talking to you from another room. Of our superheated engines, #89 is the smallest and lightest, and is assigned to the lighter trains, yet she has the loudest bark. I understand that on the C&TS, #463 has the loudest bark, while at the same time is the smallest engine. What to these loud barkers have in common? Straight stacks (aka “shotgun stacks” back in the day). I am becoming more convinced as time goes on that straight stacked engines are inherently louder, possibly due to being slightly restricted at the top of the stack compared to their taper stacked stable mates. That thought then leads me to wonder if the general move toward tapered stacks on steam locomotives was at least partly an effort at noise suppression?

Author:	Steve J Jr [ Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:33 pm ]
Post subject:	NH&I 40 exhaust
Hello all. Been having a squall on facebook about 40's condition given the sound of her exhaust. So I figured, maybe I can get some better answers or opinions on here without any slander. In recent years, she has sounded fairly "drowned out" in her exhaust. Not a nice crisp bark like most locomotives I am used to have. I was told they changed her rings back in 2009 or 2010. However even so, she still sounds a bit off. Here are two videos proving my point, both after new rings were installed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k60aTLvI ... page#t=298 This being a very recent video from the Lerro charter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWyScui6i9U

Author:	Frisco1522 [ Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: NH&I 40 exhaust
Doesn't sound all that bad. One or two spots where she was running a bit faster, maybe she could have been hooked up a notch or two. Some engines have a softer exhaust. My Dad, who was a Frisco engineer always said the MP steam engines always sounded like they were working water. Frisco engines barked! I had forgotten about him saying that and one day we were firing 1522 up when she was stored at Union Station and an older gentleman came up and I invited him up in the cab. We were BSng and he told me he had worked on the MP and said he always liked the Frisco engine bark and said he thought the MP engines always sounded like they were working water. My fireman and I broke out laughing at the one. A lot of Burlington's mikes, etc, had more of a "woofing" exhaust rather than a sharp bark. Just the way the front ends were set up on them.

Author:	Steve J Jr [ Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: NH&I 40 exhaust
That makes sense. But older videos i've seen, she sounds so much better. So it just seems like she's gotten worse. Another thought I had, which based on my observations probably isn't the case, is that 40 could lack a petticoat pipe. Which is why Strasburg's 475 sounds the same.

Author:	junior [ Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: NH&I 40 exhaust
I never noticed 40 to have an overly sharp attack when it came to exhaust...it was always somewhat muffled... Compare here to when it was rebuit in 1991... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTE6fgY_H6k and footage from about 1986.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0obZNKbqm6Q (3:43 for 40 at Reeder) You'll also note those things called "Passengers" gracing many seats on the train in 1991...something not seen often up there any more... I still like 40 wearing 33's whistle

Author:	Nigel Anthony Hewer Day [ Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: NH&I 40 exhaust
Have you got any pictures or drawings of the rings or exhaust system you can show use please.

Railway Preservation News http://www.rypn.org/forums/

NH&I 40 exhaust http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35516	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Jim Robinson [ Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: NH&I 40 exhaust
Unless I'm mistaken, I'm pretty sure 40 isn't superheated. Wetter steam seems to soften the crack of the exhaust (at least to my ears). Steve J Jr. compared 40 to SRC 475. I believe it's the same deal, 475 is a "soak" engine. Sometime just for fun, stand in the same spot (uphill) along the SRC when they're running 2 trains, 1 with superheated 90 and the 2nd with soak 475. Forget the camera, just listen to the difference wetter steam can make to the exhaust crack. Of course this is above and beyond where the reverse lever is set at a given time. I was on the recent Lerro charter and I really didn't notice anything that was too different in the way 40 sounded over her earlier years on the NH&I. Now cross the Delaware River and listen to freshly shopped BR&W 60 (a superheated lok, BTW)... now today that engine sounds MUCH better than it did earlier. BTW, Steve J Jr., if you are who I think you are, just ask your dad, he knows a LOT about steam engines! Regards, Jim Robinson

Author:	Frisco1522 [ Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: NH&I 40 exhaust
I don't think I ever heard of an engine without a petticoat on the stack. I don't think it would work without one. I could be wrong on this. I thought on one of the runbys that I saw the 4 bolt pattern on the side of the smokebox which is usually a superheater header mount. Could be wrong on this too. J. David needs to check in on this one.

Author:	co614 [ Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: NH&I 40 exhaust
# 40 is a saturated engine and as such never had as sharp an exhaust sound as a superheated engine. She's a good puller and has given the NH&I many years of good service. As her engineer each December on the Santa and North Pole trains I can attest to the fact that over the years she has given birth to many new steam fans. All in all she's a good engine for the service she's in. Ross Rowland

Author:	Steve J Jr [ Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:11 am ]
Post subject:	Re: NH&I 40 exhaust
Frisco1522 wrote: I don't think I ever heard of an engine without a petticoat on the stack. I don't think it would work without one. I could be wrong on this. I have talked to multiple guys at strasburg and they have told me 475 does not have a petticoat pipe. That is why she sounds very drowned out. However, someone mentioned about a saturated steam locomotive having a drowned out sound. I disagree with it being that bad. The locomotives at W&W are both saturated and they have a fairly crisp bark to them. A few things that come to mind with 40 are, what about the valve rings? And even if they have been changed, what kind of shape are the cylinder bores in?

Author:	Kelly Anderson [ Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:09 am ]
Post subject:	Re: NH&I 40 exhaust
Steve J Jr wrote: Frisco1522 wrote: I don't think I ever heard of an engine without a petticoat on the stack. I don't think it would work without one. I could be wrong on this. I have talked to multiple guys at strasburg and they have told me 475 does not have a petticoat pipe. That is why she sounds very drowned out. During #475's initial restoration, Robert Yuill supplied us with a packet of miscellaneous drawings for the M class engines, including the original front end arrangement from 1906. No petticoat, just a hole in the top of the smokebox, with the stack bolted on top. Against everybody’s best judgment, Linn declared that we were going to install the front end exactly as shown. The result? The best steamer on the railroad. Dave Griner is an enthusiastic student of front end design and was certain that the petticoat pipe was part of the design, and was simply omitted from that drawing, and was included in some other drawing that we didn’t have. He was also certain, as was I, that the engine would be a complete failure without one. I saw Dave standing in #475’s gangway as she came into town on his first trip firing her, going by with her usual clear stack and steam just under the pops. I called up, “Dave, so how about all those books you have on front end design?” He replied, “I’m going home and burn ‘em.” In 1999, our steam Thomas was also set up with no petticoat at all. The result, he is tied with #475 as the best steamer on the railroad. Thomas is also a soak, but has a bark as sharp as a razor, where #475 sounds like she is talking to you from another room. Of our superheated engines, #89 is the smallest and lightest, and is assigned to the lighter trains, yet she has the loudest bark. I understand that on the C&TS, #463 has the loudest bark, while at the same time is the smallest engine. What to these loud barkers have in common? Straight stacks (aka “shotgun stacks” back in the day). I am becoming more convinced as time goes on that straight stacked engines are inherently louder, possibly due to being slightly restricted at the top of the stack compared to their taper stacked stable mates. That thought then leads me to wonder if the general move toward tapered stacks on steam locomotives was at least partly an effort at noise suppression?

Author:	jasonsobczynski [ Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: NH&I 40 exhaust
Personally I've only been around three locomotives in which someone tried omitting the petticoat. Of those three one finally had it put back in and it was a night and day difference! I'm sure the N&W engineered it out thoroughly, this why it works..... it is, after all, all about proportions and angles.... right? I'm terms of stacks becoming shorter..... Yes they did decrease in height but so did exhaust nozzles all the while smokebox diameters increased, dramatically. Everthing shifted "down" from the exterior perspective. Point being that the overall length of the assembly never changed dramatically much. There were of course variances but...... overall. As I've been writing this I remembered that in one of my books there is about a 50 50 split in designs with or without petticoats. It's from about 1875, I can't think of anything I've come by post 1920 or so which illustrates a lack of petticoats. Cheers, Jason

Author:	Dave [ Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: NH&I 40 exhaust
I'd be very interested in seeing the drawings.......including the exhaust nozzle. dave

Author:	JJG Koopmans [ Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:11 am ]
Post subject:	Re: NH&I 40 exhaust
Kelly Anderson wrote: Steve J Jr wrote: Frisco1522 wrote: I don't think I ever heard of an engine without a petticoat on the stack. I don't think it would work without one. I could be wrong on this. I have talked to multiple guys at strasburg and they have told me 475 does not have a petticoat pipe. That is why she sounds very drowned out. During #475's initial restoration, Robert Yuill supplied us with a packet of miscellaneous drawings for the M class engines, including the original front end arrangement from 1906. No petticoat, just a hole in the top of the smokebox, with the stack bolted on top. Against everybody’s best judgment, Linn declared that we were going to install the front end exactly as shown. The result? The best steamer on the railroad. Dave Griner is an enthusiastic student of front end design and was certain that the petticoat pipe was part of the design, and was simply omitted from that drawing, and was included in some other drawing that we didn’t have. He was also certain, as was I, that the engine would be a complete failure without one. I saw Dave standing in #475’s gangway as she came into town on his first trip firing her, going by with her usual clear stack and steam just under the pops. I called up, “Dave, so how about all those books you have on front end design?” He replied, “I’m going home and burn ‘em.” In 1999, our steam Thomas was also set up with no petticoat at all. The result, he is tied with #475 as the best steamer on the railroad. Thomas is also a soak, but has a bark as sharp as a razor, where #475 sounds like she is talking to you from another room. Of our superheated engines, #89 is the smallest and lightest, and is assigned to the lighter trains, yet she has the loudest bark. I understand that on the C&TS, #463 has the loudest bark, while at the same time is the smallest engine. What to these loud barkers have in common? Straight stacks (aka “shotgun stacks” back in the day). I am becoming more convinced as time goes on that straight stacked engines are inherently louder, possibly due to being slightly restricted at the top of the stack compared to their taper stacked stable mates. That thought then leads me to wonder if the general move toward tapered stacks on steam locomotives was at least partly an effort at noise suppression? In the Proceedings of the Master Mechanics Association of June 1906 there is a "Report of Committee on Locomotive Front Ends". Member was Prof. Goss among others. Part of the report covers 15 tests with all kind of chimneys en 85 tests with all kind of arrangements of petticoats. The report states:"..no possible combination of single draft pipe and stack could be found which gave a better draft than could be obtained by the use of a properly proportioned stack without the draft pipe". The conclusion for double draft pipes was identical. The test were done on NY Central Atlantic No 3929. At least some people must have read that report! As for the remark on tapered stacks. Around 1864 the German Pruesmann found that tapered stacks improved smokebox vacuum. Since it is an improvement of course the noise will soften. The perfect stack makes no noise! Kind regards Jos Koopmans

Author:	jasonsobczynski [ Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:15 am ]
Post subject:	Re: NH&I 40 exhaust
I've read that report, found it available through an on-demand book shop. All of this technology (at some point) was developmental and evolved with size and defend. Along the lines of what worked for a model T won't work for a '57 chevy. Look at superheaters, I have a Baldwin advert from..... I don't remember exactly what year other than around the time that superheaters began to be applied..... literally saying "don't be fooled by claims of efficiency in superheat" "tests prove a decrease in efficiency with to high a level of superheat" "use Baldwin superheaters, our superheaters only increase the temperature up to 30º, just enough to dry it out".

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/