Watched a few of the videos from this weekend. That is a heck of a coal bunker enhancement. The as built capacity was 22 tons or there abouts. Anyone know what the new capacity is? The tender looks like it's riding low on the front.

(Too bad FWRHS doesn't have one of those ACL northern tenders with its 27 ton, 24,000 gal capacities. Or a C&O Kanawha tender with its 30 ton, 21,000 gal capacities.)

I have seen multiple times that it is about 6 more tons. Butninwould wait to hear from one of the FWRHS guys before I place my bets.

Good news is that it appears the modifications to the tender are not irreversible. I fully understand the operational need to maximize tender capacity.

On some of these restorations where the entire tank superstructure gets replaced, it would be intriguing if someone did one where much more of the space was given over to coal ala some of the NYC and PRR tenders that were dependent on track pans. In this case it would be based on always having a canteen or two.

Wow, a "high cube" tender!

It would be interesting to hear the cost and servicing benefits of adding 6 more tons of capacity (or whatever the amount is). Didn't the former 22 ton capacity provide about 250 miles of range with normal running?

As mentioned, I hope this change is easily reversible.

If you dig really deep, I think you will find the Rowland modified the 614 by enlarging the coal space by making a smaller water space, effectively committing to permanent operation with an auxiliary water tender.

I don't know if he modified it or not. However, even without modern modifications, for many locomotives, the historical methods of operation were that the engine took water more often than it took on coal. The engine would take on water at intermediate points, meaning that the water capacity didn't have to be as large. Of course not all operations were this way, and in some cases they did have provisions for taking coal en route, but often the fuel capacity was larger than water capacity since it was easier to take water. In some cases, like the NYC Hudsons with track scoops, it was rather unbalanced.

Getting back to today's operations, if the logistics of the trip don't allow taking water en route, or there is a question of the water quality, a canteen may be needed even if the tender isn't modified.

Actually, I think the information on 614's coal bunker was in the sale flyer back 10-15 years ago when Mr. Rowland was selling the locomotive.

It is easily reversible.

The cost benefit largely revolves around whether we want a diesel in the consist or no diesel...

This comment suggests not having the diesel results in higher coal consumption, a logical conclusion to having the steam engine do all the work.

It also says something about the close margin for running without the diesel.

That in turn reminds me of some stories about C&O Kanawha operations on the line from Russell, Ky. to Cincinnati, Oh. In an article on C&O fast freight operations, the late David P. Morgan noted that the K4s were intended to run from Russell to Cincinnati non-stop--a distance of 106 miles--with up to 100 cars. His description of the operation was indeed colorful, with the freight crew loafing out of Russell westbound, waiting for the "George Washington" to overtake them. With a cry of "Here she comes!" from the fireman, the passenger job passed the cab in (I'm working from memory, feel free to correct if needed) "a crash of sound, a blur of E-units and blue and yellow and roller bearings."

After this train had passed, the engineer opened up his Kanawha. The general routine was for the George Washington to pass this scheduled freight, and then the engineer would run behind it, crossing over to run left hand much of the way, including through a station in Kentucky where there would be a local on the right hand main as both the George Washington and the freight barrelled through, the latter following the former by minutes and matching its speed.

In Stuart Leuthner's "The Railroaders," a former C&O engineer echoed much of this. He commented that manifest freight out of Russell was supposed to run non-stop to Cincinnati. He said it was not uncommon for the tender to be nearly out of coal and water by the time they got the train into the yard with 100 cars, but if the boiler was full, that was enough to get the engine off and to the engine terminal, and that was considered passable. He mentioned one other fellow bragged about doing this run with 106 cars--but he had not only an empty tender, but low water in the boiler, and he had to take water to get the train into the yard!

I wonder if C&O wasn't operating on a rather tight margin for the water supply in K4 tenders.

I know for a fact that 614's coal bunker was extended into the water tank space from it's original configuration. I want to say that the extra stoker screw came from RDG 2101?

On a related note, what is the progress, if any on 765's own aux tender? I know they initially borrowed VMT's for the beginnings of the 21st Century Steam program, but it appears that they still are.

J3a-614:

Very interesting story by D.P.M. and Mr. Leuthner. Thanks for the posting. Next time I walk by Kanawha 2789 in the HVRM Shop, I'll toss her a salute!

Les

My recollection was that Railfan/R&R Magazine reported at the time of 614's 1980 rebuild that the coal bunker was effectively doubled in size, for a total capacity of 48 tons, making it the largest coal-capacity tender ever put in service anywhere, marginally larger than the 45 tons of the NYC Niagaras.