No, it's way more complicated than that. It caught my eye the last time I saw 999 (the first time I had seen it since it moved inside, where one can get up close and personal). It's been a couple years, and I'm not sure I totally understand what the original design intent was, or if I can explain it correctly, but the coupler head is pinned to a link on each side that are pinned into a pair of side-by-side pockets on the tender beam. It appears to be a rudimentary form of alignment control coupler. I've never seen anything like it, but remember, this stuff is old... way older than most engines operating at museums, and less modified. Wish there were more photos of that coupler.

Added 11/10/11

Here's a photo of a similar coupler from the 1906 Locomotive Dictionary.



The Gould Coupler Co. calls this a "tender coupler and plate" without further elaboration. It appears to allow lateral motion to match the motion of the drawbar on a long car without the need for a long shank.

Dennis,

That tender coupler is very interesting. I think your theory about its purpose makes a lot of sense.

An interesting difference between the 1893 version on 999 and the Cyclopedia illustration from 1906 is that the coupler on the 999 has "tongues" that fit into slots on the links, while in the 1906 version the links have tongues that fit into slots in the coupler.

The 1906 version also looks a good deal heavier, something to be expected as engines grew in size.

Such a coupler would have no slack or cushioning in it at all, apparently being attached directly to the tender frame or the end sill.

A story with photos of the 999, including one from the rear--!!@#$%&!! small photos!

http://www.michiganrailroads.com/RRHX/S ... oStory.htm

Some other 999 photos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jnos363/se ... 079021400/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15283643@N04/3474279769/

http://www.msichicago.org/whats-here/ex ... ocomotive/

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ytC4bdPtrDE/T ... Geneva.jpg

http://cnymod.blogspot.com/

http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/images/nyc-999.jpg

http://www.sdrm.org/history/timeline/nyc999-1.jpg

This is an interesting shot because of what is in the background. Is that L&N 152? Where and when was this photo taken?

http://www.toytrains1.com/images/trains/nyc999.jpg

I'm not sure I follow. They look like the same linkage setup to me.

Incidentally, while the 999 is famous for the speed record, it ought to get a beauty award, particularly in its as-built configuration. I think that is one mighty fine looking engine.

Functionally it is the same. You have to look closely to see the difference. You might say the coupler fits into the links on the 999, and the links fit into the coupler in 1906 (think male-female arrangements). My guess is the latter arrangement was stronger.

The 999 wasn't the only beauty on the NYC in that time. A locomotive that was almost as famous, and in some ways a little better looking (drivers were slightly smaller, the "leggy" look thus being not so extreme), was the 870:

http://trains-worldexpresses.com/100/111-06m.JPG

For their size, it looks like those little 4-4-0s could pull pretty good:

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-steam-agd.jpg

Back to tender trucks--some Central Pacific locomotives with this body-sprung truck:

http://ironhorsey.files.wordpress.com/2 ... cp_177.jpg

This one was the prototype for Walt Disney's "Lilly Belle:":

http://ironhorsey.files.wordpress.com/2 ... cp_173.jpg

This one is still around:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=320568

Link and pin coupler, and brake beams hung from the tender frame, as was done with many freight cars in this time:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacksnell7 ... 2850788807

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacksnell7 ... 07/detail/

More looking around. Gaudy paint--ugh!

http://www.toytrains1.com/images/trains/cp1.jpg

Did this engine ever wear this in service?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8348059@N02/5493052729/

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 860&nseq=3

This is more like it, if you don't like black:

http://www.evyl.org/tour2001/Day18/GoldenSpike02.jpg

http://www.evyl.org/tour2001/Day18d.htm

Enjoy.

J3a-614,

Those are some great photo references. With several examples of the side sill support truck extant, it should not be too much of a problem finding out what is going on in the largely hidden interior. What I find hard to believe is that I have never seen any drawings or modeling documentation for these types of trucks, nor any reference to a common name identifying them.

The examples of locomotive colors are interesting. It is amazing how good the historically accurate fine artistic application of color looks, and how horrible a lazy modern day interpretation looks. One can certainly appreciate the effort that went into developing those original authentic color schemes. And even those did not just spring up right from the beginning of locomotive paint jobs. On the contrary, those best color schemes and design aesthetics of the post 1850 era seem to be the pinnacle of and evolving achievement.

Regarding your observations about the tender coupler with parallelogram swing links, I have been studying the photos very carefully and have the following conclusion:

1906 ILLUSTRATION: (Viewed from side opposite knuckle):

Links fit into coupler. Coupler has a cast protrusion above and below the link shank. A pivot pin goes through the upper coupler protrusion, then through the link shank, and finally though the lower coupler protrusion. The coupler is female and the link shank is male.


999 REAR OF TENDER PHOTO: (Viewed from knuckle side):

This coupler has the exact same arrangement as the 1906 photo. I think you may be perceiving part of the coupler as being part of the link. Being that the photo is from the knuckle side, there are two hinges right there almost on top of each other in the view of the photo, and it is easy to confuse the knuckle hinge for the link hinge.

The coupler has a male/female arrangement where the knuckle pivots in the coupler body. With that, the coupler body is female and the knuckle is male. The coupler also has a male/female arrangement where the link pivots in the coupler. With that, the coupler body is female and the link is male.

In the photo, the female part of the coupler for the knuckle (the projecting coupler body tabs above and below the knuckle) can appear to be part of that side link rather than part of the coupler body. Then it would appear as though the coupler body were male in relation to the link being female.

I would guess that you could take the link out of the 1906 photo and it would fit right into the arrangement shown in the #999 photo.

Yes I understand what you are saying about the chronology. I am only pointing out that the arrangement used on the Leviathan seems to be quite rare compared to the application of the rear tender truck of the Leviathan for use as both trucks of other locomotive tenders.

I still wonder what these trucks with the direct tender-to-journal box suspension by the big side springs are called. Surely they must have had a common name to designate them since they are an entirely different design concept than any other type of truck. They do not appear in John White’s book on American locomotives. I asked Mr. White about these trucks, but he did not know if they had a common name. He said he thought maybe they were called the “Ohio Truck,” but was not certain.

But from a chronological standpoint, the three-point arrangement of the Leviathan seems to have come early in the phase of these trucks. However, tenders with two of these trucks with the big side springs we are discussing do show up in some of the photos I have seen of Civil War era locomotives. For instance, George Abdill’s book Civil War Railroads, on page 58, shows the E.M. Stanton, of the U.S. Military RR, in 1862, a 2-6-0 built by Richard Norris & Son. The photograph shows the type of trucks we are discussing with the big side springs bearing the load directly to the tops of the journal boxes.

Many of the tender trucks of the Civil War era have floating journal boxes in pedestals with equalizing levers between them. In some cases a big leaf spring acts as the equalization lever, and this arrangement appears somewhat similar to the trucks we are discussing, except the leaf spring used as the equalization lever rides lower on the truck.

Most interestingly, in Abdill’s book, Civil War Railroads, page 125, there is a photo of Wilmington & Weldon RR 4-4-0 named, EDWARD KIDDER, built by Mason in 1866. It has the tender trucks of the design used by HIGHLAND LIGHT, and the LV RR locomotive shown in the original post.

I am bumping this to see if there have been newer insights on this in the past couple of years.

A partial resolution may be in Bruce's book on the Steam Locomotive in America (p.258) where he specifically mentions this truck design as being characteristic of "1860":



I thought it was interesting that, in the drawing which illustrates the truck design, the 'perch' of the long spring is ullustrated as pinned to the center top of the sideframe, and the top is curved a bit like a CCSB where it bears on a short plate probably attached to the tender side sill. The 'telescoping' center pivot arrangement is shown but not described. Note the roller pivots at the spring ends over the journal boxes. I think it would be highly interesting to see some of the 'detail' of the various extant versions of this truck design to see how the springs and the truck rotation were handled as the design had time to evolve in service.

I can't help with the trucks at the beginning of the thread, but there was mention of the trucks used on the early Central Pacific locomotives. http://ironhorsey.files.wordpress.com/2 ... cp_173.jpg I can offer some information the CP design.

The CP-173 truck appears to be identical to the ones on the tender fitted to Imperial Irrigation #151, a circa 1920 0-4-0 with a circa 1870 CP slope back tender. I have a Live Steam Railroad Supply Corporation design CP-173, but neither it nor the Disney design tender trucks are prototypical. When #151 made its appearance at Railfair at CSRM in 1991, I took the opportunity to crawl under it and take a bunch of photos. If there is an interest, I can post them.

The basic design is that iron plate truck bolsters and side frames are one rigid unit. On the front truck the weight is carried by a cross equalizer and links. The rear truck is guided by a ball and socket and supported by side bearings on top of the springs which bear on the tender frame. The trucks on the Governor Stanford are somewhat similar and some of the casting numbers (journal box and cover?) are the same as #151, but the Stanford uses wooden truck bolsters. The Stanford doesn't use the ball and socket on the rear truck. Stanford front and rear appear to be similar, with the weight taken by the side bearings at the top of the springs. (Underlined material has been revised and corrected.)

This style of truck seemed to have disappeared fairly quickly as locomotives were cycled through the shops and they were replaced with something more conventional. It's pretty remarkable that #151 managed to retain such an obsolete design.

Mr. Morris -

Please do post the truck pics. Would be very interested to see them. If you can, please post them here on the board (or at least something other than Flickr).

I'd be very interested in all the detail photos you care to take, especially those that show the detail of the sill-to-spring bearing arrangements and how the spring ends ride over the axleboxes.



This is a composite arrangement that maintains the 'three-point support' for stable riding. I would note, however, that this would almost necessarily involve the required 'side bearings with a much greater clearance' (quoting Bruce) to make the arrangement work -- and this is manifestly not what we see on 999 and most of the other tenders with this arrangement of side springing. So I owuld like to request that someone with access to one of the latter tenders provide some detail pictures of how the front truck is arranged 'different' from the rear, if it indeed is, or if the approach is intended to be like that of a modern freight car with CCSBs without regard to explicit damping.

Rather than further hijack this thread, I'm starting a new one on "Early Central Pacific Tender Trucks."

Just a couple of new photos that have turned up to add to the collection:

http://www.ancestorsofmjr.com/uploads/1 ... 0_orig.gif

http://lariverrailroads.com/cp_sp_locos/sp1303.jpg

Those photos clearly show the external details which seem to be quite consistent throughout the range of application of this class of truck. What is not known is whether this consistency extended to the hidden details such as the center bearing or the bearing points on top of the springs. And still there is the mystery as to what these trucks were called. Certainly, their widespread use, and dramatic departure from normal practice would have acquired a common or generic name.