This is probably the one I saw in PA.

7964 11/1945 0-4-0F Std 18 ½ x16
Penna. Water & Power Co., Baltimore, Md.
Penna. Power & Light Co. #E-123, Holtwood, Pa.

There were two PP&L fireless locos with radio remote control, #2 at Sunbury and E-123 at Holtwood. Both were done around the same time by Union Switch & Signal Co. (Now part of Ansaldo STS). I worked at US&S at this time, but not directly on these projects. In discussions with those who did work on them an excessive amount of profanity was heaped upon these devices. The adaptation of R/C controls meant for diesels to a steam loco was a highly imperfect feat. The locos were often seen spinning drivers violently when the throttle actuator opened it too much too quickly. There was a lot of "fine tuning" done over a period of months before some degree of successful operation was obtained. Another flaw was the need to run this equipment on batteries, which the gear quickly exhausted, at least at first.

There were two PP&L fireless locos with radio remote control, #2 at Sunbury and E-123 at Holtwood. Both were done around the same time by Union Switch & Signal Co. (Now part of Ansaldo STS). I worked at US&S at this time, but not directly on these projects. In discussions with those who did work on them an excessive amount of profanity was heaped upon these devices. The adaptation of R/C controls meant for diesels to a steam loco was a highly imperfect feat. The locos were often seen spinning drivers violently when the throttle actuator opened it too much too quickly. There was a lot of "fine tuning" done over a period of months before some degree of successful operation was obtained. Another flaw was the need to run this equipment on batteries, which the gear quickly exhausted, at least at first.

PP&L Safe Harbor Porter fireless 123 seen during an excursion layover Oct. 14, 1951 by Warren E. Olt, Md. Rail Heritage Library collection. Before RC fitting.

Speaking of fireless locomotives in museum service...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=40360&p=258159#p258159

According to the press release, they will be using a fireless steam locomotive around the museum grounds...

For the three people still paying attention:

This just came in from the latest set of scans from the volunteer scanners at the Md. Rail Heritage Library:

It's dated 5-18-1969 and labelled "Holtwood," apparently the date of one of the High Iron excursions up and down the Susquehanna with CP Pacifics.

Holtwood is a DIFFERENT hydro dam than Safe Harbor.

This shows the remote control equipment box on the running board. But we still can't figure out the letter or the last digit on the cab. The scanner labelled it "120," but as I recall it was B-129, though it looks like we could argue..... at any rate, it's similar to, but not a perfect match for, the above photo at Safe Harbor.... BUT could the photographer, William Hoffman, have confused the dams/locos?

Now where's my copy of the Koenigsburg steam loco inventory......?

A few more than three I would think.

And those visitors at Safe Harbor are so elegantly dressed for the occasion.

I have an almost identical photo of the Porter at Holtwood I took the same day. Looking at an 8x10 print the number looks to be E 123 on the cab. Up on the cowling there is a faint 5.

Not to question the experts, but here are a few "modifications" based on actual facts:

The dam and power generation station at Safe Harbor was known as the Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation, not "water & power" as so many claim. Sometimes abbreviated "SWPC" or "SHWP". The power was (is) generated by water, potable water was not supplied outside of the Plant. Construction on Safe Harbor dam began in the 1929-1930 time frame.

Holtwood, located downstream from Safe Harbor, at one time also generated power from a coal plant located on-site. The coal section was removed in later years. Holtwood was, in fact, constructed by a company with "water & power" in its name, hence some confusion. Holtwood is older than Safe Harbor by approximately 25 years.

It appears as though PP&L (a principal owner in SHWP) seemed to have shared railroad operations between both plants. SHWP 0-6-0T #65 was assigned to Holtwood during the early 1950's, based on documentation. Subsequent to her use at Holtwood, #65 was returned to Safe Harbor for storage and subsequent sale in 1972.

It appears as though the 1951 color shot was probably taken at Holtwood as there would be little reason for the covered conveyor in the background and the hillside appears to be in the wrong location such shot, though no doubt some will disagree. Also, why would a fireless be needed at a hydro plant? Holtwood made steam for its coal side.

FWIW,
Rob

Hi
I found a slide of Public Service Electric & Gas # 6816, at the old Steamtown site, under Steam, Oct 25th, 1980. This was during Steamtown's Railfan Weekend, this was the only time as far as I know this locomotive was under Steam and moved around the museum site. for this event

Thanks Pat, for the interesting photo and info. Do you know how they steamed her up? From one of the other locomotives?

Les

I believe they filled her from 1278 but that's a lot of years ago.

Regarding FRA, it is my understanding that a fireless locomotive would fall under the applicable sections of Part 230 if being operated on an FRA regulated railroad.I would have to search the preamble for Part 230 regarding any clarification, but they are addressed in this portion of the regulation.

49 CFR Part 230.8 - Definitions
"Service day. Any calendar day that the boiler has steam pressure above atmospheric pressure with fire in the firebox. In the case of a fireless steam locomotive, any calendar day that the boiler has steam pressure above atmospheric pressure."

Mike Ramsey

The fireless steam locomotive vessel is a wet steam accumulator - a technology in use today in plants that highly variable steam loads and do not want to have a big boiler swinging its firing rate to accommodate them, but rather to have a smaller boiler running at an efficient firing rate and use the accumulator as a buffer. A great example of accumulators in transportation service today are aircraft carrier catapults.

Another advantage is that the steam quality to charge the vessel does not have to be perfect because the throttling of steam when it is used will dry it up.

If one calculated the total lbs steam/hr that were required for an operation (museum/tourist, etc.) one could size a water tender and steam generator car(s) to continuously charge the locomotive such that a fireless locomotive or steam locomotive operating from the auxiliary boiler system was able to hold a charge.

Steam generators can be operated on a variety of fuels which may impose less danger to the public and have less operating restrictions than traditional locomotive fuels.

In the case of a fireless, especially in drought areas, it would be interesting to build a condensing tender, perhaps even with axle-driven mechanical fans.

If there is an operation that would be interested in evaluating an opportunity like this, I would be interested in the work. I am presently working on a small scale portable solar steam generator with accumulator system.