I've been to a couple different regional runs of the little guys, sometimes paired with Scott Simons tank engine as well.

They did just fine on the Arcade & Attica with a couple DL&W coaches, about dead flat though.

They also did fine on the Oil Creek & Titusville, but getting water to them was a challenge as they aren't superheated, and go through water like you wouldn't believe under a load - even relatively flat water level grade. That was also a LONG run on the OC&T.

The only place I've 'heard', but not personally seen, that was an abject failure was going up the ex-EL grade out of Gowanda, NY on the NYLE with Simons tank engine - which is like 2 - 2.5%. Didn't make it with one Lackawanna MU coach. Had the TE but kept running out of steam.

These guys know their locomotive and what it can do, and the limitations, but it's up to you to let them know the grades, tonnage and cars expected, etc.

First it seems condolences to the Gramlings are in order, so my condolences-there's not much else you can say, especially when the departure is relatively premature. I only met the gents once, when they brought "Hank" to Scranton, but they seemed to be exceptionally nice folks and I wish them some peace as time goes on.

"In 2010, the first year Railroad Museum of New England had a visiting Gramling locomotive, 0-4-0T #75 took three Canadian National coaches, at 140,000 lbs each, up two miles of 1.15% grade at Thomaston, Conn. This was from a standing start on about .5% grade at Thomaston Station. Speed was about 10 mph. Rated tractive effort is about 16,500 lbs for #75.

The tank locomotives have smaller boilers than equivalent "road engines" of about the same size, which limits reserve steaming capacity. That was apparent from our experiment. The fireman (John Gramling, as I recall), was shoveling furiously!"

As a sort of upper limit assuming perfect conditions, it's useful to remember that in addition to whatever rolling resistance is encountered, as you ascend or descend a grade, the pull up or down will the net result of a horizontal and vertical vector.

When trying to determine what a theoretical maximum load CNJ113 might be able pull to Moscow a few years back, I discovered that due to a happy accident of trigonometry and physics that on any grade a railroad is likely to encounter, (assuming the entire train is on a constant grade) that the "percent grade" (rise/run) can be multiplied by the train weight to determine the force due to gravity. Perhaps somebody can say if that's why the grades were rated by percentage, rather than angle

Three coaches at 140,000 pounds each are 420,000 pounds. Add 150 or so passengers weighing on average 150 pounds each would be another 22,500. Just for a safety factor, we'll round to the nearest 5,000 so the train weight is 445,000.

On a 1.15% grade, that means that of the locomotive's 16,500 pounds of starting tractive effort, just under 5120 pounds of the locomotive's starting TE is used just to overcome the force of gravity, leaving 11,000 available to overcome the force of rolling resistance and accelerate the train. Of course this is "blackboard economics", to quote the late Ronald Coase. It is assumes that rated tractive effort is accurate, your coefficient of friction unimpaired by leaves, oil or water on the rail and the physical conditioning of your human fuel injector, you have decent coal, it's not sloppy wet slurry filled mess thanks to pouring rain...

Now what speed you'll get to attain is dependent on many things. Starting tractive effort is the maximum. The same Baldwin 26 (rated TE 29,000Lbs) that can pull three coaches at her rule book maximum of 15 mph to the west end of Nay Aug Tunnel with a cheery hot fire and 175 of its 180 max on the gauge, with a past his prime student fireman on a hot summer day, flustered an experienced hand going to Carbondale 25 years ago on a much more sedate grade, because it was so cold you could feel the coach floor through your Sears steel toe rubber sole-in large part because the steam going to the coaches, plus pulling three coaches and it demanded more coal than the ashpan was designed to handle, so the draft was being killed by the buildup. I think we stopped three or for times Northbound, that day. Going the same route without parasitic losses is a challenge, but one that can be done with skillful fire management.

It is interesting to compare various locomotives power and dimensions to consider what they can actually do. CNJ 113 is rated for something like 46,000 pounds of tractive effort, which compares favorably with most Pacific types, such as the K-4 which has 44,000. Even its firebox is in the same ball park, with 67.7 square feel of firebox area, whereas the K-4 has 69.8. Although the CN 3254 was rated for more TE than the CP2317, it's design and perhaps size of the firebox/boiler seemed worlds apart to me. As a student, 2317 was such a forgiving engine to fire, where as 3254 required you to watch it like a hawk, because if you got behind, it was tough to get it right.

There is, or was a video online of 113 pulling a 2000 ton train. I wish that a dynomometer car could be hooked up. It would be fun to run the date through a computer doing least squares curve estimation, rather than by hand with french curves, as I suspect was done in the old days.

I've been reading this thread with much interest. I have in my collection a very nice Baldwin 'Illustrated Catalogue of Locomotives and Detail Parts', dating from somewhere between 1907 and 1911, per the original owners inscription on the inside cover.

This book has some nice drawings of BLW's offering, and charts showing just what an engine will pull on various grades. I was not able to match anything up with the specs for the Gramling locomotives, like cylinders, BP and driver diameter, but perhaps the most important number is the tractive effort. I did go with what looked like the closest locomotives, though, in terms of TE.

Flag Coal 75, per published data, is capable of 14,447 pounds of tractive effort. A BLW 0-4-0T, class 4-22 C rated at 14,530 pounds TE, can handle 1600 long tons (2240 lbs.) on the level, 725 tons on a 1/2 percent grade, 445 on a 1 percent grade, 320 in a 1.5 percent and so forth, going down to 160 tons on a 3 percent.

Lehigh Coal 126 has a TE of 17,831. The closest thing BLW offered in a tank engine is a little bigger, class 6-26 D, with 18,980 pounds TE. The rating here is 2090 long tons on the level, 945 tons on a 1/2 percent, 580 on a 1 percent, and 415 on a 1.5 percent. on a 3 percent, the rating is 210 tons.

These ratings are really based on TE, which is a function of the mechanical dimensions of a locomotive and the boiler pressure. As Howard pointed out earlier, tank engines are under boilered; the boiler may not be able to keep up with the steam demand of the cylinders, experienced fireman or not. They aren't exactly superpower!

Hope this helps. And note that these ratings are in long tons.

Generalizing from those tractive effort numbers and pulling a number out of the air for the car weights - let’s call the cabooses and open air car 60,000 lbs each, a three car train would weigh in at 80 long tons. So if you’re not trying to break the land speed record on a 0.6% grade, I’d be tempted to say these locos very capable.

Several posts in this thread mentioned that an engine with a small boiler might not be able to meet steam demand going uphill, and would have to work on stored steam. While I grant you this is true, I must qualify that by saying "true of coal burners".

The harder you work an oil burner, the better they steam. This means that going uphill, you just turn everything up until you have it covered. The flip side, also mentioned in several posts, is that this kind of treatment is hard on the engine. No doubt about it, and railroad operating departments tend to take one of two opposing viewpoints on this --- either they want you to not abuse the equipment as their top priority, or they want you to get your train over the road. It's a trade off, and every different operation involves different parameters, so IMHO, there is no valid one-size-fits-all approach.

New Hope Valley's 0-4-0T has similar TE to Cliffside 110 - hopefully the next in line for them - but the 110 has a seriously larger boiler. I think it would allow for larger trains and fewer potential operating issues as the 17's firebox gets ever older...... and 17 can replace the diesel used as the switch engine at the throat of the yard. First time I fired 17 went fine down the grade steaming freely with no problem holding 2/3 a glass of water..... but then we hit the level at the bridge and where did it go all of a sudden? I support them by remote control only these days unfortunately.

Sorry, PM posted by accident...

I can't speak for the Gramlings, but I used to run a 55 ton 0-6-0t on fairly level track, and it had no problems with a seven car plus caboose train. The toughest pull we had was in freight service, moving 16 loaded three bay covered hoppers (grain). In both cases, it kept steam fine, running half hooked up at 15mph.

The real issue with little engines like the 44 Tonner that I used to run is not how much they can pull, but how much tonnage can they safely stop. Just my $.02.

Where would have this 0-6-0 run at, and was it on a shortline?

Queen Anne's Railroad / Delaware Coast Line Railroad.
1992-1996 era. Georgetown, DE to Lewes, DE - ex-PRR

Suprised to see the previous comment, "How much tonnage can they safely stop?" Those locomotives have full air brake systems, engine and train. Unless you are trying to make all of your stops with the independent (sometimes called the 'joker'), you will be able to stop anything you can start. It is not like pulling a U-haul trailer with a tiny Smart Car.

Is that a USATC S100 that didn't go overseas?

Phil Mulligan

I have never met the Gramlings and only know of her through the TV series I saw on streaming, but I'm of course quite saddened to hear this.

We (RMNE/NAUG) have hosted FC 75 and LVC 126 several times respectively. The consist was three CN heavyweights. The trips were about 10 miles and we ran them no more than 10 mph. They did what we asked of them. The Gramlings are great folks and we enjoyed working with them. Their engines provided a nice introduction to steam operations. Sure left me hungry for more!