Let's stir up the pot some more!
Where was (is) the last American-built steam running in the world in some kind of regular fashion?
Not just charters for railfans!

denmeg_hogan@msn.com

> Norfolk and Western built steam at there Roanoke shops as late as 1953, however I believe the newest surviving example of their work is the 611 built in 1950. Alco stoped building steam before 1950 however Baldwin continued building steam locomomtives for export and the US army as late as 1953 also. Though I cannot be positive, i believe the last steam engines built by Baldwin were a group of 2-8-0s built for the Guaiaquil and Quito Ry (I hope I spelled that right) at least two of which are still operable according to Trains Unlimited Tours. They are probably some of the only steam engines actually built by Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton because of the merge of the three companies around 1950. I have heard rumors that Baldwin also built a fleet of WF pacifics for the Indian Railways later in the the 1950s but I dont think this is true. I think Baldwin may have designed the engines but they were actually built in India. Indian Railways did build those engines up until the late 1960s.

jmonty@vt.edu

TVRM's #610 (ex-USATC) was built by BLH in March of 1952. Builder's Number is 75503. I believe there were other locomotives built for export by BLH but I am certain she is the last one built for domestic service. Well, she was built for service in Korea but she never made it there and spent her days at Ft. Eustis, VA. Does that count as "domestic" service?

Also, #610 has always been #610 (the 606, 607, 611, and 612 were all renumbered at Ft. Eustis) and is NOT an S-160 like the thousands built for WWI and WWII. There are many differences between her and the other surviving USATC 2-8-0's.

aw90h@cs.com

I remember seeing a nice photo of 610 at Baldwin in my copy of "The Diesel Builders, Volume V." She sure looks lonely sitting in that empty yard, as Baldwin was on borrowed time at that point. Mark, from what I have read, I think 610 was classified as an S-161 or S-162 by the army. Yes, she is different from the other surviving S-U.S. but I always thought that the differences were minimal, and mostly cosmetic. I would also like to point out that S-160s were built only during WW II. Baldwin built "Pershing Type" 2-8-0s for the Army in WW I that are different from the S-160s. From my research, most of these were turned over to the French after the war, and strangely they were some of of the first locomotives encountered by units of the Military Railway service when they entered Germany in early 1945. The Germans had tried to take them with then in their retreat, but couldn't outrun the advancing Allied armies. So you have a locomotive built by Baldwin for the Army in France, then given to the French, who use it, taken by the Occupying German army in its retreat, and then recaptured and returned to service by the U.S. Army, the locomotive's first owners! Needless to say all of my research into the M.R.S. in Europe has been interesting.

wilkidm@hera.wku.edu

> I remember seeing a nice photo of 610 at
> Baldwin in my copy of "The Diesel
> Builders, Volume V." She sure looks
> lonely sitting in that empty yard, as
> Baldwin was on borrowed time at that point.
> Mark, from what I have read, I think 610 was
> classified as an S-161 or S-162 by the army.
> Yes, she is different from the other
> surviving S-U.S. but I always thought that
> the differences were minimal, and mostly
> cosmetic. I would also like to point out
> that S-160s were built only during WW II.
> Baldwin built "Pershing Type"
> 2-8-0s for the Army in WW I that are
> different from the S-160s. From my research,
> most of these were turned over to the French
> after the war, and strangely they were some
> of of the first locomotives encountered by
> units of the Military Railway service when
> they entered Germany in early 1945. The
> Germans had tried to take them with then in
> their retreat, but couldn't outrun the
> advancing Allied armies. So you have a
> locomotive built by Baldwin for the Army in
> France, then given to the French, who use
> it, taken by the Occupying German army in
> its retreat, and then recaptured and
> returned to service by the U.S. Army, the
> locomotive's first owners! Needless to say
> all of my research into the M.R.S. in Europe
> has been interesting.

Hmmm. I believe NRM in Green Bay has one of the WWI Pershing 2-8-0's, repatriated from Korea, but as to the latest US-built steam, how about the two 4-4-0's built for NPS for Golden Spike NHS at Promontory, and hasn't Mt. Washington been building new engines for "the Cog?"

Electric City Trolley Museum Associa

Some of the differences between the S-160's and the 610 (our paperwork classifies it as an "A") include 19" cylinders and 225 psi boiler pressure for the S-160's and 20" and 220 psi for the 610. This naturally results in a different TE. The boiler for the 610 also sits 1" higher than the 160's. There are other differences that were outlined in meeting minutes between BLH and the Army regarding the locomotive. Reading those minutes is most fascinating but it fails to answer one question. Why?

Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum
aw90h@cs.com

Mark,

Thanks for posting this info on the 610; I had always thought it was just another S-160. I guess these changes are just typical government practice. Building the 610 the same as all the other G.I. 2-8-0's falls under the category of "needlessly simple".

I have one question though- what is it that makes that engine so DANG LOUD? I've never seen her in steam (she was in the shop the only time I've been by TVRM), but I've seen her on video and the exhaust sound of that engine is amazing. Was it always this loud, or did you guys change something when the higher cab and taller stack were added that may have contributed?

Thanks,
Hugh Odom

> Some of the differences between the S-160's
> and the 610 (our paperwork classifies it as
> an "A") include 19" cylinders
> and 225 psi boiler pressure for the S-160's
> and 20" and 220 psi for the 610. This
> naturally results in a different TE. The
> boiler for the 610 also sits 1" higher
> than the 160's. There are other differences
> that were outlined in meeting minutes
> between BLH and the Army regarding the
> locomotive. Reading those minutes is most
> fascinating but it fails to answer one
> question. Why?


The Ultimate Steam Page
whodom@awod.com

> hasn't
> Mt. Washington been building new engines for
> "the Cog?"

Yes, I think you have the answer on this one. The Mt Washington Cog Railway finished a new steam locomotive in 1983 which I believe makes it the last standard gauge (well close to enough to standard at 4'-8") steamer built in the US.

Roger


Belpaire@aol.com

Hugh,

You ask an excellent question and one that we've talked about since Day 1 of her rebirth. When we rebuilt the 610, her smokebox was bare. I pulled out the 1936 paper on Master Mechanic's Front End design and some other stuff and designed her front end. Nothing fancy though. I thought a Giesel would have been neat or perhaps Porta's design but unfortunately I ran out of time. The nozzle is your ordinary annular type with no bridge. The stack height has actually changed since we started running her in 1990 but it didn't impact the loudness.

My "engineering" thinking on it leads me to the degree of superheat she may be getting. The 610 has 30 5 1/2" tubes and only 149 2" tubes. The tubes and flues are roughly 13'-6" long and the units fill the entire length of the flues. Because of the slightly under 5:1 ratio, Johnson in his book says with a Type A superheater, up to 250 degrees of superheat could be picked up. With a 220 psi boiler, that is a superheated steam temperature of nearly 650 degrees out of a little 2-8-0.

Now, with that kind of superheated steam being fed into her relatively small cylinders, I am wondering if most of the work that could be attained from the steam is actually being wasted up the stack. Does anyone know if the transonic velocities obtained by exhaust gases are proportional to the remaining heat left in the exhaust gases? And if so, does a higher delta T mean a louder exhaust?

Having ran the 610 up Missionary Ridge with maximum tonnage and working at maximum capacity, I can tell you that little locomotive is as loud as any I have ever heard. Let me also say that the 1702 at GSMR is just as loud. That tells that it isn't anything we did!

Hugh, do you know if Mr. Porta has any thoughts on exhaust temps versus loudness of exhaust?

I hope some others will share their views on this - not which engine is the loudest, but what makes them loud!

Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum
aw90h@cs.com

Speaking of that loud loco ----
She's almost ready as the excellent TVRM team has been working overtime lately. Possible operation may begin this weekend. Here's a link to recent photos.

http://www.geocities.com/tvrm_classicsteam
sfreer@tvrail.com

> Let's stir up the pot some more!
> Where was (is) the last American-built steam
> running in the world in some kind of regular
> fashion?
> Not just charters for railfans!

Are any of American-built steam engines running overseas in commercial service? Or when did they last run?

Do not include engines held for excursion service.
*****

I would think that Cuba would be a logical answer as there still are engines used by the sugar cane operations.

Brian Norden

bnorden@gateway.net

I was about 7 years old the lst time I heard the other (to Texans, REAL) 610 run. To this day that drag era T&P 2-10-4 exhaust memory is prone to be the thing that keeps me from chucking this whole looney steam buisiness away.

BTW Now THERE is a significant engine for the B&O museum's loco fair

> Are any of American-built steam engines
> running overseas in commercial service? Or
> when did they last run?
> Do not include engines held for excursion
> service.
------------------
> I would think that Cuba would be a logical
> answer as there still are engines used by
> the sugar cane operations.
> Brian Norden

The Sunday Gazette (Schenectady, NY) ran an article on 20 May 2001 by Frank Barry on Schenectady locos still rolling in Cuba. It mentions that about 350 steam locomotives are kept for the sugar cane industry. At least 60 of them were built by Alco or its predecessors. The author saw about 75 steam engines on his most recent trip to Cuba, and about one-third of them were actually functioning.

Also, see p.26 of the August 2001 issue of TRAINS magazine--brief account and photo of a Schenectady built 2-8-0 that has been modified in an experiment to extend the careers of Cuba's remaining steam locomotives.

Regarding the modified Alco 2-8-0 in Cuba (No. 1816)- this engine was extensively modified under L. D. Porta's direction over the last few years. It features increased boiler pressure, higher superheat, an Elesco type feedwater heater, improved rings on pistons and valves, and a Lempor exhaust.

The second stage of the engine's modifications are now underway which will change its fuel from oil (which must be imported to Cuba) to "biomass". One huge available source of biomass in Cuba is bagasse, the crushed sugar cane husks left over from sugar production. Porta is fitting the Gas Producer Combustion System, which has previously been used on coal and wood burning locomotives to this locomotive which will allow it to burn bagasse much more efficiently than previous locomotives.

Porta is also seriously working with Cuba on building new (yes NEW) 0-6-2T steam locomotives for switching service. He has had two Cuban draftsmen in Buenos Aires for the past year or two drawing plans for various components, and construction of the first locomotive is scheduled to begin in Cuba in January 2002.

See the link below for more details on Porta's work.

> ------------------

> The Sunday Gazette (Schenectady, NY) ran an
> article on 20 May 2001 by Frank Barry on
> Schenectady locos still rolling in Cuba. It
> mentions that about 350 steam locomotives
> are kept for the sugar cane industry. At
> least 60 of them were built by Alco or its
> predecessors. The author saw about 75 steam
> engines on his most recent trip to Cuba, and
> about one-third of them were actually
> functioning.

> Also, see p.26 of the August 2001 issue of
> TRAINS magazine--brief account and photo of
> a Schenectady built 2-8-0 that has been
> modified in an experiment to extend the
> careers of Cuba's remaining steam
> locomotives.


The Ultimate Steam Page- L. D. Porta
whodom@awod.com

Mark,

That's a good question. It's certain that some of the extra superheat in the steam entering the cylinders will appear as extra superheat (and therefore extra energy) in the steam leaving the cylinders.

It may be that the annular exhaust nozzle has a lot to do with it. (I assume you are talking about something similar to what the N&W used.) All those sharp-edged exhaust openings add a lot of turbulence to the exhaust steam flow, which may make it very loud but also aid it in entraining more exhaust gases. The combination of high exhaust superheat and the annular nozzle might be what makes this engine so loud.

Besides Mr. Porta, Mr. Jos Koopmans of the Netherlands has done some exhaust systems research recently, running detailed experiments on a restored Dutch steam locomotive. I'll pose the question to him and see what he has to say.

Good Steaming,
Hugh Odom

> Hugh, do you know if Mr. Porta has any
> thoughts on exhaust temps versus loudness of
> exhaust?

> I hope some others will share their views on
> this - not which engine is the loudest, but
> what makes them loud!


The Ultimate Steam Page
whodom@awod.com