You would think that a Railroad that had a "founding father" (of sorts) such as Commodore Vanderbuilt would use Vanderbuilt tenders...The New York Central in fact did not. Per square inch a Vanderbuilt tender can hold more water due to its cylindrical shape than a conventional square or rectangle tender. Which railroad other than Espee and C&O (the only ones that come to mind right now) use these tenders? Why didn't more? Were they more expensive to built, maintain and such, or was it aesthetics and up to the builder or purchaser to request what type of tender they wanted?
The Baldwin 60000 in Franklin Institute has a Vbuilt Tender and the Baldwin built for nearly everyone. Just curious why more railroads other than the only two I can recall right now, didn't adopt this style over your basic "box".

I don't know much about these Vanderbilt tenders, except that they were used on the UP quite extensively. I thought on the SP they were called Harriman tenders. Maybe the adoption of the style between the two railroads was part of the Harriman control of the UP. Or maybe it was a part of the trends of railroad manufacturing of the time. Like stainless steel fluting on passenger cars. Not sure of the answer, but maybe this link will help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Pacific_745

The Baltimore & Ohio, the Erie, and the Great Northern, among others, made extensive use of Vanderbilt tenders. None of Cornelius Vanderbilt's progeny had anything to do with the tender design. And, there's no "u" in the name.

Steverg,
I know that the NC&StL (Nashville, Chattanooga & St Louis) used them quite a bit.

Bruce Pierce

Vanderbilt tenders are structurally much simpler than rectangular tanks, which require a fairly complex internal square honeycomb of baffles and reinforcing plates. So Vanderbilts probably were cheaper to build. On the other hand, Vanderbilts are longer than the equivalent-capacity high box tank, so they aren't suitable if turntable length is a major limitation. This might help explain why S.P., and U.P. (which adopted mallets early, so had to have long turntables wherever they were assigned) were enthusiastic users of Vanderbilt tenders.

SP standardized on Vanderbilt tenders (which they classified as "cylindrical" tenders) during the Harriman era, and specified ever-larger versions (up to 16,000 gallon water capacity) through the GS-1 4-8-4 order in 1930. The 16,000 gal (water) cylindrical tenders were used on some T&NO heavy 4-6-2s, many SP 4-10-2s, GS-1 4-8-4s, many SP 4-8-2s, and the earlier SP 4-8-8-2s (cab-forwards"). SP reverted to water-bottom rectangular tanks for tenders with >=20,000 gallons (water) capacity: GS-2/3/4 4-8-4s, later 4-8-8-2s, and AC-9 2-8-8-4s.

From a preservation point of view, I'd much rather deal with a Vanderbilt tank than a rectangular tank. Vanderbilts have much less internal structure, so they're easier to chip the rust out of. SP Vanderbilts have a very thick bottom plate, which I've never seen rusted unacceptably. Serious rust damage is usually confined to the anti-swash baffle plates and their connecting angle irons, plus a easy-to-repair strip on both sides just above the bottom plate seams. Rectangular tanks - except the most modern ones with one-piece cast-steel "water bottoms" - often have the bottom and lower part of the sides badly holed through, which requires major disassemblyto repair.

- Doug Debs

Sorry for the typo thirdrail
and thanks for the exact explanation I was looking for
Mr. Debs.
Thanks for being precise and to the point.
Steverg

Canadian National was a major user of Vanderbilt tenders on most of it's "modern" steam power; 4-6-4's many 4-8-2's, all 4-8-4's, some 2-10-2's and even a few 2-8-2's. Subsidiaries, Grand Trunk Western and Central Vermont also used them to some extent.

Gord