In a slightly less than recent post by Kelly Anderson and The Latest From Strasburg Shops, there was a lot of discussion about the restoration of this engine. I having been brought into this world in '72 have never seen her run at Strasburg but can remember her fairly well sitting along side the main for quite a while until moved across the street. Now that she's back at the Railroad, no further work has been performed on her other than jacketing removal (asbestos) and the cab falling apart.
A member here posted the following:

"Supposedly, it has the power to pull an eight car train, but lacks the steaming capacity. "

Judging by the size of the steam chest, cylinders and very short boiler, I believe this statement to be true about the steaming capacity, but I am curious...isn't the amount of power a steam locomotive has defined by its steam chest, cylinders and boiler length? One would think so, therefore I don't see how this statement can be entirely true.

My belief is that the amout of power as loco has is determined by how much steam it can produce. It that logic is true, how can this be with this particular engine?
I remember seeing an old edition of The Road To Paradise with #4 leading an 8 car train back to Strasburg with the (Plymouth...I think) pushing on the rear. It said in the book the very same thing that this member mentioned here about lacking steaming capabilities and was sidelined.
Would superheating this boiler add to her steaming capacity output? Then again, you'd get people complaining that she is no longer a true camelback as originally built because of the addition or alteration. But WHO CARES!? She'd be running, right? Oh, the added cost of making such change would probably be quite significant in the probably already astronomical cost.

Again, how can a steam loco have the power to get the job done if it lacks the steam?

Go to the gym.

The first few curls are easy, the next few harder, and the last few get progressively harder and harder until you just can't get the weights up again without resting.

With the boiler full of steam at full operating pressure, the cylinders are fed steam at close to it, through the admission part of the stroke - X pounds of pressure pushing at Y square inches of piston produces XY pounds of force. So long as the boiler can continue to generate steam to replace that used at the same pressure, power stays the same.

Suppose the cylinders use more steam than the boiler can produce? Pressure falls, so force against the piston falls and power falls.

Switch engines weren't made for long runs, just shifting a lot of weight short distances slowly with lots of stop time between. Using them as road engines works up until the point at which the steam used exceeds the capacity to make it as quickly as it is being used in the boiler.

Does this make sense to you?

dave

As much as I like camelbacks, there is a reason why they were banned from use, and I really do not see a need to have one operating again. IMO, #1187 should be traded to Steamtown for something that Strasburg can run. Steamtown would get a rare piece that not only has local ties with the Reading, but the Wootten firebox that made the camelback famous and ruled the anthracite region was a Reading design as well.

Does Strasburg need another engine?

Mike Stillwell
Buena Vista, VA.

Camelbacks were never banned from use. In fact they lasted all the way to the end of steam in the 1950's, with the most notable group of engines being the CNJ's T-26 4-6-0's. The ICC banned construction of any more camelbacks in 1918,but did allow in a few special instances new builds until the early 1920's. The in 1927 they banned any new orders all together.
Mulitple safety reasons including seperation of engineer (or engineman if you're of the PRR persuasion) from the fireman with the obvious lack of communication that resulted, the fireman being exposed to the weather and the risk of the engineer's side cab being taken off by a sheared off by any of the reciprocating or rotating machinery if a failure occured.

I would love to see one in train service again,and at the risk of starting a "what if" scenario, I would pick CNJ P-6 592 however RDG A-4b 1187 will do nicely.

I think the shop crews at Strasburg will tell you that 1187 is a "sweetheart" locomotive, of which they are very fond. I would never consider trading it to Steamtown, though some of Steamtown's collection might do well at Strasburg. Given the money for materials, the shop people will rebuild the Camelback with as close to historic accuracy as possible. Now is not the time to begin that project, if you've been watching the news or listening to the nightly economic reports.
Does Strasburg need another locomotive? For service, no. To keep on hand as a historic piece for leasing period freights as photo ops, maybe. To assure the continued integrity of their fleet, yes. Strasburg can pick and choose among available locomotives.

That does make sense dave. Would this have been the reason that Strasburg sidelined her way back when?
Also, does the size of the cylinders/steam chest have anything to do with lack of power in this instance...did all switch engines of this type and or size all suffer the same problem as well?

Even though camelbacks were primarily switch engines there were those that were quite larger and COULD accomplish longer runs as W.L. Avis mentioned about CNJ 592 and what of the DLW that's in the middle of that long and drawn out litigation process in the midwest? Ill bet she could run back in her day without breaking a sweat as 1187 did.
They are facinating machines, almost alien in their design in comparision (to me) to a standard looking steam loco and it is a shame that none are operating today. Just kinda glad there are still few of them around to look at. Maybe someday, as Richard Glueck (thank you by the way) mentioned, its nice to keep said loco on hand as an historic piece for period freights as photo ops and to assure the integrity of their fleet but for service? Given the info shared here and the size of the passenger manifests on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, her share of work would be enormous compared to yesteryears.
One question remains regarding my original post. Could an engine as this be more effective if the SRR shops superheated her?

It starts to get complex since the ratio between the cylinder size (consumption capacity) and various boiler sizes and abilities (generating capacity) and even speed - the faster you go, the more rapidly you consume steam, and the boiler must be able to make it at least as fast as you use it - not to mention power output varies due to grade, curvature, various resistances in the axles, flanges, etc, heat losses in the steam circuit itself, cutoff as set by the reverser.........no end.

Stop and see the 0-6-0 near Cleveland with all the modern conveniences - she was built as a road engine as well as a switcher. the standard freight engine in Britain for about a century was the 0-6-0T. The 0-6-0Ts we sent over there were built for road freight by European standards - short light trains and middling distances relative to ours......so it all has to do with how you juggle the design characteristics to conform to the use.

Based on this thread, it seems the Strasburg found the ability to make enough steam fast enough to maintain power enough at the speed required for the distance required wasn't inherent in the design. She was made to do something else somewhere else, and no doubt did it well for the Reading and CF&I or she wouldn't have survived.

Forcing a locomotive to make steam faster than it wants to is possible for a while but at the expense of the boiler itself, particularly if burning oil. Strasburg has proven that, for them, running larger locomotives at less than their top capacity has paid dividends in terms of reliability and robustness. Georgetown Loop, for example, can't operate profitably that way. Everybody's mileage may vary and situation is different.

If you are truly interested, there's a lot of old engineering texts out there you could read about locomotive design.

dave

A friend of mine worked on the "Crab Orchard" in the early 1970's after they returned the {ex Mid Continent} CIPS 2-4-2T #5 to service. It was a very modern {1945 ish} switch engine with almost zero hours on it when they returned it to steam. Randy said it was a bear to fire as the firebox was to small. Again, using a switch engine as a road engine. Not sure of the gory details, but it makes sense. Not sure what kind of run it was on back then or how big the trains.

Not an engineer or fireman, so I find the questions/answers interesting. Geo Metro's were great little cars and got good milage. But not so good at hauling trailers, heavy loads or pulling hills. Like most things, work well for what they were designed for I guess. Cheers, John.

An interesting case study, John, and thanks. We're going through thinking about something similar at New Hope Valley. Our little 0-4-0T has been doing a bangup job handling the same 4 car train the 44 tonners do (but in a much more entertaining way) for about a decade now. The train runs at about 10-12 MPH, trip about 4.5 miles, gently rolling woodsy country with one decent hill to climb on the return trip.

A new car has been added due to increased ridership. Fine problem to have......and little 17 is about making steam at her max to make the trip with the extra load. I'm among those concerned about both reliability and deterioration from pushing her too hard.......so any opinion posted here is just mine as a member, nothing official.

So......a marginally larger locomotive with a seriously larger boiler would suit fine, built with low drivers for low speeds, we could easily take 6 coupled. I'm not so concerned about more tractive effort, although a bit more would be fine, as I am about being able to make enough steam to make the trip without forcing the boiler. That's my preference.

Given the train capacity and parking lot capacity seem to allow for adequate turnover well at the current capacity, and the limitation of the length of the loading track in the yard, I don't see our trains getting longer. I'm happy to be proven wrong in case anubody can. There's been talk of perhaps finding something even larger. There's been talk about just planning to do more work on 17 more often and leaving well enough alone. Lots if ideas worth exploring, each with its good and bad points.

I think what it will come down to is availability. We can't just call up Lima and order a nice 65 ton prairie any more, even if we could afford a new one.

About superheating.......it isn't a factor of tractive effort as much as a factor of efficiency. Superheated steam is drier and hotter, so theoretically you can keep her hooked up higher longer without dealing with the amount of condensation / heat loss in the metal itself as you would with a saturated engine, so you'd use less steam, but ability to start a heavier train? I don't think so. Diesels can start a train they can't haul, and steam can haul a train it can't start, so starting ability is the practical limitation for steam. Besides, a steam locomotive needs to run at a fair amount of output before the superheaters get warmed up, so on a line like NHVRR or Strasburg, they'd be unlikely to cover their added maintenance cost through greater efficiency and fuel savings. At least that's my experience and understanding.

So, what happens if we simply work on maximizing 17 in terms of efficiency? I'd surely like to get the brain trust thinking about that one.........

dave

Maybe these blueprint images can help in the discussion. Or just cool to look at.
Baldwin class A4b locomotive #1187

Steam Chest One


Steam Chest Two


Steam Chest Three


1187 Stats Chart

Cylinder drawings are for something else as it shows piston valves, boiler tube pilot and bearings with centering device for pilot truck. Still cool stuff though.

Mr. Avis,
May I ask why you think these prints are not of No. 1187?

This drawing shows an engine with piston valves, while the engine in question has slide valves. Also the side view diagram of the 0-4-0 lists the cylinders as being 16" x 24", while the other drawing seems to show 21" X 24"

Oh Ok thanks for clearing that up . I see what you mean. Still neat to see. Tim do you have any other prints on this locomotive? 1187 or this bigger locomotive?