| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| Blind #3 driver only on a 2-8-2? https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34725 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Loco112 [ Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Blind #3 driver only on a 2-8-2? |
Blind #3 driver only on a 2-8-2? http://www.lifewastedchasingtrains.com/ ... temId=7622 Photo: John West, 1971, IRCA #195, 2-8-2, Baldwin 1948. Why would any shop intentional "blind" just the 3rd driver? These 1948 Baldwin, 3" Gauge, Mikados had no axle centering devices, nor did those ever show up on the 3' gauge. Axles side to side "free play", (trimming the flanges of the driver boxes) is the only modification that would have been made to the driver boxes on other similar RR's at the time. |
|
| Author: | scottychaos [ Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blind #3 driver only on a 2-8-2? |
For the same reason any drivers are made blind.. so the locomotive can more easily go around curves..(or go around tighter curves) Often it was the center driver that was blind..but when you have an even number of drivers, you have no center driver, so it has to be the 2nd or 3rd driver that is blind. Or am I not understanding your question? Scot |
|
| Author: | Kelly Anderson [ Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blind #3 driver only on a 2-8-2? |
. |
|
| Author: | Dennis Storzek [ Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blind #3 driver only on a 2-8-2? |
I could postulate that making the main driver blind kept the piston thrusts from affecting tracking... but hey, this is South America, no? It's just as likely that the No.2 driver was supposed to be blind, also, but one wasn't available when it was time to roll the engine out of the shop. |
|
| Author: | wsflco [ Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blind #3 driver only on a 2-8-2? |
As restored to it's 1880 configuration, the AT&SF 132, a Baldwin 2-8-0 now on display at the Kansas State Historical Society's museum in Topeka, KS, has a blind #1 driver. I am to understand that this arrangement was not successful, and was summarily changed out for a flanged tire. |
|
| Author: | JimBoylan [ Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blind #3 driver only on a 2-8-2? |
According to a story in "Railroad" Magazine published within a few years of 1960, a Pennsylvania RR co9ngtrolled line West of Pittsburgh (Vandallia?) tried blind leading driving wheels on some fast 4-4-0s, with unsuccessful results. The Interstate Commerce Commission accident report for the derailment of an Atlantic City to New York train at Minson, N.J. near Delair mentions guard rails on the insides of the curve rails. Other accounts call them "blind driver rails", to support blind driving wheels on sharp curves. |
|
| Author: | Tavor [ Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blind #3 driver only on a 2-8-2? |
I've been told one of the Bluegrass' Alco MRS1 units had blind center axles to go around curves at a military installation. Cant remember which unit it was though. |
|
| Author: | Loco112 [ Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blind #3 driver only on a 2-8-2? |
I think Kelly got it, if the loco was intended to have only the third axle blinded, but it could be Dennis' answer: that the RR had a lack of time/resources to replace the 2nd driver at the same time. Both great answers. Kelly Anderson wrote: Loco112 wrote: Why would any shop intentional "blind" just the 3rd driver? These 1948 Baldwin, 3" Gauge, Mikados had no axle centering devices, nor did those ever show up on the 3' gauge. The PRR 4-8-2 at the Railroad Museum of PA has one axle only with blind drivers, I believe the 2nd. The 3’ gage Rio Grande K-36 class 2-8-2’s that run on the D&S and C&TS have lateral motion devices on the front driving axle, built that way. If the one in your photo does as well, then the third axle would be the one to blind, since the rigid wheel base would be reduced to the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th axles. |
|
| Author: | Ron Goldfeder [ Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blind #3 driver only on a 2-8-2? |
In the 19th century it was quite common to have blind drivers on locomotives, more than in the examples already mentioned. At the Museum of Transortation in St. Louis there are examples from the 1870s with all but the rear driver being blind. One is a B&O 4-6-0 camel, the other a Boston & Albany 4-4-0. The leading truck's wheels all have flanges. In 1899 and 1900 the Master Mechanics' organization discussed if blind or flanged drivers were better in these cases. They decided that having flanges was better. For an illustrated discussion of this see John White's article "Look Mom - No Flanges! Blind Tires Were Once Commonplace" in Railroad History #172, Spring 1995, pages 63-68. And books on track discussed adding extra rails in some situations to support these blind drivers through sharp switches. |
|
| Author: | Loco112 [ Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blind #3 driver only on a 2-8-2? |
Kelly is batting 1000. The K-36 did have a simple centering devise called a "Centering lever" and in the notes for that drawing it says; "Based on the Franklin part XXXXX. (has anyone got the Franklin drawing of that part?) I do not have the front driving box drawing, so I can not see where it makes contact with that front driving box, but its there. The front spring normally sits on a driving box saddle that wraps around the frame to make contact with the top of the driving box. This part is like a one sided version of that saddle, and its made to teeter totter from side to side. It hangs over the frame only on one side, (either on the inside or outside) and makes contact with the front driving box to center it, if it gets off of center. The IRCA Baldwins surely had the same part, since no centering springs or other complex parts are seen in the photo of the #195 in the river. |
|
| Author: | QJdriver [ Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Blind #3 driver only on a 2-8-2? |
To answer the original question in this thread: The reason our shop in Guatemala City blinded the #3 driver on the FIdeCA #197 was that the other 36 engines in the class were set up the same way. Period. Nobody overthought it. I'm reasonably sure of their mindset, the last FEGUA Roundhouse Foreman and the last two Master Mechanics promoted by the FIdeCA are all friends of mine. Obviously this was done to provide some wiggle room. Although our line was heavily built and modern, there were places where an enginman or trainman had to be able to see around corners to survive. I believe that all of our steam power used in later years had one or two blind axles. Meaning no disrespect, I would like to point out that the International Railways of Central America was not in South America. Guatemala, along with the disputed territory of Belize, is the northernmost country in Central America and shares a border with Mexico. Mexico is the southernmost country in North America. I would also like to correct the misconception that our shop couldn't come up with enough drivers to properly repair the #197, or any other locomotive. Again I mean no disrespect, but it bears mentioning that the International Railways of Central America is not some little puddle jumper shortline, you can look it up. The last overhaul on an engine of the class, #199, was completed in August of 1974, and the locomotive recieved a brand new set of tires. Plenty of tires, both blind and flanged, for several different wheel diameters, are still stacked outside the backshops in Guatemala City. It's good to see that somebody at least is interested in FIdeCA. The main stations, yards, roundhouses and shops in both Guatemala City and San Salvador are now open as museums, while the national railways in both countries maintain limited freight, commuter, and charter operations on the lines nearest the capital cities. It's still well worth a visit. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|