| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| Camelback Locomotives
https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=410 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Rob Minton [ Thu Feb 04, 1999 12:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Camelback Locomotives |
I was at the B & O Museum recently and I read on the placard in front of the CRRNJ Camelback something to the effect that the reason for this design was that the firebox could not support the combined weight of the cab and crew. I can't remember exactly how the explanation was worded, so all you B & O Museum guys feel free to correct me if I got the wording wrong.<p>My question is: how are camelbacks different from any other locomotive without a trailing truck (Moguls, Consolidations, six and eight-wheeled switchers, etc.)? Were there any other legitimate reasons for this design such as improved visibility? If I'm not mistaken, some camelbacks actually had trailing trucks, right?<br> rmminton@yahoo.com |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Thu Feb 04, 1999 3:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Camelback Locomotives |
The briefer, more exact reason for Camelbacks:<br>The firebox on these locos were designed to burn anthracite or culm coal, which requires a big, thin fire for the same amount of heat output as a deeper, narrower fire in a "conventional" firebox. This particular firebox is so wide that it crowds the loading gauge, and a crewmember cannot see around the firebox--or at least not far enough to operate a train at speed and see what's ahead. Thus the strategy of a cab astraddle the boiler.<br>Camelbacks were notoriously unpopular with crews due to lack of communication between crew members (always important for effective steam operation) and the hazard to engineers of the potential of a side rod coming off the driver and plunging into the cab (not unfounded--Camelbacks were later banned by the Federal safety officials after a couple such incidents).<br> LNER4472@gateway.net |
|
| Author: | Kevin Gillespie [ Thu Feb 04, 1999 4:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ #592 |
Alex Mitchell's explanation is right on the money but when you asked about trailing trucks, CNJ #592 is a 4-4-2.<br> |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|