This pic showed up on Instagram today. The image is dated 1925, and appears to show a highly modified Russian decapod. Note the ducting from the smoke box to the firebox, the immense right-hand cylinder with immense slide valve, and the huge off-center stack.

Does anyone have more info?

That thing looks like it is on steroids! I’ve never seen that pic before. For comparison, look up Seaboard 544 which was DT&I 311 sitting in Spencer, NC. It looks like an experiment to improve the drafting, increase the power, and the tender was modified to improve the length of the run. Pretty neat photo!

First I’ve seen of this strange locomotive.

Just doing basic research, this is one of the 15 Russian decapods sent to the DT&I, and looks like this is #312. I was able to find a photo of this locomotive as it appeared pre Ford ownership though, it seems like the modifications were made after Ford’s ownership started.

From the little I know about this, it was an attempt at pulverized coal firing. The results weren't very good (I believe I heard "explosive" actually), and the project was considered a failure. There must be some kind of "blower fan" arrangement in the smokebox that brought air into the duct system and then to the firebox. I figure this must have somehow affected the smoke stack's placement, hence why it was off center. The tender was closed off to prevent coal dust from flying anywhere and everywhere, and the fuel economy of coal dust is why it was so tall. What the large cylinder stroke and valve arrangement was supposed to accomplish is beyond me however.

Hope this helps to give a start point to a more detailed search!

Was this Cross compound, high pressure on one side low pressure on the other in addition to all the other crazy stuff? The Wheeling and Lake Erie power house in Brewster Ohio from 1923 had a very large Corliss cross compound alternator producing 2,300 volts that powered the entire shop complex. Working on live front switch gear in the early 1990's was quite unusual to say the least! Sad to say the Corliss hadn't been used in years. Ohio Power didn't know what to think about that in addition to the 2,300 volt three phase that we had coming in from them their workers told me they hadn't seen that in years. Also there has been on RYPN a link to a web site that had many unusual steam engines and don't recall seeing that one there. Was this photo taken at Ford's River Rouge steel plant? The multiple smoke stacks in the background look kinda familiar.

If I may also offer an observation (complete SWAG - no basis in reality) if you look closely at the smokebox where the duct leaves to head to the ashpan there looks to be an intake snorkel. I wonder if they were also trying to preheat the intake air (a la blast furnace technique) in the smokebox? YMMV.............mld

I found this on a DT&I Facebook group:

“From the collections of The Henry Ford:
Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad Locomotive No. 312 at Ford Motor Company Rouge Plant, 1925

Under Henry Ford's ownership, the Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad converted locomotive number 312 to burn pulverized waste coal from Ford-owned mines. The tender was covered with a roof to keep coal dust from blowing away, and the locomotive was given a wider smokestack. The experiment failed and number 312's modifications were quickly removed.“

thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-collections/artifact/144944#slide=gs-322031

Just one more thing, love the probably nickel plated cylinder cover! Like a mirror image of the front truck.

It also has uniflow cylinders. The cylinders are almost twice as long as the stroke, because the piston is quite long to uncover the exhaust ports at the end of the stroke.
The duckwork from the smokebox to the ashpan may be for carrying unburnt cinders back to the firebox.

Common Core design?

So they tested an engine for running pulverized coal, and trial fitted uniflow cylinders of some sort? Well that's different... Is there any more information on that uniflow arrangement? I can't say I can think of any locomotives on this continent (before today anyway) that received the system at all...

I'd be interested to see if anyone finds reference to this locomotive's technical details in the contemporary trade press. Some of the equipment appears similar to what Fuller-Lehigh did with lignite/subbituminous firing (with relative lack of practical success).

I'm pretty sure the large stack implies some kind of draft fan arrangement, possibly doubling to send preheated air to a windbox under the grate. Continuous draft would likely be as much an advantage for pulverized-fuel firing at drag speeds. I suspect there is interesting equipment on the other side of the locomotive, perhaps the same large centrifugal fan as on the T&P 'snuff dipper' lignite conversion.

Yes, I think this is a cross-compound, which again for slow and relatively continuous speeds can use a simple proportional tap in the intercepting valve to balance nicely regardless of the characteristics of the superheating arrangements installed. I am not sure, however, about the valve arrangements in that square chest as illustrated: for uniflow this would have to be two paired admission valves, here likely multiple-port slide valves, joined across the common exhaust plenum in the center. Perhaps using exhaust steam was considered low enough differential heating across the cylinder to make uniflow operation at all speeds practical?

Start by reading the work Stumpf did before WWI on the general idea of uniflow steam. There was at least one experiment in the immediate postwar years, I believe 1923 (contemporaneous with the DT&I locomotive but on very different design principles) on the GER in England immediately pre-grouping; I suspect this may have suffered early termination due to that. This used appropriately thick pistons and heroic-length cylinders; I believe there is a picture in Fryer's book on experimental British steam, but I can't access my copy to check.

The fundamental idea is that the only 'required' valves are the outside admission ones at the ends of the cylinders (with associated minimal dead space for inlet tracting). These can be driven by conventional valve gear, with conventional drive and throw, and there is no reason why conventional long-lap long-travel practice could not be applied to them. The cylinder is arranged with a common exhaust port at the center, a bit like a 567 diesel engine in reverse, and there is an analogue of fixed cutoff in that as the piston moves far enough under admission thrust it will start to uncover the shaped ports and exhaust will begin. The piston, meanwhile, is made long enough that the expansion in both 'half cylinders' follows expected length without changing the physical stroke; usual practice is to make it as lightweight and well-insulated as possible, but there are issues with its structure and tribology, for example how to ensure a good steam-tight seal that is easy to keep lubricated, that are a substantial cause of its 'failure to thrive' in actual practice.

An additional issue is that for high-speed work at higher mass flow the 'default' port arrangements can be vastly inadequate, leading to high back pressure and very difficult compression issues. (It is possible to address some of this with Jay Carter's reversible relief valves blowing into insulated vessels, but to my knowledge this was developed long after uniflow development on large locomotives became moribund.) So very likely there will be some secondary system of exhaust valves, either common or associated with belt ports, that can be opened to improve exhaust mass flow. If I remember correctly (and someone will correct me if I don't; I am not in a position to check correctly now) the Skinner engine LP exhaust was augmented with a special design of servo-seated poppet valve that used bleed steam to provide a good 'seal', an approach different from the steam seating enhancement in British Caprotti.

Just read up on uniflow steam engines and the principle seems to try to get more expansion from the steam. The cylinder dimensions are very much larger. Hence I doubt it is cross compound. The idea was around for quite a long time and seems to try to get around having compound cylinders and trying for more efficient use of the energy in the steam. Skinner uniflow engine company of Erie PA went on to make marine and stationary engines for many years. The last being built for a ferry in Poland I believe in the 1990's. After which Skinner closed. There was also mention of other uses for uniflow engines around the same era as the locomotive pictured. Also the ex C&O Badger car ferry still in service on Lake Michigan uses Skinner engines.