Some years ago, I was in the cab of Strasburg's little Plymouth No. 2, and don't recall seeing any air brake equipment. As they frequently use it for hostling now, I imagine it has an independent air brake, but was it built with one?

I've seen at least one 1880s Porter 0-4-0T that had only a hand brake lever, and also a couple of fireless steamers that did not have any air or steam brakes, and wonder if any early gas locomotives were equipped with hand brakes only?

Strasburg No. 2
ryarger@rypn.org

> Some years ago, I was in the cab of
> Strasburg's little Plymouth No. 2, and don't
> recall seeing any air brake equipment. As
> they frequently use it for hostling now, I
> imagine it has an independent air brake, but
> was it built with one?

> I've seen at least one 1880s Porter 0-4-0T
> that had only a hand brake lever, and also a
> couple of fireless steamers that did not
> have any air or steam brakes, and wonder if
> any early gas locomotives were equipped with
> hand brakes only?

Sure. IRM has a 1928 Davenport gas-electric that is equipped with a hand brake only. It's been out of service for many years, but we used to use it for odd switching jobs. It was originally the Pullman plant switcher. Stopping more than two freight cars or one heavyweight with the 1792's crummy hand brake could be sort of worrisome, as I recall.

I donÂ’t believe that #2 ever had air brakes as it was very original when we bought it, other than being converted to propane. It still does not, and the hand brake is entirely sufficient for its present service. It is not used for hostling, but for positioning the steamers as needed in the shops for disassembly, valve setting, etc.

#2 is actually four years newer than Plymouth #1, being built in 1930 for the Safe Harbor power plant on the Susquehanna River. It was later transferred to the Holtwood power plant, where we acquired it in running condition in 1984, for $50.

They used it to switch boxcars of fire brick and other supplies, but their interchange with Conrail had a very steep (IÂ’m guessing 5% plus) grade which they had always negotiated with #2's and the boxcarÂ’s handbrakes. A frightening runaway that fortunately was stopped without damage had inspired the management to buy a modern air brake equipped Plymouth, rendering #2 surplus.

Other than conversion back to gasoline, and valve job, and paint, all in 1995, #2 is still in the condition it was when acquired by SRC.

Strasburg Rail Road
kelly@strasburgrailroad.com

The Society for the Preservation of Carter Railroad Resources (SPCRR) has a 1923 7 ton Plymouth and a 1939 12 ton Whitcom, both built with only hand brakes (but the Whitcom was had independentÂ’s added later)

The brakes on the Plymouth are operated by a large lever, (much like a Johnson bar) which allow us to easily lock up the wheels on the locomotive, making adhesion, rather than braking power the limiting factor.

Both of the locomotives were used primarily for in-plant switching, but the Plymouth may have been used on the 4 mile long cement hauling "main line."

Randy Hees


http://www.spcrr.org
hees@ix.netcom.com

> I've seen at least one 1880s Porter 0-4-0T
> that had only a hand brake lever, and also a
> couple of fireless steamers that did not
> have any air or steam brakes, and wonder if
> any early gas locomotives were equipped with
> hand brakes only?

Our 1937 davenport was built with both. It has the "johnson bar" style hand brake along with independent and automatic. The air compressor was mounted on the left side running board powered from a shaft that ran through the radiator. We are currently finishing the restoration which included retrofitting the loco with a detroit diesel motor and allison auto transmission.



jasonsobczynski@yahoo.com

A lot of smaller critters were built with only armstrong brakes. The Sumpter Valley's 10T Plymouth (#101) is one such. A 4-foot brake handle gives lots of leverage, plenty of braking power to lock up the wheels, as someone else noted adhesion is the problem. I've taken some looong slides on wet rail with a couple of empty flats pushing, but most of the time it works OK.
By the by, a lot of early loggers did not have air, tho they mostly used steam jamb brakes on the lokie.
I don't know what the safe cutoff weight is for armstrong vs air, but the Palmetto Brick NG line in South Caroling (are they still running??) hauls fairly long strings of clay-loaded hoppers using only armstrong brakes on their little Plymouths.
Since air brakes (truck & train) have always been a source of consternation, confusion and frustration for me, I rather like the armstrong system.....:)

jeff_acock@hotmail.com

LSRAs 12T Plymouth is equipped with the Armstrong lever, one airbrake valve for the locomotive brake and one airbrake valve for the trainline. The industry that had it before us limited the locomotive to three loaded cars. There is very little loco adhesion and it appears along for the ride when you are moving cars ...it is very narrow so you depend totally on your groundman when pushing cars. When it was running it was a very handy little goat around the yards.

lamontdc@adelphia.net

> A lot of smaller critters were built with
> only armstrong brakes. The Sumpter Valley's
> 10T Plymouth (#101) is one such. A 4-foot
> brake handle gives lots of leverage, plenty
> of braking power to lock up the wheels, as
> someone else noted adhesion is the problem.
> I've taken some looong slides on wet rail
> with a couple of empty flats pushing, but
> most of the time it works OK.
> By the by, a lot of early loggers did not
> have air, tho they mostly used steam jamb
> brakes on the lokie.
> I don't know what the safe cutoff weight is
> for armstrong vs air, but the Palmetto Brick
> NG line in South Caroling (are they still
> running??) hauls fairly long strings of
> clay-loaded hoppers using only armstrong
> brakes on their little Plymouths.
> Since air brakes (truck & train) have
> always been a source of consternation,
> confusion and frustration for me, I rather
> like the armstrong system.....:)

Palmetto Brick is not only still running but thinking of expanding the railroad to reach more clay.

John


jhbohon@yahoo.com