Thier shop is to be congratulated on a really fine restoration.

Later!
Mr. Ed

I've seen it, it's gorgeous.

Here's the camel being worked on (2 years ago, I think):




The 7402:




And the facility:

Very nice pictures!! I was wondering what their shop would look like.

Is that a full size paint booth I see in the background of the first two photos? If it is, that's VERY nice. Wow! A really nice facility, money well spent.

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT

Yes. Which means two things: They can do every bit of painting legally and safely on site; and that the days of "quick and dirty" (and CHEAP) paint jobs are gone.

How was No. 217 fired, and why such an unsual boiler design?

This was an early coal-burning engine, the design based on concepts originally promoted by Ross Winans of Winans Camel fame (0-8-0 drag engine). Burning coal was problematical in the early days, and large grates ("furnaces" as Winans put it) were considered essential. These engines were fired by a man standing on the tender, like later Camelback (Wooten firebox) engines of the anthracite region. Among the weird construction characteristics of these engines was a firebox cantilevered completely behind the main frame, a cold-water boiler feed from ram pumps that injected cold water into the side of the firebox (making for a wonderful collection of thermal stresses while chilling the firebox and reducing its ability to generate steam), a drawbar to the tender that ran under the grate (where it sometimes became overheated to the point of separation), and a rear sheet or door sheet that was just an iron plate (no water space) to reduce the cantilevered weight. "Long furnace" camels had grates and fireboxes long enough to justify a chute running from an upper deck on the tender to about midway in the firebox to get the coal as far as possible forward in the box.

The engines had quite a few problems as may be imagined from this description (particularly leaky fireboxes), a lack of boiler and cylinder insulation no doubt made more work for the fireman due to heat losses (and this is if his job wasn't already difficult enough with no shelter and having to fire from an upper and lower deck on the tender in front of a red-hot iron sheet), but they were the only locomotives available at the time that were powerful enough to handle the coal drags that even then dominated B&O's traffic. In fact, it is interesting to consult a roster from the B&O in the pre-Civil War era and look at how "modern" it is in the sense that its roster is dominated by drag engines (Winans Camels and other 0-8-0s), a fair number of dual service engines (passenger and fast freight 4-6-0s), and a minority of straight-passenger 4-4-0s. The ratios look an awful lot like the B&O of the 1920s with its counterpart drag Mallets and 2-10-2s, heavy 4-6-2s and 2-8-2s, and relatively few high-driver 4-6-2s.

For further reference, I highly recommend John White's "The American Steam Locomotive, an Engineering History," and Larry Sagle's and Al Staufer's "B&O Power." I'm not entirely certain White's book is still in print, and I know "B&O Power" isn't, but they should still be easy to find, on E-Bay if nowhere else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Winans

These engines could be a handful for the engineer, too.

http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/abboc.Html

Enjoy.

Yep, and it's big enough to fit an SD80MAC.

Just sayin... :-)

What does that matter? B&O/C&O/WM never rostered an SD80MAC.

Now, a C&O Allegheny, on the other hand--THAT's a more legitimate concern for the time being.......

Early adaptations if not inventions of radial stay wrapper sheets, cam actuated valve gear, chilled iron wheels.......I don't care how many fit into the Titanic, this is really cool technology - not only what worked and was adapted into what follwed it, but what didn't work and was left behind.

I'd really like to know what Winans reply was in exact wording, just in case I need to use it some day........

dave

It's interesting to note the "Mr. Cromwell" mentioned in the text as a superintendent of motive power; that would of course be A. J. Cromwell, whose name is associated with the 2-8-0 in the B&O collection.

I seem to recall that the double-lever throttle arrangement was for operation from either side of the locomotive, much like a diesel with dual control stands today.

None of these cantankerous beasts survived into preservation, although there is a photo of what was supposed to be the last one being dismantled in the early 1890s. I can't help but wonder if the engines left such a horrible memory that the B&O management of the time didn't want to preserve one.

Although considered a monster of a locomotive for the 1850s, such an engine would be of modest size for reproduction today. Who thinks it would be worthwhile? And who would want to be on the crew, as fireman on the double-deck tender (banging your noggin on the upper deck, which wasn't very high), or up in the cab with that double throttle? And for real fun, let's do it in the rain. . .at night. . .on a 17 mile grade at 117 feet to the mile. . .

If I remember correctly, I haven't been back to see it in a while, the 172 at MOT here in St. Louis has a very primitive "shelder" on the deck for the fireman. It is essentially just a roof, with no sides, so the fireman was still pretty exposed, and probably miserable.

I believe Mr. Goldfeder advised me once that persons affiliated with the B&O museum have been to MOT to inspect the 172, as they prepare to restore their Davis Camel. The 172 is in essentially the same condition it was in when received by Purdue in the 1890s, and as such, was not altered or "gussied up" for any Fairs of the Iron Horse, etc. It should be interesting to see how the B&O Museum's camel looks after restoration is complete.