Hello everyone. I hope you're all well. Been awhile since I posted(except a recent one in RDG 179's Surviving Tenders thread). My wife gave birth to our first, a son, in October of last year, so I've been quite busy. My son's first train ride(outside of the womb) was early August, and Dad was firing on the head end. Pretty cool.
Anyway, I'd been reading about South Africa's Class 25 Condensing Locomotives recently. Very interesting read. I realize the impetus for these locos in this situation was the lack of water in the region where they operate. Nonetheless, was a condensing locomotive ever considered by any of the Class 1s in the U.S. during the steam era? Sounds as though they turned out to be pretty labor intensive, but I got the impression that once many of the initial difficulties were worked out, they could be considered a successful design. At any rate, a range of 500 miles is staggering to me, along with a little savings on coal, even though I imagine much of their territory was flat running. Thanks. God bless. Seth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Afri ... s_25_4-8-4

Seth;

Congratulations on your new arrival and future railfan. :)

The only condensing locomotive I am aware of that found itself in the states was a captured German Railways class 52 2-10-0 with a condensing tender. Along with the "V-8" steam locomotive (19.1001) and other equipment, it was brought stateside to Fort Monroe in Virginia for evaluation; then scrapped in about 1952.

http://web.archive.org/web/200502051747 ... 8steam.htm

If you read Bruce, Alfred W. 1952 The Steam Locomotive in America, you will learn that the primary limit in coal burning steam locomotive operations is the capacity of the ash pan, or about 300 miles.

I don't believe we have any regions where there is not water available in less than a few hundred miles, and so the solution was just big tenders. Santa Fe did have severe issues with water quality, but it would appear that it was cheaper to boiler wash, chemical treat, and blow down than to condense.

Amazing, simply amazing--the internet lets you become an instant expert! :-)

http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/ ... amotor.htm

http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/ ... .htm#232p1

http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/ ... wissHP.htm

Zowie!!

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCO ... coloco.htm

One American page from this site:

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCO ... /USAhp.htm

General home page; warning, the retro-tech section and the eccentric locomotives look to be horrible and entertaining time-wasters:

http://www.douglas-self.com/index.htm

Not apparently visible on this site is the proposed Baltimore & Ohio "steam motor" locomotive, perhaps due to it never having been completed. This was to be in class W, and would have had (depending on how you interpret Whyte) either a 4-8-4 or a 4-2-2-2-2-4 wheel arrangement. Supposedly a motor was completed and extensively bench-tested at Mount Claire, and a boiler was completed, too, but the order was cancelled as the B&O's management decided that even at this early date (around 1940), that the diesel would be the future. The boiler, which had an Emerson water tube firebox, was eventually modified for use on a P-7 (President class 4-6-2), resulting in the second P-9 the road had. (The first had been an experimental P-7 variant that not only had the water tube firebox, but also Caprotti valve gear and poppet valves. Ironically, this engine had lost both its unusual valve gear and had been rebuilt with a conventional firebox by this time, and was thus reclassified as a P-7.)

I couldn't find any illustrations of this proposed locomotive, but a model of it exists, in ebony and ivory, at the Warther Museum in Dover, Ohio. It's a fascinating place, and a monument to a master woodcarver who worked in a variety of woods and ivory.

http://www.warthers.com/

http://websterr.net/atwood2002_3.html

http://www.facebook.com/warthermuseum

I've often wondered why more effort was not put into condensers in this country. Yes, it's probably a lot of weight to drag around vs. just stopping at a water column but when you think about how much time was wasted on water stops, the cost to build, maintain, and operate water tanks it would seem far more efficient to do away with them. And there's water treatment, the wasted energy inherent in boiler blowdowns and I'm guessing more wear and corrosion on the boiler with a constant influx of new water vs. recycled water.

Steve

Remember that practical condensing technology (as applied to the SAR locomotives) didn't come along until around 1950 by which time the U.S. was well on the way to full dieselization.

Apparently the SAR condensing tenders required almost as much maintenance as the locomotives themselves as all but one (reserved for museum display) were converted to non-condensing operation in the latter days of steam in South Africa (1970's/1980's).

In his book "The Red Devil and Other Tales from the Age of Steam", Wardale claims that a life cycle cost analysis conducted during research for the ACE 3000 showed that it would have been more cost-effective to provide new watering stations than to build and maintain condensing tenders for new steam locomotives. Modern steam locomotive water treatment methods (as developed by L. D. Porta) greatly reduced the amount of blowdown required and virtually eliminated scaling problems. A more fuel-efficient steam locomotive is also a more water-efficient locomotive so water use would have been reduced for new steam locomotives as well.

Another factor not mentioned yet:

Without an exhaust steam blast creating draft for the fire, you have to provide an alternate draft force for a coal-fired steam locomotive. Said draft sources (exhaust fans, etc.) were themselves maintenance headaches, what with cinder-cut fan blades, grit in the bearings, etc. I'm not sure whether oil firing would have reduced this problem--probably not.

A modern engine wouldn't be allowed to be spewing grit all over so you would need some sort of cyclonic separation that would be more effective than older front end setups. That would be the case with or without condensing. You put the fan(s) after that and the wear is greatly reduced but of course not eliminated. Design it so that the blades are an easily replaced inexpensive wear item.

SAR could abandon condensing because (presumably) they had water infrastructure for non-condensing engines. That pretty much obviates a huge amount of the potential savings so it was probably an easy call to say let's junk these things and fit them with regular tenders. If it was 100% condensing and junking the condensers meant installing water everywhere it probably would have been a different matter. Just a guess.

Steve

Not only do you have to create some sort of forced draft, but the oil used in cylinder lubrication would get carried over into the condenser and boiler, unless some sort of oil/water separator is provided. It sounds like the existing infrastructure (watertowers) and the rapid rate of dieselization in this country made this idea a no-starter.

An issue but not a major one since feedwater heaters dealt with it.

Steve

How did the water/oil separators work? Was it a centrifuge like a steam dryer that some dry pipes had? The White Pass 71 had an exhaust ejector and I've wondered how the steam oil from the cylinders was not a factor when the steam was re-used.

With Elesco Feed Water Heaters, the condensed exhaust steam drains out of the heater to a small tank installed in the tender. I believe that this tank separates oil on the principal that oil floats on water, and draws supposedly clean water from the bottom of this tank.

To a limited extent, the system does recycle some of the exhaust steam from the cylinders, and helps extend the water supply. The Elesco books give some numbers on just how much water is recycled in this fashion.

Starting in the 50's a number of CNR engines had their condensate tanks removed, and a new device was installed in the steam pipes that supplied exhaust steam to the FWH Bundle. I believe it was called the C.V.2 Oil Skimmer. My understanding was that it used centrifugal force to separate the oil, similar to the Elesco Tangential Steam Dryer.

The douglas-self website reminds me that there was one other condensing locomotive that was actually built in the United States; the two Union Pacific steam turbine locomotives:

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCO ... upturb.htm

They were complete steam-electric generating stations on wheels; which meant they were subjected to the varying loads, shocks and vibrations, and dust to be found on the road; and hence did not hold up.

The steam turbine locomotives tried by the PRR, C&O and N&W were all non-condensing locomotives.

Hello,

Here is a video of a 25c..........burning a bit rich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHjAT2_7ALY

Perhaps the char erosion was so agressive the fan lost capacity, maybe this was so in this video. You would think they had speed control on the fan turbine.....maybe it was wide open?!

Regardless, they sounded impressive.

Its good that no. 3511 (Frieda) still survives. Based on the current aerials, it may be still stored at Beaconsfield (its easy to spot with the 5 fans on the tender). I assume the national rail network still owns her. Hopefully it can find a stable safe harbor. Operating it would be a challenge but perhaps it could have a better life as "the only one", much like the Duke of Gloucaster.

The SAR gave it a gallant try, having 90 of these in their fleet......more than an experiment!

Some years ago, I was able to get a SAR mechanical drawing set from John Young. Looking as the details of the 25c, it was still a very impressive piece of engineering.

Non-condensing is good....for classic steam.....a little more drama!.....as it should be. (A good SAR example of this is the Class 26 Red Devil as shown here at 3:30 on the video clock...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR8h03yShu8.....it doesn't get any better than this!....in this video there is a short clip on the condenser just prior the RD high speed sprint.)

If you want to pursue condensing, don't stop with that alone, go all the way, use it for combined cycle on a diesel, take the fuel efficiency to new levels.

Cheers!

Randy