the extension in that photo looks a lot like the one on the 557, but on the Engineer's side. I wonder if they were applied as a pair to both sides. Also in the 557 photo, there is a small rod extending toward the Fireman's cab floor at an angle. Wonder is this is some sort of control rod or shaft. It looks too small for any kind of support.

Interesting. I tried looking up that stoker in my 1941 loco cyc but there was nothing on that brand. Does your source have any diagrams of the Elvin Stoker?

Of course it also depends on whether the KCS 2-8-0 even had a Stoker.

Does the book say which Mallet that was. More photos of these engines probably couldn't hurt the discussion.

joe6167: My source was the 1922 Locomotive Cyclopedia. It does not show any more views of that extension, nor do any patent descriptions show anything similar. It doesn't indicate what railroad the mallet is for.

locopilot750: the extension is indeed on the fireman's side in that Elvin Stoker picture. Note the location of the throttle lever. Either the mallet is for export or the negative was reversed. You can also see the two bolts extending from the mud ring that the complete apparatus would mount to.

I was responding to a post dated Friday Aug 23 6:46pm, which stated


Someone certainly DID imply, or at least question, if the extension pivoted. In my opinion it does not.


Meanwhile, for more on the Elvin stoker, beloved of Livio Dante Porta, go here (2.59MB .pdf download). This is from Martyn Bane's site (which has its own discussion of the design). I believe these were driven by a very interesting piece of mechanism, the Dake square-piston engine, of which the company was proud enough to provide a little color-coded drawing (in the .pdf, p.8, booklet page 15).

While both the elevators and the 'shovels' on the Elvin could have been worked from those backward rod extensions and cranks, if a railroad wanted to 'save a buck' implementing the elevator and shovel drivethe feed screw (driven by universal shaft from the Dake engine) would still have to rotate for the thing to work properly. That's not impossible, of course, and perhaps earlier versions of this kind of stoker did use mechanical drive from the rods -- it would appear to me that there is sufficient power-transmission capacity in the rod-and-crank system to drive that style of stoker, and the control on the fireman's side 'fits' as being the sort of on-off control to connect the drive.

OK. So how did they operate the stoker if the locomotive was sitting still? As in a siding. Sit there long enough and it's going to need some coal. Did they hand-bomb it under circumstances like that?

Reminds one of the ancient ram-style injector that operated off the crosshead to put water in the boiler. The locomotive had to move for that thing to operate.

You would only NEED a stoker with the engine running at high load. Yes, I'd expect hand firing at other times. But I really don't think those rod extensions actually drive a stoker.

The interesting implication from the Mallet picture is that the rod extensions were present on both sides, not just one. I still think it is a grate-shaker of some kind. What kind of fuel did these locomotives burn?

But do you need a grate shaker shaking continuously? The device in the 2-8-0 photo doesn't look solid enough to (directly) operate the grates.

Further more on the Standard Stoker HT stoker, the speed of the engine is regulated from a simple valve in the cab.

Also, apparently the photo of the mallet was either flipped or an export engine based on which side the throttle was on.

Plus we don't know if the KCS 2-8-0 had a stoker.

KCS E-4 class originally burned coal. Eight were later converted to oil.

Chris, do you know if they were equipped with stokers though?

Yes, but I was wondering what kind of coal?

I do not know about what types of fuel KCS used, or might have tried. But if the ash characteristics were poor, or the heat content restricted, for example, some sort of shaking arrangement might have been beneficial 'enough' to justify this rather intricate arrangement.

Clear to me, from the picture, that the rotation of the countershaft is cut in or out from 'whatever it drives' by the control rod, so it doesn't need to work continuously.

From Dr. Nick Muff-

E-4 Class - 2-8-0; Built just in 1913 the thirteen Kansas City Southern E-4 class Consolidations #550-564 reflected the influence of Lenore Lorre - Delaware & Hudson in their short stocky lines. As delivered by American Locomotive Works - Richmond, Virginia the locomotives had 57-inch drivers, 24" x 30" cylinders, boiler pressure 175 lbs. Weight on the drivers loaded was 224,000 lbs, engine weight loaded 254,000 lbs and Tractive effort of 52,923 lbs. They were considered one of the best all-around freight engines on the KCS..

In 1936 the all these engines were rebuilt with 63-inch Box-Pok drivers, 26" x 30" cylinders, boiler pressure 200 lbs, weight on drivers loaded 232,400 lbs., engine weight loaded 262,400 lbs., and Tractive effort 54,948 lbs. Thermic Syphons were installed on engines 553, 554, 555, 557, 561, 562, and 564 to increase boiler efficiency. The rebuilt locomotives were authorized for speeds of up to 50 miles per hour in freight service. All E-4's with the exception of #550, 553, 555, 562 and 563 were converted to burn oil. These engines were scrapped between 1952 and 1953

The following photos show 557 after conversion to oil.

Randy -

And the little side rod extension is no longer on the engine! Thanks for the posting of the photos.


Les

Maybe it's the thing that makes the noise and smoke exhaust like an old Lionel engine. I've stared at this thing for an hour and for the life of me I can't make sense of it.

So whatever the device was, it was not only so unsuccessful as to have seen little use, but was later removed. Interesting.

I've looked at photos of all the locomotives in the class. Here are a few of the oldest photos I can find of the E-4's. Unfortunately, none are builder's photographs like the one of 557.