There has been recent interest from some of the higher ups within our club about this locomotive, and whether or not any technical info exists for it. So, I know that finding records and drawings for Baldwin locomotives can be a huge mess, and that sometimes nothing exists at all, but I am hopeful that someone knows something about it.

So, here goes what we know about it already...

Its a Baldwin 0-4-2T built for the Sydfyenske Jernbaner in 1899
Its construction number is 16293
It was scrapped in 1932
It had a boiler pressure of 10 bar
Driver diameter of 39" or .99m
Loaded weight of 22 tons
Empty/dry weight of 19 tons
Coal supply of .5 tons
Water supply of 2m^3
A length of 7.63m or 25'
And an estimated max speed of 35-40 kph

We would be most interested in finding drawings and the data specification card. From my understanding, its status as a foreign export locomotive makes it slightly more likely to be found...?

I will also be contacting the Danish state railway museum, since DSB took over the rail line in the 1940's. Hopefully they might have something hidden away in their archives!

CSRM or the De Gollyer would be the places to start. This is a stock industrial locomotive built for industries in the US and for export by many builders including Glover, so you know they aren't going to be terribly hard to document. I'd expect to find good traces of sisters if not yours. Anyone withy a Baldwin catalog could probably find something in it as a start.......

Sure is a cute little rascal. Steam jam brakes? Too bad Norm Sandley didn't go for small standard/Narrow gauge. I love the simplicity of some of these small logging/industrial locomotives. A thrashing engine on rails. Best to the OP on drawings. Regards, John.

Definitely steam jam brakes... and definitely a cute little rascal.

Baldwin specifications from the DeGolyer Library are available on line. Try a Google search for Baldwin Specifications.

So after a quick search through the DeGolyer library online material, I managed to find this about the locomotive.

In volume 21 on page 11 of the Baldwin Locomotive Specifications book this information was present

Engine
Class: 4-18C
No.: 52
Purchaser: Sydfyenske Jernbaner
Page: 285

So am I to assume drawings for this locomotive would have an identification number of 4-18C and that 52 means its the 52nd locomotive built to these plans? Also, what does it mean by page 285?

Yes, 4-18 C would be the Baldwin class number, which is to say the basic model of locomotive, and 52 means the 52nd engine built to that design. As Dave has noted above, this was a stock industrial locomotive, so there were a lot of them (meaning 52 was early in the series).

Scanning the SMU DeGolyer Library index, I see listed a number of erecting card drawings for other 4-18 C engines, and even a few detail drawings for particular parts of 4-18 Cs (a drawing for the saddle tank of 4-18 C 101 built for Great Lakes Stone & Lime in 1914, for example), but none for this particular engine. The closest set of erecting drawings I see on the list are for 4-18 C 58, built in 1902 for Robert H. Foerderer, It might be worth a look, and certainly better than nothing.

Good luck with your research. That engine is a real cutie.

-Philip Marshall

P. S.: The class number would actually seem to imply an 0-4-0 rather than an 0-4-2. ("4" means four wheels total, and "C" means two sets of drive wheels; and "18" is Baldwin's cryptic way of indicating a cylinder diameter of 12 inches.) Is it possible this engine was built as an 0-4-0 and had the back truck added later in Denmark?

-Philip Marshall

Possibly, but it is my understanding that the first photo is the builders photo from Baldwin itself...?

And thanks for the help!!! What did you search on the archives? I searched Baldwin and was only able to view a few locomotive photos and specification cards, not what you found!

Under this tab, I see only 4 options to search Baldwin material
http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/all/cul/rwy/

If the locomotive in the photo was built as a 0-4-2, then it should be a 6-Cx (with x being a number to represent its cylinder size) then a number (like 52) indicating that it is the 52nd 0-4-2 of that cylinder size...

There can be a wide variety of locomotives within the class... various gauges, inside or outside frame, wagon top or straight boiler...

From the class number you can pull the specification sheet (also on line) which will give you the drawing number... (upper right corner of the specification sheet) all locomotives of a specific class and drawing are in theory identical...

We have some information about the class system with links to several other sources at PacificNG.org, specifically at http://www.pacificng.com/template.php?p ... /index.htm

Randy

So I have it on confirmation that the locomotive was originally built as an 0-4-0 when it left Eddystone, and that the -2 came in 1900 when the SFJ found it to ride hard on the rear axle. Problem solved! Now I just need to find/piece together a complete set of drawings for the locomotive as built, and then hope to god the drawings for the modification exist somewhere that make the locomotive truly unique!

On an incredibly interesting side note, a discussion with a friend at the shop today revealed he has an original gauge from the locomotive! Its made by the New York Air Brake Co., but I am slightly confused if it is actually for air brakes... The locomotive had steam jam brakes as we have all figured out, and every air line gauge I have seen in the club's collection only goes till 10 bar. Being that it goes to 14 bar, could this have been used as the main steam pressure gauge...?

I'm glad to hear it was indeed built as an 0-4-0 as suspected.

The DeGolyer indices I was working from are linked from the online guide/finding aid to the Baldwin collection at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/smu/00052/smu-00052.html

Scroll about 1/3 of the way down the page, and under "Detailed Description of the Collection" and then "Series 1: Engineering Drawings" you will find links labelled "PDF of erecting drawings sorted by railroad name", "PDF of erecting drawings sorted by class number", "PDF of detail drawings sorted by railroad name", and "PDF of detail drawings sorted by class number".

-Philip Marshall

What great resource Randy - I had no idea it was there.

The gauge is clearly marked for Kg per CM squared, not atmospheres. Perhaps it was steam jam pressure? Bourdon gauges are similar, but the main steam variety I have seen are somewhat more robust than those for brake systems. How does Kg per CM squared compare to atmospheres....and how high above seal level?

One Kg per cm equals something like .769 atmospheres if I remember correctly from my boiler lessons. I honestly have no clue how altitude would influence that measure though!

On a side note, if opinion is that this is definitely brake related in some way (besides by mfg.), we are looking adding a single lung brake pump on the locomotive under the cab floor, and it could be used for that. Brake line pressure in Denmark (maybe all of Europe..?) is 8 bar.

Edit:
After looking through the SMU material for 4-18C, I must say I am disappointed that there are only 3 drawings in their collection. Does anyone have any idea how drawings for say the 4-16 C would compare? I wonder how many of the components would be the same? Safe to assume the cylinders would not be, but might be good for a starting template

Also, thank you Philip!!

You may find the erecting drawing or spec sheets call out detail drawings. I've had much better luck with the Vulcan Iron Works archives at RMPa. That said, if you find you can't locate the Baldwin drawings, you may find that the similarly sized Vulcan product was very close to identical in general terms, and you might find many more drawings for them which could be equally useful for you. The collection of archived Vulcan drawings for Cliffside 110 was astounding, for example. I am confused, however - does the locomotive still exist (based on your comment about putting an air pump under the floor) or are you contemplating a replication? If it exists, just draw the damn thing. If not, you'd need to reengineer it anyhow and adapt it for today's manufacturing and regulatory environment in any case.