The popular "folklore" reason given for the decline and fall of Camelback locos is that the Interstate Commerce Commission outlawed their continued production in the 1920s. One typical example at https://www.steamlocomotive.com/types/camelback/ :



The problem is, George Drury, in his Guide to North American Steam Locomotives, states:



So, the question asked by my researcher friend:
Can anyone actually point to actual such regulations passed by either the ICC or some other governmental oversight agency on the Federal or state level such as the Penna. Public Utilities Commission?

Or is this possibly yet another railroad "urban legend" repeated endlessly in popular history, but never refuted save in some obscure academic papers, like the "Chinese chipping away at cut walls while hanging in wicker baskets" tale about the construction of the Central Pacific?

ICC had been grumbling about Camelbacks for years, largely because only the engineer was in the engineer's cab. The fireman was likely on the tender apron with the coal scoop and the head brakeman would be in the left cab or on the pilot beam.

The fireman and engineer were separated by a firebox that was the full width of the locomotive. They could not see each other.

Had the ICC banned camelbacks, they would have done CNJ a huge favor. CNJ used primarily a fleet of pre-WWI 4-6-0 camelbacks (and a few 4-4-2's such as 592 at the B&O Museum). CNJ did not have the money to replace the camelbacks, so if the ICC had banned them, CNJ would have had to discontinue almost all of their money-losing commuter service.

In the event, CNJ had 8 camelback 4-6-0's running into 1954, when they closed the Dunellen enginehouse. 774 continued to 1956 in excursion esrvice.

Phil Mulligan

Warren Crater, a CNJ engineman, told the story of a colleague who was plump and did not fit through the cab door. Not to worry; he had the hostler place a ladder and he went through the cab window. One day he was running and a pin broke and he heard the rod pounding on the cab floor. Next thing he knew he was on the tender and the train was stopping in emergency. He had fit through the cab door, but all the buttons were gone from his jacket and shirt.

I could swear I recently saw a rather in-depth discussion on this somewhere.

It might've been here, but this is the best I'm coming up with.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=44138&p=299430&hilit=camelbacks#p299430


Or it might've been this in the RLHS Railroad History magazine: "Mother Hubbards' Bone of Contention - The Camelback ICC Ban That Never Was - Gregg Ames" in No. 219 - Fall/Winter 2018

https://rlhs.org/Publications/History/

Having seen two of them - SRR's and the one at St. Louis, being the fireman on one seems like the worst job in the world, as well as one of the most dangerous.

Two things I distinctly remember from my youth - Ron Ziels line in "Twilight of Steam" - "In the summer, the engineer roasted, in the winter, the fireman froze", and a rather chilling photograph in Robert C. Reed's "Train Wrecks" of the entire engineers side of a camelback cab sheared off from a detached siderod flailing.

Good thread, because I'd heard the same legend yet seen the CNJ commuter photos into the 50's and wondered how that ever happened.

I always wondered why there was even a fireman's side to the cab. Was there even an injector in there? Water glass somehow? Or the just equivalent of a warming hut?

Kelly - maybe you know this one, it would appear to me that on an 0-4-0 with as much 'overhang' and no pilot or firebox trucks, that loco deckplate would be like a steel trampoline in motion unless track surface was excellent. Tender probably a safer place to stand?

These things really remind you of how little human life and comfort used to be worth.

There were lots of "deckless"-cabbed locomotives in which the boiler extended all the way back through the cab, cutting off the fireman from the engineer. In order for the engineer and fireman to communicate they had to yell at each other over the top of the boiler, or the fireman had to go out the back door of the cab, onto the firing deck and cross over to the engineer's side and scream in his ear.

No one seemed to think this was a problem...

.

Greg Ames in the Fall/Winter 2018 issue of Railroad History determined that there was no such ICC order outlawing construction of such locomotives. He could not locate one, despite extensive research. It's the only, and probably the best and most thorough dive into the issue, and beats all the other sources.

Like a lot of generally-accepted "truths" this appears to be a railfan invention.

https://rlhs.org/Publications/History/RRH219Contents.pdf

In answer to an earlier question, both injectors were in the Engineer's cab. There were usually two check valves side by side. Sometimes there was a "Y" fitting and one check valve for both injectors. I doubt if the ICC liked that either.

On May 9, 1948, Reading Company train 2048, the Sunday Perkiomen Branch passenger train, had Engine 606, an L-7 camelback 4-6-0. The train had left the station at Valley Forge on No. 4 track, the outside passenger track of 4, and derailed to the right at about 30 mph. The engine and tender remained coupled and leaned against an embankment on their right sides. The engineer and fireman were killed.

Investigation revealed someone had pulled the spikes on the outside rail of No. 4 track, but did not displace the track enough to break the signal bonds. An individual was arrested and convicted.

Since the 606 had rolled onto the engineer and thrown the fireman, this was probably the last camelback-oriented fatal accident. New G-3 Pacifics replaced the camelbacks that year.

Phil Mulligan

The article by Gregg Ames in Railroad History #219 concluded that the ICC never banned the camelback. The nail in the coffin of this mistaken conventional wisdom was a conversation with Jack White who was the retired curator of transportation at the Smithsonian. Jack had been called by David P. Morgan, editor of Trains Magazine, asking about the ICC ban. Jack asked the ICC if it was true and they spent a month looking through their records and could not find anything to confirm the ban. Copies of the issue can be had at rlhs.org.

The Southern Pacific inherited a narrow-gauge, deckless locomotive when it took over the Nevada-Calfornia-Oregon and relocated several locomotives to its former Carson & Colorado narrow gauge. It shopped the locomotive on its way to Mina, Nevada, and extended the frame and moved the cab back, etc. This allowed both the fireman and the engineer to seat behind the firebox.

This deckless locomotive was originally Florence & Cripple Creek #22 (then N-C-O #22 and SP #22) and a sister to the RGS #20 that was recently restored to operation.

Another Reading camelback L-7, 603, was in a collision with a PRR train at Sunbury.

Reading Shops rebuilt it as an end cab engine renumbered 616 (and with Caprotti poppet valves!) and the 616 was 4 feet longer than it had been as 603. Same tender.

Phil Mulligan

That's pretty interesting. I found some pictures of the 616, compared to others from a similar class (since I couldn't find a picture of the 603), and it's neat to see how the cab was added:





The size of the domes is also reversed, with the 616 having a larger dome towards the front of the engine, while the other locomotives have the larger dome towards the rear of the engine.

An interesting thread. I, too, thought to make reference to the issue of Railroad History as already mentioned when considering a thorough reference on the ICC camelback ban/legend. As I recall, the last camelbacks built were an order of 0-8-0's for the L&NE in 1927 (I forget the builder). As discussed here, I believe the last camelbacks operated in regular service by a Class 1 were those on the CNJ.

Regarding crew comfort and safety, I must say as much as I'm a Reading fan, I do often look at pictures of their camelbacks and feel sorry for the poor sap behind the firedoor(s). Many of them offered little shelter, especially in the latter days of steam, the small overhang on the back of the firebox resembling something of a small brimmed welders cap worn backwards - that might protect the fireman from a light drizzle should the drops be falling perfectly vertical. Jersey Central, on the other hand, seemed a little more sympathetic with their center cab engines, some having almost second full cabs at the back of the firebox with a vestibule style design.

On one other note, and attempting not to veer too far off subject, but while we're discussing CNJ's camelbacks: Has anybody ever come across a definitive description of just why the CNJ had such an affinity for the two piece, split counterweights on the driving wheel centers of many of it's camelbacks?? I've sort of guessed this may have been a precautionary measure to ensure a better quality casting in early foundry practice - see the segmented rims on some of 475's drivers, and other early engines - but this is just a guess from a novice at foundry practice, and it would be interesting to know for sure.

-Erich
Strasburg Rail Road Mechanical Services

Not trusting the fireman with the water was a common practice on many railroads, even those who did not use camelbacks. A late steam example are C&O 2-8-4s, which were built giving the engineer control of the feedwater pump and the non lifting injector.