Steam Locomotive weight

Ken Jones · **Posted:** Fri May 05, 2006 11:27 pm

Ok, here's a question. When the builder put a weight on a locomotive, was it with, or without fuel, water, etc?? As in, an 0-4-0ST weighs 96000lbs, is that empty weight, or is that with max coal & water (which wouldn't add to a whole lot) I'm guessing it's empty weight, but i thought i'd ask, just to be sure.

Ken Jones Jr.
Niagara Falls Railway Museum
http://www.nfrm.ca

Dave Stephenson · **Posted:** Sat May 06, 2006 8:12 am

Generally locomotive weights are in "working order" which usually means two glasses of water in the boiler, whatever firebed depth is consistent with normal operation and the tender 2/3 loaded.

Locomotive diagrams on the other hand, will generally give empty weights, tender capacity and sometimes weight in working order. You have to know what standard the source you're referring to is using. It will sometimes specify.

Unforutnately there are exceptions and only a comparison of several sources for the same locomotive will give you an accurate answer (maybe). Sometimes comparative info doesn't exist, or it's inconsistent. I've collected loco specs for years and it's always a challenge to sort through the various numbers to see what's going on. That's why I had to use all the caveats above.

Warren · **Posted:** Sat May 06, 2006 10:56 am

Ken Jones wrote:

As in, an 0-4-0ST weighs 96000lbs, is that empty weight, or is that with max coal & water (which wouldn't add to a whole lot)

Actually it could be quite a bit of weight. If you had two tons of coal and 1500 gallons of water, that would add 14,000 lbs to the working weight. This doesn't include the water in the boiler ,which could be roughly figured with few minutes of measuring and math work.

Jim Baker · **Posted:** Sat May 06, 2006 8:08 pm

According to my 1947 copy of Baldwin's Standard Practice, there are two possibilities:

1) "Light Weight" which is taken "Without water in boiler or tender; without fuel in tender; without sand; without crew; without fire on grate and clean ash pan."

2) "Weight in Working Order" is taken" Under steam; with water level in boiler to second gage cock; with 6" fire on grate; with steam pressure 5 psi under working pressure; with sand box full, or equivalent weight on running boards; with crew in cab (2 men.) For oil burning locomotives, tender tanks to be filled with oil." [I'm sure those two men made a big difference!]

SP's spec sheet for our class T-31 10-wheeler lists "weight on drivers," "weight on front truck," and "total engine weight, loaded," which is the sum of the two other weights. No mention of the tender. This makes sense, since SP, at least, did a lot of tender swapping.

Since you appear to be asking about a tank engine, I'd assume (but I really shouldn't assume) that "weight in working order" would include full fuel and water and light weight would have everything empty.

SR&RL No. 10 · **Joined:** Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:34 pm **Posts:** 39

Long time Baldwin employee Frederick Westing, in his book "The Locomotives that Baldwin Built" on page 171, notes in a caption for a photo taken in the Baldwin scale house:

Quote:

…Weighing a steam locomotive was quite a secretive affair. Only the regular staff connected with the scale house and specifically authorized observers were permitted inside during the "weighing-in" ceremonies. Like many ladies, the steam locomotive appeared sensitive about its weight being publicly known -- probably another reason why we referred to it as "she!"

This "cloak and dagger" routine was necessitated by the fact that railroads paid their engine crews according to engine weight, besides mileage and time. For example, on the Pennsylvania Railroad an engineer and fireman received more for operating a K4, than an E6 or K2, when hauling a passenger train. Railroad management was, therefore, averse to publicity regarding engine weight. Publicized weight given by Baldwin was based on an engine in working order which left some leeway as to what that might constitute on certain roads; for instance, some based that on one or two gauges of water in the boiler and other roads might figure otherwise. By Baldwin standards the tender weight was figured at two-thirds full.

Finderskeepers · **Posted:** Sun May 07, 2006 10:59 am

Of course Lima got caught in their cloak and dagger weighing procedures with their C&O allegheny which actually weighed far more than the published weight. When it came out that the engines were published underweight, Lima had to pay C&O to the point that the whole Allegheny project lost money.

Warren · **Posted:** Sun May 07, 2006 11:58 am

Another little "cloak and dagger" weight related story. When the ICC came out with the rule that any locomotive with more than a certain amount of weght on the drivers would have to stoker fired, railroads like the NYO&W invented a work around to save money. They figured the weight on the drivers was so close to the rule amount, they didn't want to spend the money to convert thier Consolidations to stoker fed engines. So they moved the air compressors and air tanks up front over the engine truck,close to the pilot beam and it took enough weight off the driver to put the engines under the weight on driver rule.

(Sorry, I don't remember the year the rule came out nor the weight on drivers figure)