Joe788 wrote:

On May 5, 4:59 am, Joe788 wrote:

Beautiful restored 1927 4-8-4 steam locomotive that on May 1st 2010
made a special overnight trip to San Diego.

My new girlfriend and I were walking in Cardiff By The Sea on Saturday
when it passed by. Just an awesome sight to behold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5VG5OQwTNE


Apparently this steam locomotive sat for years in a park of some sort
before it was restored and put back into occasional action.

Things like this aren't meant to be on display. They're meant to run.
The latter maybe just my opinion but it should be fact.

Here are some questions for those who wish to share their knowledge or
do the research:

How do they put the water in it? I'm not aware of any water towers
that are located next to train tracks in the San Diego, California
area.

How much water does this locomotive hold and how often does it need to
be refilled?



In "steam days", railroads had many water sources ... usually large
elevated tanks with large diameter drop-down spouts for quickly filling
loco tenders.

Alternatively, the water from the tanks could be piped to large "water
columns" ... vertical pipe-stands alongside the tracks with a rotating
cross-pipe on top allowing the end to be positioned over the tender's
water-hatch. Again, the diameter was large to allow a high flow from the
reltaively low pressue source. One water tank might serve multiple
water-columns.

Today, with few water tanks left, filling the tender is often done by
the local fire department. Despite their powerful pumping trucks, it
takes a LOT longer (a half hour or more is typical) than it did with the
old RR water spouts (a few minutes). Fire trucks are set up to deliver a
lot of pressure at relatively low volume ... just the opposite of RR
water facilities.

How much does that loco's tender hold? I don't know, specifically, but
several thousand gallons. It's almost always marked on the outside of
the tender, usually on the rear face. It varied a lot with the size of
locomotive, the RR's water policies, and the countryside the loco was
designed to run through. In most cases, the tender could hold enough
fuel to evaporate several loads of water. Thus the loco had to stop for
water far more frequently than for fuel. The exact proportion of water
to fuel varied with the intended service.

For example, locos operating the southwest, like AT&SF, had large
tenders that were mostly just big water tanks. Water is scarce in that
area, water tanks further apart, so they needed to carry a lot of it.
Extra water-only tenders ("Auxilliary tenders") were fairly common in
such areas.

Back east, say on the NYC, they often had tenders with huge fuel
capacity and realtively small water capacity ... water was plentiful.

Also of note was NYC and PRR had extensive "track pan" systems that
allowed them to scoop water into the tender while the locomotive was
moving at a reasonable speed. Thus they could add water "on the fly"
whenever they needed it, without stopping.

The track pans were LONG narrow troughs set between the rails in
appropriate locations, and kept full of water by a supply system. The
loco tenders had an air-operated scoop that could be lowered into the
trough by the loco's fireman. The motion of the scoop rammed the water
upward into the tender's water tank with great force. Movies usually
show the tender water-hatch being blown open when the tender reached
capacity. Too high a pick-up speed (usually about 40 mph was used) could
actually burst the tender. The scoop also had to be lifted promptly when
the end of the trough neared or BAD things would happen. The scoops were
designed to break away, but a derailment was always a possibility.

One other variation was the use of condensing systems. Widely used on
ships and stationary steam plants, these were never very effective on
railroad locos as the only available cooling source was air that had
relatively poor ability to carry away the large quantities of heat being
dissipated. At best, only some of the water could be recovered and
reused. Condensing locos were tried, and used, but rarely, and only
under special conditions. In the USA, Union Paciific trid two GE
experimental steam-turbine-electrics that had condensers ... they were
failures. The only big, and mostly successful, condensing steam loco
operations I know of were in South Africa. There, they had to cross the
Kalahari desert where almost NO water was available. They had a fleet of
large steam locos with HUGE condensing tenders that operated
succcessfully until displaced by Diesels.

Dan Mitchell
============

Interesting information. Most of the fire trucks near me, I
think are 750 GPM or 1,000 GPM. At least, back when I was
interested in that field.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"danmitch" wrote in message
...
Joe788 wrote:

On May 5, 4:59 am, Joe788 wrote:

Beautiful restored 1927 4-8-4 steam locomotive that on May
1st 2010
made a special overnight trip to San Diego.

My new girlfriend and I were walking in Cardiff By The Sea
on Saturday
when it passed by. Just an awesome sight to behold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5VG5OQwTNE


Apparently this steam locomotive sat for years in a park
of some sort
before it was restored and put back into occasional
action.

Things like this aren't meant to be on display. They're
meant to run.
The latter maybe just my opinion but it should be fact.

Here are some questions for those who wish to share their
knowledge or
do the research:

How do they put the water in it? I'm not aware of any
water towers
that are located next to train tracks in the San Diego,
California
area.

How much water does this locomotive hold and how often
does it need to
be refilled?



In "steam days", railroads had many water sources ...
usually large
elevated tanks with large diameter drop-down spouts for
quickly filling
loco tenders.

Alternatively, the water from the tanks could be piped to
large "water
columns" ... vertical pipe-stands alongside the tracks with
a rotating
cross-pipe on top allowing the end to be positioned over the
tender's
water-hatch. Again, the diameter was large to allow a high
flow from the
reltaively low pressue source. One water tank might serve
multiple
water-columns.

Today, with few water tanks left, filling the tender is
often done by
the local fire department. Despite their powerful pumping
trucks, it
takes a LOT longer (a half hour or more is typical) than it
did with the
old RR water spouts (a few minutes). Fire trucks are set up
to deliver a
lot of pressure at relatively low volume ... just the
opposite of RR
water facilities.

How much does that loco's tender hold? I don't know,
specifically, but
several thousand gallons. It's almost always marked on the
outside of
the tender, usually on the rear face. It varied a lot with
the size of
locomotive, the RR's water policies, and the countryside the
loco was
designed to run through. In most cases, the tender could
hold enough
fuel to evaporate several loads of water. Thus the loco had
to stop for
water far more frequently than for fuel. The exact
proportion of water
to fuel varied with the intended service.

For example, locos operating the southwest, like AT&SF, had
large
tenders that were mostly just big water tanks. Water is
scarce in that
area, water tanks further apart, so they needed to carry a
lot of it.
Extra water-only tenders ("Auxilliary tenders") were fairly
common in
such areas.

Back east, say on the NYC, they often had tenders with huge
fuel
capacity and realtively small water capacity ... water was
plentiful.

Also of note was NYC and PRR had extensive "track pan"
systems that
allowed them to scoop water into the tender while the
locomotive was
moving at a reasonable speed. Thus they could add water "on
the fly"
whenever they needed it, without stopping.

The track pans were LONG narrow troughs set between the
rails in
appropriate locations, and kept full of water by a supply
system. The
loco tenders had an air-operated scoop that could be lowered
into the
trough by the loco's fireman. The motion of the scoop rammed
the water
upward into the tender's water tank with great force. Movies
usually
show the tender water-hatch being blown open when the tender
reached
capacity. Too high a pick-up speed (usually about 40 mph was
used) could
actually burst the tender. The scoop also had to be lifted
promptly when
the end of the trough neared or BAD things would happen. The
scoops were
designed to break away, but a derailment was always a
possibility.

One other variation was the use of condensing systems.
Widely used on
ships and stationary steam plants, these were never very
effective on
railroad locos as the only available cooling source was air
that had
relatively poor ability to carry away the large quantities
of heat being
dissipated. At best, only some of the water could be
recovered and
reused. Condensing locos were tried, and used, but rarely,
and only
under special conditions. In the USA, Union Paciific trid
two GE
experimental steam-turbine-electrics that had condensers ...
they were
failures. The only big, and mostly successful, condensing
steam loco
operations I know of were in South Africa. There, they had
to cross the
Kalahari desert where almost NO water was available. They
had a fleet of
large steam locos with HUGE condensing tenders that operated
succcessfully until displaced by Diesels.

Dan Mitchell
============

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Interesting information. Most of the fire trucks near me, I
think are 750 GPM or 1,000 GPM. At least, back when I was
interested in that field.

I'll admit to knowing more about railroads and steam locos than fire
engines. My statement on the time it takes a fire company to fill an
average sized steam tender was based on observations (many).

A quick look at Wiki reveals that (in the USA): "Class A hydrants are
1000-1499gpm, Class B hydrants are 500-999gpm, and Class C hydrants are
0-499gpm. A fire pumper can't deliver more water than the hydrant can
provide.

Steam loco rewatering usually takes place in some out-of-the-way
location, typically a small town. The fire engines responding are not
the big city pumping engines, but usually much smaller "volunteer"
department trucks. The capacity of nearby hydrants (the ultimate
limiting factor) is probably toward the low side those on the Wiki list.
There's also the issues of how far they have to run the supply hose to
get to the nearest hydrant, and the condition of the hydrant, etc.

Both PRR and AT&SF (and maybe a few others) had tenders that exceeded
24,000 gallon water capacity. Even at 1000 gpm (unlikely in the field),
it would still take 24 minutes to fill such a tender. A more typical
sized tender, say 15,000 gallons capacity, would take at least a
quarter-hour to fill at best. It would seem a half-hour would be more
typical under real-world conditions, which is about what I have observed.

Anyway, my point was that it usually takes much longer to fill a steam
tender today than it did when proper RR watering facilities were
commonplace.

Dan Mitchell
============

On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:33:42 -0400, danmitch
wrote:

Joe788 wrote:

On May 5, 4:59 am, Joe788 wrote:

Beautiful restored 1927 4-8-4 steam locomotive that on May 1st 2010
made a special overnight trip to San Diego.

My new girlfriend and I were walking in Cardiff By The Sea on Saturday
when it passed by. Just an awesome sight to behold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5VG5OQwTNE


Apparently this steam locomotive sat for years in a park of some sort
before it was restored and put back into occasional action.

Things like this aren't meant to be on display. They're meant to run.
The latter maybe just my opinion but it should be fact.

Here are some questions for those who wish to share their knowledge or
do the research:

How do they put the water in it? I'm not aware of any water towers
that are located next to train tracks in the San Diego, California
area.

How much water does this locomotive hold and how often does it need to
be refilled?



In "steam days", railroads had many water sources ... usually large
elevated tanks with large diameter drop-down spouts for quickly filling
loco tenders.

Alternatively, the water from the tanks could be piped to large "water
columns" ... vertical pipe-stands alongside the tracks with a rotating
cross-pipe on top allowing the end to be positioned over the tender's
water-hatch. Again, the diameter was large to allow a high flow from the
reltaively low pressue source. One water tank might serve multiple
water-columns.

Today, with few water tanks left, filling the tender is often done by
the local fire department. Despite their powerful pumping trucks, it
takes a LOT longer (a half hour or more is typical) than it did with the
old RR water spouts (a few minutes). Fire trucks are set up to deliver a
lot of pressure at relatively low volume ... just the opposite of RR
water facilities.

How much does that loco's tender hold? I don't know, specifically, but
several thousand gallons. It's almost always marked on the outside of
the tender, usually on the rear face. It varied a lot with the size of
locomotive, the RR's water policies, and the countryside the loco was
designed to run through. In most cases, the tender could hold enough
fuel to evaporate several loads of water. Thus the loco had to stop for
water far more frequently than for fuel. The exact proportion of water
to fuel varied with the intended service.

For example, locos operating the southwest, like AT&SF, had large
tenders that were mostly just big water tanks. Water is scarce in that
area, water tanks further apart, so they needed to carry a lot of it.
Extra water-only tenders ("Auxilliary tenders") were fairly common in
such areas.

Back east, say on the NYC, they often had tenders with huge fuel
capacity and realtively small water capacity ... water was plentiful.

Also of note was NYC and PRR had extensive "track pan" systems that
allowed them to scoop water into the tender while the locomotive was
moving at a reasonable speed. Thus they could add water "on the fly"
whenever they needed it, without stopping.

The track pans were LONG narrow troughs set between the rails in
appropriate locations, and kept full of water by a supply system. The
loco tenders had an air-operated scoop that could be lowered into the
trough by the loco's fireman. The motion of the scoop rammed the water
upward into the tender's water tank with great force. Movies usually
show the tender water-hatch being blown open when the tender reached
capacity. Too high a pick-up speed (usually about 40 mph was used) could
actually burst the tender. The scoop also had to be lifted promptly when
the end of the trough neared or BAD things would happen. The scoops were
designed to break away, but a derailment was always a possibility.

One other variation was the use of condensing systems. Widely used on
ships and stationary steam plants, these were never very effective on
railroad locos as the only available cooling source was air that had
relatively poor ability to carry away the large quantities of heat being
dissipated. At best, only some of the water could be recovered and
reused. Condensing locos were tried, and used, but rarely, and only
under special conditions. In the USA, Union Paciific trid two GE
experimental steam-turbine-electrics that had condensers ... they were
failures. The only big, and mostly successful, condensing steam loco
operations I know of were in South Africa. There, they had to cross the
Kalahari desert where almost NO water was available. They had a fleet of
large steam locos with HUGE condensing tenders that operated
succcessfully until displaced by Diesels.

Dan Mitchell
============

Thanks Dan! I always wondered about that. Much obliged!

Gunner

--


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

Interesting information. Most of the fire trucks near me,
I
think are 750 GPM or 1,000 GPM. At least, back when I was
interested in that field.

I'll admit to knowing more about railroads and steam locos
than fire
engines. My statement on the time it takes a fire company to
fill an
average sized steam tender was based on observations (many).

CY: And, a lot of factors go into determine water flow.

A quick look at Wiki reveals that (in the USA): "Class A
hydrants are
1000-1499gpm, Class B hydrants are 500-999gpm, and Class C
hydrants are
0-499gpm. A fire pumper can't deliver more water than the
hydrant can
provide.

Steam loco rewatering usually takes place in some
out-of-the-way
location, typically a small town. The fire engines
responding are not
the big city pumping engines, but usually much smaller
"volunteer"
department trucks. The capacity of nearby hydrants (the
ultimate
limiting factor) is probably toward the low side those on
the Wiki list.
There's also the issues of how far they have to run the
supply hose to
get to the nearest hydrant, and the condition of the
hydrant, etc.

CY: And also the wisdom of the crew. You get a lot more flow
if you put the pumper at the hydrant, and pump through the
hose. It's nearly impossible to effectively suck through a
hose. Some fire guys keep forgetting this.

Both PRR and AT&SF (and maybe a few others) had tenders that
exceeded
24,000 gallon water capacity. Even at 1000 gpm (unlikely in
the field),
it would still take 24 minutes to fill such a tender. A more
typical
sized tender, say 15,000 gallons capacity, would take at
least a
quarter-hour to fill at best. It would seem a half-hour
would be more
typical under real-world conditions, which is about what I
have observed.

CY: with a good hydrant and truck, and a good crew. Things
go a lot faster.

Anyway, my point was that it usually takes much longer to
fill a steam
tender today than it did when proper RR watering facilities
were
commonplace.

CY: I can easily believe that.

Dan Mitchell
============

On May 7, 8:52*am, danmitch wrote:

Both PRR and AT&SF (and maybe a few others) had tenders that exceeded
24,000 gallon water capacity. Even at 1000 gpm (unlikely in the field),
it would still take 24 minutes to fill such a tender. A more typical
sized tender, say 15,000 gallons capacity, would take at least a
quarter-hour to fill at best. It would seem a half-hour would be more
typical under real-world conditions, which is about what I have observed.

NYC and the PRR (and others)had water filled trenches between the
rails on the important Mainlines,with a remote control scoop on the
Tender, allowing refills on the go back in the heyday of Steam.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mELYxgFA8AYC&pg=PA54

**
mike
**

On May 7, 8:52*am, danmitch wrote:

Hit 'Send' too Soon

Anyway, my point was that it usually takes much longer to fill a steam
tender today than it did when proper RR watering facilities were
commonplace.

But does give the Railfans more time for pics.

When the UP Challenger came thru town last year, they weren't exactly
racing to refill. Timetables allow things to be a little more
slowerpaced now

**
mike
**

danmitch on Fri, 07 May 2010 09:52:57 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Anyway, my point was that it usually takes much longer to fill a steam
tender today than it did when proper RR watering facilities were
commonplace.

It would take even longer if you had to do it with buckets. Even
"back in the day."

Somewhere I recall reading that civilization was really all about
moving water to where people wanted it. The rest is commentary.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Sun, 09 May 2010 09:29:26 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


Somewhere I recall reading that civilization was really all about
moving water to where people wanted it. The rest is commentary.


Some truth indeed!




Gunner

--


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Sun, 09 May 2010 09:29:26 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote the following:

danmitch on Fri, 07 May 2010 09:52:57 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Anyway, my point was that it usually takes much longer to fill a steam
tender today than it did when proper RR watering facilities were
commonplace.

It would take even longer if you had to do it with buckets. Even
"back in the day."

Somewhere I recall reading that civilization was really all about
moving water to where people wanted it. The rest is commentary.

I think we can pretty much scratch FEMA off the civilized list, eh?

--
The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest her
or his patients in the care of the human frame, in a proper diet, and
in the cause and prevention of disease.
-- Thomas A. Edison

mike wrote:
On May 7, 8:52 am, danmitch wrote:

Both PRR and AT&SF (and maybe a few others) had tenders that exceeded
24,000 gallon water capacity. Even at 1000 gpm (unlikely in the field),
it would still take 24 minutes to fill such a tender. A more typical
sized tender, say 15,000 gallons capacity, would take at least a
quarter-hour to fill at best. It would seem a half-hour would be more
typical under real-world conditions, which is about what I have observed.


NYC and the PRR (and others)had water filled trenches between the
rails on the important Mainlines,with a remote control scoop on the
Tender, allowing refills on the go back in the heyday of Steam.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mELYxgFA8AYC&pg=PA54

**
mike
**

Which I described in a "snipped" paragraph following the one you quoted.

I don't know how "remotely controlled" you could consider the scoops ...
they were actuated by an air-piston controlled by the fireman on the
locomotive. IIRC, they were held up by springs, and forced down by air.

The fireman lowered the scoop when the tender passed over the leading
end of the track-pan, and raised it when the tender was either full, or
the tender neared the end of the pan. Signs alongside the track marked
the appropriate locations. The scoops were designed to break away if not
raised in time, but that would still be a highly UN-desirable situation
that might lead to a train derailment. At best, the boss would NOT be
pleased!

Typical pick-up speed was around 40 mph. Attempting to scoop water at
much higher speeds could damage the tender.

Once the tender was full, the typical result was the tender water-hatch
flying open (they were hinged), and a guyser of water erupting from the
top of the tender.

see also: http://www.jimquest.com/writ/trains/pans/scoop4.htm, which
includes a good picture of an "overflow", and several photos of the pans.

NYC had some tenders with several large curved overflow pipes spaced
along the outside-top edges of their tender tanks. With these, a full
tender resulted in multiple firehose-like streams of water squirting
outward and downward alongside tender.

The scoop alone produced a huge "bow wave" as it rammed through the
track-pan. This squirted outward from beneath the tender to a fair
distance to both sides. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_pan

Add the gush of water from the overflow, and it was a pretty impressive
event. It would NOT be good to be standing near the track when a loco
was taking water from a track-pan.

Dan Mitchell
============