a new (old) #59?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
73 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tonnage Ratings on B-4-C and B-4-D classes

Todd A Ferguson
Would they have possibly reduced the steam pressure due to boiler age.  Just a wild thought...

Best,
Todd Ferguson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tonnage Ratings on B-4-C and B-4-D classes

Mike Trent
Administrator
It's really anyone's guess, I suppose, but there are a couple of clues.

The drawings show that the C Class engines have a 16X18" bore and stroke, as opposed to the 16X20" bore and stroke of the D Class. Could be that the ports in the cylinders are positioned differently, and it also could be that the driver cylinders in the C Class engines were different, possibly with the crank pins 1" closer to the center of the axle, which may have been an older style common to smaller and older locomotives. With a 10% reduction in the stroke, the pistons would certainly have less compression, and would always have been rated below the D Class in tonnage.  

Even a 10% shortfall in the rating of the C Class would have been 99 tons compared to the D Class rating of 110 tons and that alone eliminates one 25 Ton loaded car  on the 4% ruling grade from four to three.

So, most likely, due to the shorter stroke of the cylinders, and the advancing age of the smaller Rhode Islands combined with the addition of the much heavier "Boulder Engines" and #537 (all 145 Tons each) on the roster, reducing the tonnage rating of the C Class engines to 80 tons to reduce wear and tear sounds like a real good idea.

Or, perhaps it was for another reason entirely.    

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tonnage Ratings on B-4-C and B-4-D classes

John Greenly
Mike, this is interesting, I'm wondering about the tonnage ratings too.

The tractive effort listed on the folio sheets is 15,816 lb for the B-4-C and 17,574 lb for the B-4-D,  that's only 11% larger.  This is with equal listed 150 psi boiler pressures.  This difference is exactly consistent with the difference in piston stroke, 18" vs. 20", with the same size (37") drivers.  So as Mike says, this doesn't explain even a third of the difference in tonnage rating in the later years.  

If indeed the Rhode Island engines were limited to lower boiler pressure in their later years, then scaling based on the folio tractive effort values would indicate a reduction from the original 150 psi to 120 psi for the B-4-C's to account for the difference in tonnage rating.  That seems like quite a large reduction. But someone with real-life experience might be able to give  perspective on this.  

The weight on the drivers is only 7% different, so adhesion doesn't seem to be the limiting factor- unless the springing or equalization of the B-4-D's was a lot better on poorly maintained track??  

I don't see any other obvious reason for the difference.   From the folio numbers you see that all the firebox, grate, flue and heating surface numbers are listed as absolutely identical between the two classes.  This almost seems suspicious- two different manufacturers, did they really build to identical specifications, or did whoever wrote the folios just copy from one to the other?  That can be checked in one way.  Those numbers can be compared with the listed ratios of cylinder volume to heating surface and grate area, which are different between the two classes.  Those ratios are in fact just about consistent with the difference in cylinder stroke in the two classes assuming the other numbers are in fact identical.  

All this says that basically the Rhode Island engines, according to the folio sheets, had identical steaming capability but lower tractive effort, and they were "geared higher" so to speak.  The crank pins were at 1" smaller radius- closer to the axle center-  (that's what gave the shorter cylinder stroke, as Mike points out) but they had the same 37" driver diameter, so they were optimized for slightly higher speed service.  But that difference is not enough to account for the different tonnage ratings on grades, assuming equal boiler pressures.  

Cheers,
John
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tonnage Ratings on B-4-C and B-4-D classes

Mike Trent
Administrator
Hi John,

It's complicated to consider the various elements which affect tractive effort and tonnage ratings.

In the "real world", however, the most critical factor is how much tonnage can be pulled on the ruling grade, which on the C&S was 4%. A loaded freight car is typically rated at 50,000 lbs, which is 25 tons. So, quite frankly, the D and E class engines rated at 110 and 120 tons respectively,  equate to only 4 cars each on a 4% grade.

Following your comments after comparing statistical analysis of the folio sheet data, you would conclude, as I did, that even in their prime, the C class engines would not have rated over 100 tons. So setting the bar at 80 tons is still above the mark of 75 tons for three loads on a 4%, but prevents the smaller engines from beating themselves to death trying to keep up with the others pushing the limits on heavy tonnage trains over the passes.

Interestingly, a train of 11 loaded cars on a 4% grade could be handled by any two of the four heaviest engines, as their combined effort would reach 290 tons.

An eleven car train at maximum tonnage would be 275 tons.

So, a minimum of any combination of three locomotives would be required to handle the train even if one of the three were an F class or #537.

This is why the C&S had to maintain so many locomotives to handle the required needs of their activities.

One last comment, old retired Doug Schnarbush, who Todd Hackett and I knew back in the 80's, commented several times about the fact that they were required under the US Mail contract and ICC regulations to keep an "emergency engine" under steam at all times at Como. I could never get him to say that #60 fulfilled that duty often, but it sure would have been perfect for it. As would #58. A three car passenger train would not have exceeded 75 tons.

Interesting stuff indeed....

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tonnage Ratings on B-4-C and B-4-D classes

Todd A Ferguson
Mike,

Don’t forget the caboose…probably another 5 tons or so….

Best,
Todd Ferguson

On Jul 1, 2017, at 11:44 PM, Mike Trent [via C&Sng Discussion Forum] <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi John,

It's complicated to consider the various elements which affect tractive effort and tonnage ratings.

In the "real world", however, the most critical factor is how much tonnage can be pulled on the ruling grade, which on the C&S was 4%. A loaded freight car is typically rated at 50,000 lbs, which is 25 tons. So, quite frankly, the D and E class engines rated at 110 and 120 tons respectively,  equate to only 4 cars each on a 4% grade.

Following your comments after comparing statistical analysis of the folio sheet data, you would conclude, as I did, that even in their prime, the C class engines would not have rated over 100 tons. So setting the bar at 80 tons is still above the mark of 75 tons for three loads on a 4%, but prevents the smaller engines from beating themselves to death trying to keep up with the others pushing the limits on heavy tonnage trains over the passes.

Interestingly, a train of 11 loaded cars on a 4% grade could be handled by any two of the four heaviest engines, as their combined effort would reach 290 tons.

An eleven car train at maximum tonnage would be 275 tons.

So, a minimum of any combination of three locomotives would be required to handle the train even if one of the three were an F class or #537.

This is why the C&S had to maintain so many locomotives to handle the required needs of their activities.

One last comment, old retired Doug Schnarbush, who Todd Hackett and I knew back in the 80's, commented several times about the fact that they were required under the US Mail contract and ICC regulations to keep an "emergency engine" under steam at all times at Como. I could never get him to say that #60 fulfilled that duty often, but it sure would have been perfect for it. As would #58. A three car passenger train would not have exceeded 75 tons.

Interesting stuff indeed....




If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/a-new-old-59-tp8562p8636.html
To unsubscribe from a new (old) #59?, click here.
NAML

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tonnage Ratings on B-4-C and B-4-D classes

Robert McFarland
When were both classes reboilered?Were the new boilers in both classes similar?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tonnage Ratings on B-4-C and B-4-D classes

Mike Trent
Administrator
In reply to this post by Todd A Ferguson
Right, Todd. Or, a flanger. Plus, snow and wet rail factors in as well.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tonnage Ratings on B-4-C and B-4-D classes

Mike Trent
Administrator
In reply to this post by Robert McFarland
Robert, I'm not sure any of the consolidations were ever reboilered.

But rebuilding the Cook Moguls boosted their tonnage rating to 110 tons, same as the B-4-D's.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tonnage Ratings on B-4-C and B-4-D classes

Todd A Ferguson
In reply to this post by Mike Trent
Yes Sir!!!

On Jul 2, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Mike Trent [via C&Sng Discussion Forum] <[hidden email]> wrote:

Right, Todd. Or, a flanger. Plus, snow and wet rail factors in as well.


If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/a-new-old-59-tp8562p8639.html
To unsubscribe from a new (old) #59?, click here.
NAML

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tonnage Ratings on B-4-C and B-4-D classes

John Greenly
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Mike Trent
Hi Mike,

Your points are well taken, thanks!  Here, just to confuse the issue, is something I just came across.  On p. 460 of Poor's DSP&P (memorial ed.)
he reproduces a table "from a 1912 employee's timecard",  that lists engine ratings on the various sections of the C&S.  The engines are listed in four groups with equal tonnage rating within each group:
 
Group 1:  B-3-A  

Group 2:  B-3-B, B-4-A, B-4-B

Group 3: B-3-C, B-4-C, B-4-D

Group 4, B-4-E

So, in 1912, the B-4-C's and D's had equal tonnage ratings.

For the steepest sections, like Como to Boreas and Pitkin to Alpine Tunnel, the rated tonnages were:

group:        1       2       3       4
tonnage:    70     95     110    120

 So something really did change later, to de-rate the Rhode Island engines.

John

 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tonnage Ratings on B-4-C and B-4-D classes

Mike Trent
Administrator
Interesting, John. Thanks!

Probably higher maintenance costs on the B-4-C engines took their toll, as they would have to have been seriously maxed out at 110 tons.

Of course, in 1922 the C&S added the big Boulder engines, which would have replaced the B-4-C class in operations. I bet this helped persuade any doubters as to their need.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tonnage Ratings on B-4-C and B-4-D classes

Jim Courtney
Of course, in 1922 the C&S added the big Boulder engines, which would have replaced the B-4-C class in operations.

Yep, Mike. By the mid1920s, the Rhode Islands seemed to show up as passenger power for excursions (to Silver Plume, Platte Canon and the Fish trains), replacing the lighter 2-6-0s (11, 12, 13, 21, 22) in this service.

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/p15330coll22/id/42528/rv/singleitem

Order of Railway Conductors Special Train; 7 cars, 25 MPH. Photographed: South of Sheridan Junction, Colo., July 8, 1928.

Is big number 76 the road engine or the helper cut in behind 61? I'd be willing to bet that 76 was cut off at Crystal Lake or Pine and either returned to Denver or ran on to Como, perhaps helping a following west bound freight.  The 61 likely returned the tired conductors and spouses to Denver that evening.


And the #59 seemed assigned to the Central City to Forks mixed run, until the line above Blackhawk was abandoned.



In Grandt's Narrow Gauge Pictorial; C&S Motive Power


The Leadville switching job seemed to be assigned to #60, with #58 pinch hitting while the #60 was in Denver for scheduled maintenance.  The 57 and 62 seemed to spend most of their time on the Buena Vista to Romley mixed run, until relieved by B-4-Ds near abandonment.

As traffic slowly dwindled, the Rhode Islands gradually descended the ladder rungs of un-needed power, leaving only 58 and 60 to protect the Leadville switching job by the mid 1930s.  The surge in traffic to the Moly mill at Climax brought them back to the mainline in last couple of years.
Jim Courtney
Poulsbo, WA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: a new (old) #59?

John Greenly
In reply to this post by John Greenly
This good tonnage discussion has impressed upon me that I need more engines than freight cars, so… back to modeling.

Last night I was feeling reckless- or maybe wreck-ful- so I took the top off the tender of my nascent B-4-C.  Here is what came off:



The huge motor that had been crammed miraculously into the tender by a previous owner is there on the right.  I looked it up, it's a Mashima motor sold by Proto Power West.  It's a very powerful and smooth skew-wound motor, way too big for anything I will do.
I wonder if any of you in larger scales might have use for it?  It's their stock number 40321 (Mashima #1833), 33mm x 23 mm x 18mm across the flat sides.

I decided to try out a small Faulhaber motor I picked up on Ebay a while back, fits nicely in the tender as you see in the picture.

Here it is put together:



Wow, that's a nice little motor, runs beautifully, great super-slow speeds.  

So, now I need to decide what to put on top of the tender water tank.  I'm beginning to think, just to do something different and because I like the looks, that it would be fun to model one of the "intermediate" tender versions with the back end of the flare cut off and the sides bent up straght, like the one in the photo Jim posted above of # 58 in 1919.  The PFM engine as it is fits #59 best I think, because of smokebox, cab and other things.   In 1910 or 11 it had one of the long-haul tenders (photo in the thread on that subject), and by 1923,  it had the modern sheet-metal style.  I wonder whether it ever went through an intermediate tender stage.  That's what I'd like to do for my 1918 target time.  So far I'm not finding any photos of #59 between 1911 and 1923.  Or maybe I should turn it into #58, especially if there are any better photos of it with that tender.  Any leads out there?

Cheers,
John
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: a new (old) #59?

Jim Courtney
So far I'm not finding any photos of #59 between 1911 and 1923.


See 59 at Central City in my last post. Also:



About 1923, switching at Blackhawk.



Likely same photographer, same day.

Of course, there is no reason that 59 couldn't have had an intermediate tender between 1918 and 1922.  Just pick one that you like and model it--tenders also seemed to be traded among locomotives quite a bit. The absence of evidence is not evidence, but does allow modeling license!
Jim Courtney
Poulsbo, WA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Jim Courtney
In reply to this post by John Greenly
A few more photos, none of the Rhode Islands alas, demonstrating various intermediate tender styles:



Idaho Springs, 1921.

This version of the intermediate tender (lets call it style A) has the tender collar bent vertically, cut off completely along the top of the rear tank, with rounded ends forward and behind the sheet metal coal bunker extension.

Rhode Island engines 58 and 62 are known to have had this style of intermediate tender.



Denver, 1923

The other common style, lets call it style B, was the same as style A, except the rear of the bent up collar was cut flush with the rear of the coal bunker extension. (Aside--Although the folio sheets for both the B-4-C and B-4-D tenders show tender collars 12" tall, the Baldwin tender collars always look shorter to me, perhaps 10")



1923, Denver.

Number 70 has been outfitted with a short tender, likely from a scrapped 2-6-0, with a style A intermediate coal bunker.



1927, Denver

Another example of the style B intermediate coal bunker sides.



1931, Denver.

A late version of the intermediate tender (C?) where all that remains of the tender collar is the beading at the top of the collar. The bent up collar is cut flush fore and aft with the coal bunker extension.
Jim Courtney
Poulsbo, WA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

John Greenly
Jim,

this is great!  I'm definitely going to try a style A.  I like the looks of the rounded and beaded back end of the remaining collar.  The fact that they went to the trouble of doing that, instead of just cutting it off flush like style B, seems to say that somebody had a sense of design and good looks, and applied it even to these otherwise totally utilitarian and banged-up specimens.  

This'll also let me make those neat upward extended marker lamp holders on the back corners, that were talked about in another thread.  In fact, I'm going to search that right now, hoping to find a picture of the back of one of these tenders. Did they have handrails around the top of the back end?  Was there a toolbox up there, just behind the coal bunker?

thanks!!
John
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Mike Trent
Administrator
John, good choice. Here are a couple of suggestions.

First, the flaired top which forms the basis if the "intermediate" side of the bunker is 12" wide. You can simulate the rounded formed top using a piece of brass wire rod.

The upper extension is also at or very near 12" above the old flaired side, making the upper part of the bunker 24" above the cistern.

The boxes at the front are probably at least 30" tall, 30" front to back (deep), and will be as wide as the rounded water legs of the cistern. That is probably 18". The tops are flat. These boxes are made of welded sheet iron, and support the sides of the bunker at the front, as well as providing a small storage space inside.

If you want a profile similar to #10's tender, you should have a 5' deck behind the Coal bunker. That will allow space for that nice brass cast box to fit forward of the water hatch. There are grabirons on each side, and at the rear, and a pair of marker light brackets at each rear corner.

On the rear of the cistern there would be a 12" diameter air tank probably 33" long. On the engineers side there is a triple valve and two air lines that come up from the deck. There is a control valve on the engineers side at the front which has a small air line that runs along the top of the cistern to the triple valve at the end of the tank.

At the front between the water legs, there would be three 2x6 boards, the bottom one of which has a half wide board to the deck that forms an opening on the engineers side. This is where coal is scooped. Above this "coal gate" there is an upper coal gate which is held in place by the weight of coal behind it between the boxes. When the Coal level goes down to the top of the cistern, this upper gate is stored either inside the bunker, or against the rear of the bunker forward of the water hatch. These can often be found in photos, and often resemble a wood pallet.

These things are common among all C&S tenders, with the usual variations.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Jeff Young
On that 1923 picture of #69, it appears that the top “flute” of the steam dome is askance?  (I always figured they were somehow structural; were they really just decorative?)

Cheers,
Jeff.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Todd A Ferguson
Jeff,

I think they were mostly decorative and maybe a small small amount perhaps protecting the structure.  I assume the domes was mainy cast but I don’t know for sure.

Best,
Todd

On Jul 3, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Jeff Young [via C&Sng Discussion Forum] <[hidden email]> wrote:

On that 1923 picture of #69, it appears that the top “flute” of the steam dome is askance?  (I always figured they were somehow structural; were they really just decorative?)

Cheers,
Jeff.



If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/a-new-old-59-tp8562p8656.html
To unsubscribe from a new (old) #59?, click here.
NAML

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: a new (old) #59?

CBryars2
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by John Greenly
Geat topic, the pictures are first rate.  I would love to see more on the tender rebuils and your piano wire.  Have several PFM 2-8-0 I need to get working.

Thanks Cameron
http://dgccrr.blogspot.com/
Facebook - Denver, Golden & Clear Creek Railroad
1234