Steam & Excursion > UP Steam Auxiliary Tenders - why the change?

Quick question for our resident experts:

Why did UP rebuild the Auxiliary Water tenders in the UP steam program in the 2000's?  Why did they change the design instead of leaving the old turbine tenders as is?

Thanks in advance for any insight.
-James

Stripped all the insulation from the bodies and took a lot of stuff out of the interiors.

Frisco1522 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stripped all the insulation from the bodies and
> took a lot of stuff out of the interiors.

Exactly. And the removal of all the heavy oil heating equipment from the insides, gained an additional 2000+ gallons of capacity.

Did the external change happen to gain water capacity as well, or was it a side effect of removing internal components?

Thanks,
James

JLW2K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did the external change happen to gain water
> capacity as well, or was it a side effect of
> removing internal components?
>
> Thanks,
> James

No, the insulation & cover material on the outsides was more cosmetic, plus reduction of excess "dead" un-necessary weight. Removal of all that un-necessary external crap also allowed modifications to each end with improved water filling piping. Both cars look MUCH better now, carry more water, and are totally rebuilt. Although internal damage has surely been done after the current manager changed the boiler water treatment chemicals, back in 2011.

Andthey now look a  lot more like the FEF-1 tenders from which
they were built into turbine tenders.

All of the above are correct and I would add the following......

• As Turbine tenders they were wider than the regular tenders behind the 844 and 3985.  When backing with the turbine tenders it was hard to see around them.
• Indeed, they were originally FEF-1 tenders and the drawings of the same were used to put them back as close as possible to original.
• The turbine tenders had a very large heater coil that was routed down the center of the tender which could be removed from one end.  These were taken out.  The large circles on the side of the tender were also large canister heaters which were also removed and patched. 
• When the steam crew first received them, the water inlets were about two feet high in the tenders.  This means that you always had about 2000 gallons left in them that you could effectively never use.  During the rebuild the water lines were placed in the floor of the cast frames and now, you can suck them dry.  The same changes were made to the 844 and 3985 tenders. 
• In effect, yes the capacity was increased as a result of three factors (or, you could say that the range was extended for the tenders due to three factors)  1. ) Removal of long heater in the center, 2.) removal of the heater canisters on the sides and 3.) moving the water outlets to the bottom of the tenders. 
• We have been asked by many to supply drawings of the finished tenders....there are none.   The best bet is to contact UPHS for the FEF-1 tender drawings which they have.  Then, model them form pictures.
• Steve Lee had us "adjust" a few features just so that the rivet counters had something to complain about.  I won't give it away.  Also, the cars do have antennas on them.......radioactive..... ;-)

There's a bunch of discussion and photos from when the conversion was actually going on here:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?10,1080425,1080425#msg-1080425

As John said, there are no drawings of the finished tenders, however I was given the attached, a drawing of a GTEL tender.

Nathan Beauheim
Cheyenne, WY

---

As I have been told, the mods reduced the empty weight of the car by around 7,500 pounds, while increasing the capacity to somewhere North of 30,000 gallons each.

Somwhere about the same time period, the trucks were rebuilt with all new springs, pins, bushings, etc. And received new wheel sets with new roller bearings, etc.

The DL claims both cars are now worn out junk and he will build one or two new cars to replace these.

Posted from Android

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Andthey now look a  lot more like the FEF-1
> tenders from which
> they were built into turbine tenders.

Realist/HotWater,

Any reason a set of trucks from a big blow tender weren't swapped in place of the centipede wheels on the 3985/844?

-Dave

dbesade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Realist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Andthey now look a  lot more like the FEF-1
> > tenders from which
> > they were built into turbine tenders.
>
> Realist/HotWater,
>
> Any reason a set of trucks from a big blow tender
> weren't swapped in place of the centipede wheels
> on the 3985/844?
>
> -Dave

Those are called "pedestal type" tenders for a reason, i.e. the whole pedestal frame is one huge casting. There would be no practical method to mount trucks to such a design, and to what gain anyway?

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dbesade Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Realist Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Andthey now look a  lot more like the FEF-1
> > > tenders from which
> > > they were built into turbine tenders.
> >
> > Realist/HotWater,
> >
> > Any reason a set of trucks from a big blow
> tender
> > weren't swapped in place of the centipede
> wheels
> > on the 3985/844?
> >
> > -Dave
>
> Those are called "pedestal type" tenders for a
> reason, i.e. the whole pedestal frame is one huge
> casting. There would be no practical method to
> mount trucks to such a design, and to what gain
> anyway?

Were the FEF-1 Tenders "Pedestal Type" originally?. I've seen a few threads with complaints about centipede tenders ability to navigate tight curves versus a 4 wheel or 6 wheel truck. I seem to recall also someone quoting Steve Lee on something similiar but please don't quote me on that. Regardless all seemed to function fine, just a curious question thats all.

-Dave

dbesade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Were the FEF-1 Tenders "Pedestal Type"
> originally?.

No. In fact, those were the tenders used for the turbines, presently under discussion.

I've seen a few threads with
> complaints about centipede tenders ability to
> navigate tight curves versus a 4 wheel or 6 wheel
> truck.

Making reverse movements, you are correct, however that obviously was not considered an issue, back in the steam days.

I seem to recall also someone quoting Steve
> Lee on something similiar but please don't quote
> me on that. Regardless all seemed to function
> fine, just a curious question thats all.
>
> -Dave

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dbesade Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Were the FEF-1 Tenders "Pedestal Type"
> > originally?.
>
> No. In fact, those were the tenders used for the
> turbines, presently under discussion.
>
> I've seen a few threads with
> > complaints about centipede tenders ability to
> > navigate tight curves versus a 4 wheel or 6
> wheel
> > truck.
>
> Making reverse movements, you are correct, however
> that obviously was not considered an issue, back
> in the steam days.
>
> I seem to recall also someone quoting Steve
> > Lee on something similiar but please don't
> quote
> > me on that. Regardless all seemed to function
> > fine, just a curious question thats all.
> >
> > -Dave

Jack,

Your first point is why I asked the question :). So these were converted to a "Pedestal" style truck/frame as a part of their conversion to tenders for the turbines as I understand. As I have read here: http://utahrails.net/up/gte-tenders.php, there is yet another unused tender (http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2538472) in Cheyenne , would there be any benefit to either retrofitting it or using parts from it to replace the centipede style axle arrangement found on one of the remaining tenders (844/3985, etc). Especially with regards to reverse moves, etc. My apologies if my original inquiry was not clear.

-Dave

I don't know for sure, so probably shouldn't even comment, but I suspect that the original FEF tenders were not "modified" to pedestal types, the originals were replaced by the PTs.  That was the case for most of New York Central's Hudsons.   They were delivered with six wheel trucked tenders which were later replaced with PTs having more water and coal capacity than the originals.  Late in the Hudson production cycle, it was interesting that Alco built the locomotives, and Lima built the PT tenders.

I suggest some of you take a peek at the "tender" section of a Locomotive Cyclopedia from the 1940s.

It will become immediately obvious that there is no practical or economical way to convert a pedestal tender to a trucked tender, or vice-versa.
IOW, it didn't happen.

Both types of UP tender had cast steel, water-bottom frames. That means the top of the frames were the bottoms of the tanks. They were not tanks sitting on a frame.

Next, notice that the pedestal is all one piece. Tank bottom, side sills, truck pedestals, etc are all one big machined casting. And the center plate for the front truck is also part of that single casting.

The trucked tender underframe also has the center plates for the trucks as part of the one large casting.

These frames are not in any way interchangeable, for numerous reasons, most of which become painfully apparent from the photos in the Cyc.

Besides that, how do you get 12 wheels (two 3-axle trucks) to carry the weight that is on a 14 wheel tender now?

And another thing: there were rumors for decades that some turbine tenders were equipped with traction motors. Take a good look at a tender truck frame casting and tell us where there is room to install even 1 traction motor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/16 07:33 by Realist.

According to several books, including Kratville's, all 20 FEF-1 tenders were built with 3-axle trucks.

The only variation was that 5 or so were built with Buckeye 3-axle trucks while the rest got GSC 3-axle trucks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/16 10:27 by Realist.

Here a few photos of each. 3985's tender, and following water cars, Topeka, KS, Oct of 2010.

---

---

---

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I have been told, the mods reduced the empty
> weight of the car by around 7,500 pounds, while
> increasing the capacity to somewhere North of
> 30,000 gallons each.
>
> Somwhere about the same time period, the trucks
> were rebuilt with all new springs, pins, bushings,
> etc. And received new wheel sets with new roller
> bearings, etc.
>
> The DL claims both cars are now worn out junk and
> he will build one or two new cars to replace
> these.
>
> Posted from Android

Is there no end to this lunacy?