Steam & Excursion > A Steam Locomotive Modification

I'm guessing this was done to keep smoke out of the cab in a Great Northern tunnel district.
Thoughts?
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/23 05:18 by PVSfan.

---

I'm sure that helped the noise level in the cab!

Mary McPherson
Dongola, IL
Diverging Clear Productions

Looks like it drops a few feet behind the locomotive on the tender.  I would think smoke would swirl into the cab anyway.

PVSfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm guessing this was done to keep smoke out of
> the cab in a Great Northern tunnel district.
> Thoughts?
>  


Yes, for the original Cascade Tunnel, before their first electrification. Engine crews wore canvas hoods over their heads and shoulders, supplied filtered air from brake reservoirs.

Helped some but not a whole lot, since the air in a tunnel moves with the train.

-LD

Edit: I wonder what Compressor oil did for their lungs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/23 07:09 by LarryDoyle.

Years ago Trains published a head-on photo of an elbow stack engine emerging from the tunnel with two freeloaders lounging on the pilot deck - breathing clean air. Reportedly, the engineer who had hired the photograph was furious when shown the print.

-LD

Equipped with an afterburner for increased speed!  :-)

Z

You think the draft would be bad on that locomotive? The Southern Railway used a similar arrangement on its locomotives on its CNO&TP "Rathole" Division. They were called Wimble Ducts, but a sliding elbow was used to allow them not to be employed outside of the tunnels. The first installation was the length of the locomotive, but later ones were considerably shorter. I think the engine crews still wore the hoods. The real purpose of the ducts was not to blast the roofs of the small bore tunnels.

I need to compare the dates of the GN versus Southern usage.

An early tunnel motor.

Would that modification help or hinder the draft?

-LD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/23 13:33 by LarryDoyle.

One of the first ramjet applications involving burning powered coal for the hypersonic speeds?

Out 

I just noticed it's set up for passenger service.

Old tunnel is 2.63 miles. Did they issue canvas hoods for passengers? Must have taken nearly 15 minutes to pass thru.

-LD

LarryDoyle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just noticed it's set up for passenger service.
>
> Old tunnel is 2.63 miles. Did they issue canvas
> hoods for passengers? Must have taken nearly 15
> minutes to pass thru.

Presumably the train crew made sure that the windows were closed.

Just looked up a few stats on that first Cascade Tunnel.

Opened December, 1899.
2.63 miles long, uphill grade eastbound 1.7%
Eliminated 9 miles of switchbacks over the Cascade Pass route, cut 2 hours running time
Didn't eliminate helpers, though.  Think of what THOSE crews were breathing!
Primary motive power was 2-8-0 and 4-8-0 types.  In 1906, GN got it's first 2-6-6-2's as pushers.

In 1909 steam power was replaced with a 3-phase electrifiation using 2 trolley wires and synchronous motors which could only run 15 mph.  Later modified so they could run at 7.5 mph or 15 mph.

-LD

It seems like this would have caused problems creating a proper draft.  Thoughts?

Westbound downhill, just keep the airpump working.

Eastbound, before entering the tunnel, forget everything you've learned about intense heat and long flame paths. Instead, before you get to the tunnel, you've built up a huge deep bank of coking fire to get you through the bore with adding as little "green coal" as possible.

It's that fresh coal is what makes the most smoke, so keep it to a minimum.

When watching the stack of any hand fired engine you can easily see a puff of black smoke out the stack for every scoop the fireman shovels. In the tunnel you'd want to keep it to a minimum.

-LD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/23 07:22 by LarryDoyle.

Why didn't someone just build a different shape tender (like a slope-back tender) to allow better visibility, hang a headlight on the tender, and simply run backwards?  Seems like a simple solution.

hotrail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why didn't someone just build a different shape
> tender (like a slope-back tender) to allow better
> visibility, hang a headlight on the tender, and
> simply run backwards?  Seems like a simple
> solution.

Then the "pilot truck" wouldn't performing it's designed function of "piloting" the engine into curves.

hotrail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why didn't someone just build a different shape
> tender (like a slope-back tender) to allow better
> visibility, hang a headlight on the tender, and
> simply run backwards?  Seems like a simple
> solution.


I seem to recall there was another railroad somewhere in the Southwest that did something like that with about 250 articulateds.

GN solved the problem with electrification.

-LD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/23 20:41 by LarryDoyle.