Home | Open Account | Help | 385 users online |
Member Login
Discussion
Media SharingHostingLibrarySite Info |
Steam & Excursion > Why weren't water softening towers more common?Date: 01/19/25 16:32 Why weren't water softening towers more common? Author: timz Don't see that many scenes like this
https://unionpacific.canto.com/v/UnionPacificCollection/album/RJ6AL?viewIndex=2&gSortingForward=false&gOrderProp=createDate&referenceTo=&from=fitView&display=fitView&column=image&id=g9m1qjp42t59hbopfkt035c716 Was Wyoming water that much worse than anywhere else? UP only used these for a few years? Someone figured out what to add to the water in the tender to make it work? But engine crews didn't do that, did they? So what took over to replace softening towers? UP had them in Nebraska too https://unionpacific.canto.com/v/UnionPacificCollection/album/RJ6AL?viewIndex=2&gSortingForward=false&gOrderProp=createDate&referenceTo=&from=fitView&display=fitView&column=image&id=5k4bf3rqod69173kg6ua9eji1c https://unionpacific.canto.com/v/UnionPacificCollection/album/RJ6AL?viewIndex=2&gSortingForward=false&gOrderProp=createDate&referenceTo=&from=fitView&display=fitView&column=image&id=huug6ni7cp7g36li20seh1em3j https://unionpacific.canto.com/v/UnionPacificCollection/album/RJ6AL?viewIndex=2&gSortingForward=false&gOrderProp=createDate&referenceTo=&from=fitView&display=fitView&column=image&id=124dkub7fh3j1ah3doutpda35a Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/25 16:36 by timz. Date: 01/19/25 19:17 Re: Why weren't water softening towers more common? Author: PHall The railroads only built water softening plants they were needed. They were an added expense to build and operate.
Date: 01/19/25 21:23 Re: Why weren't water softening towers more common? Author: tomstp I thought most water tanks were feed by water that was tested at its location and chemicals were added. Each location basically had different chemicals or amounts, based on testing of the water, That was true on the T&P and also on the Rio Grande. A few issues back there was a lot about them in the Prospector magazine and it has also been used on the narrow gauge. Some locations were automatically fed while others were attened by employees who did only that.
Date: 01/20/25 07:12 Re: Why weren't water softening towers more common? Author: march_hare I didn't know about this particular system for softenening, but I can tell you that much of Wyoming's groundwater is awful. Salty, and loaded in particular with calcium and magnesium salts. In places, it's so briny that it's toxic to cattle. People, too.
Much of southern Wyoming where UP runs is a closed topographic basin. No rivers leave the area, so there is no "flushing" of water that has picked up dissolved solids ("salts") from contact with the local rocks and dirt. In most other parts of the world, these dissolved solids are washed downstream and eventually end up in the ocean somewhere. This is how the oceans got to be salty in the first place. What little rainfall there is soaks into the ground and stays there, staying in long term contact with the local geology. Similar closed-basin conditions are also common farther west on the Overland Route, in Nevada. Date: 01/20/25 10:18 Re: Why weren't water softening towers more common? Author: railstiesballast IIRC Nalco and other firms sold "cakes" of water softening chemicals that firemen could toss into the tender when they took water.
There was almost always solids left behind in boilers which is why "blow downs" are done while running and boilers are drained and fresh water added at least every 30 (?) days. Date: 01/20/25 10:27 Re: Why weren't water softening towers more common? Author: HotWater railstiesballast Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > IIRC Nalco and other firms sold "cakes" of water > softening chemicals that firemen could toss into > the tender when they took water. > There was almost always solids left behind in > boilers which is why "blow downs" are done while > running and boilers are drained and fresh water > added at least every 30 (?) days. Yes, the FRA still requires a steam locomotive boiler to be completely washed out every 30 days. Back in the steam days, the water across Nebraska and Wyoming was so bad, the UP conducted locomotive boiler washes every 15 days! Date: 01/20/25 12:29 Re: Why weren't water softening towers more common? Author: filmteknik I’ve always been surprised that more use of condensing engines was not done. Yes, hauling such a thing around would be nasty but so is frequent stops for water and building and maintaining tanks, wells, pumps etc. Clean water would mean treatment (and foaming) would be eliminated and maybe boiler washes done only at overhaul. Add water only to replenish for train heat and whistle, depending if the dynamo goes into the condenser or not.
Posted from iPhone Date: 01/20/25 13:06 Re: Why weren't water softening towers more common? Author: HotWater filmteknik Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > I’ve always been surprised that more use of > condensing engines was not done. Yes, hauling > such a thing around would be nasty but so is > frequent stops for water and building and > maintaining tanks, wells, pumps etc. Clean water > would mean treatment (and foaming) would be > eliminated and maybe boiler washes done only at > overhaul. Add water only to replenish for train > heat and whistle, depending if the dynamo goes > into the condenser or not. Condensing steam locomotives required way too much clap-trap equipment. The South African Railways had 4-8-4 condensing locomotives in an area where there simply wasn't any water. They eventually removed all the clap-trap equipment. Even the Santa Fe chose to haul water in tank trains to those locations in the southwest where there was no water, instead of using condensing steam locomotives. Date: 01/20/25 22:59 Re: Why weren't water softening towers more common? Author: Evan_Werkema timz Wrote:
> Don't see that many scenes like this How hard have you looked? Santa Fe also traversed a lot of bad water territory and had an extensive water treatment program that resulted in many, many stations having treatment plants and treatment tanks in addition to the regular storage tank. Some examples: Timpas, CO, plant + storage tank: https://www.kansasmemory.org/item/215844 Alva, OK, plant + storage tank: https://www.flickr.com/photos/barrigerlibrary/50145668792/sizes/h/ Syracuse, KS, treatment plant + treatment tank + storage tank: https://www.kansasmemory.org/item/221815 , https://maps.app.goo.gl/EjQTtpvj6PL9f2gDA Ash Fork, AZ, treatment tank + storage tank: https://www.flickr.com/photos/barrigerlibrary/12352826774/ Mulvane, KS, treatment tank + storage tank: https://www.flickr.com/photos/barrigerlibrary/12231044644/ Houck, AZ, treatment tank + storage tank: https://www.flickr.com/photos/barrigerlibrary/12230982534/ Williams, AZ, plant + treatment tank + storage tank: https://www.flickr.com/photos/barrigerlibrary/12292857855/ Rincon, NM, plant + treatment tank + storage tank: https://www.kansasmemory.org/item/216235 Grants, NM, plant + two treatment tanks + storage tank: https://www.flickr.com/photos/barrigerlibrary/12296179546/sizes/l The standard water treatment plant in Trinidad, CO survived up until just a few years ago: https://maps.app.goo.gl/o48Cf4ZDTot1XiPr9 One still stands next to the roundhouse in Las Vegas, NM: https://maps.app.goo.gl/LEHdt5GfyVN6s7rJ7 Date: 01/21/25 18:45 Re: Why weren't water softening towers more common? Author: wabash2800 I've seen photos of them in the Midwest.
Victor Baird |