Steam & Excursion > Light Atlantics

According to The Pennsy Modeler, 1435 was built by Juniata in 1901, so the 1908 date on the image suggests it might not be a true builder's photo. Gottfried Heibesen recorded the 2035, another E2 built in 1902, taking water from the track pans at Glenolden, Pennsylvania, 1910. According to steamlocomotive.com, the 82 E2's Juniata built had only 21,477 lbs of tractive effort. 
Photo credits Library of Congress, Bruce Fales collection.
Be of good cheer,
—Mac
www.lowellamrine.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/26 00:33 by MacBeau.

---

---

What a fine clean-designed looking engine

That second shot is a marvel.  It's 1910 and he's captured a quickly moving train picking up water from the track pan.  Amazing.

I like seeing these old engines from the past.  These certainly bridge the period between the 4-4-0's and more modern power that began to arrive in the 1920's.  That was an amazing time of transition.

A 116 year old action photo! Photo two is a truly historic treasure!
Bob

They're both E2's? One with a sand dome and one without?

The Pennsy Modeler database shows both these as E2's. This D10a built by Altoona in 1891 has the same missing feature.
Photo credit John S. Powell, Library of Congress
—Mac

timz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They're both E2's? One with a sand dome and one
> without?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/26 11:05 by MacBeau.

---

Looks to me like the sand dome is within the same casing as the steam dome.
PRR 937 has a sander pipe at the #1 driver.
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/26 11:39 by train1275.

There does appear to be a pipe in front of the lead driver, but is not shown coming down the boiler. Could those actually be sandboxes above the drivers?
—Mac

train1275 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks to me like the sand dome is within the same
> casing as the steam dome.
> PRR 937 has a sander pipe at the #1 driver.
>  

There is also sand pipes on the 1435 on both drivers. I'm curious as to where the sand boxes would be!

Locoinsp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is also sand pipes on the 1435 on both
> drivers. I'm curious as to where the sand boxes
> would be!
Look just above the running board between the drivers. There appears to be two pipes coming out of the boiler jacket. I am guessing the the one dome was a combination sand/steam dome that someone thought would make the locomotive appear more sleeker looking. They probably found out that it didn't have enough sand capacity. 

Note 526, built Juniata 1902, sand pipes clearly visible in front of the drivers but no sand dome. This looks to be another Powell faux builder's image dated 1909.
—Mac

1019X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Locoinsp Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is also sand pipes on the 1435 on both
> > drivers. I'm curious as to where the sand boxes
> > would be!
> Look just above the running board between the
> drivers. There appears to be two pipes coming out
> of the boiler jacket. I am guessing the the one
> dome was a combination sand/steam dome that
> someone thought would make the locomotive appear
> more sleeker looking. They probably found out that
> it didn't have enough sand capacity. 

---

Beautiful locomotives!

refarkas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A 116 year old action photo! Photo two is a truly
> historic treasure!
> Bob

I'll second that!  Wild!

As for the location - I'm trying to picture where in Glenolden 
that might be - noting the curve it looks like it might? in fact 
be an eastbound train through Prospect Park? Er.. Moore, 
back in the day.

/Mitch

Thanks for pointing that out! I missed that detail while I was looking at the photo the first time! Makes sense they would have a shared dome.
1019X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Locoinsp Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is also sand pipes on the 1435 on both
> > drivers. I'm curious as to where the sand boxes
> > would be!
> Look just above the running board between the
> drivers. There appears to be two pipes coming out
> of the boiler jacket. I am guessing the the one
> dome was a combination sand/steam dome that
> someone thought would make the locomotive appear
> more sleeker looking. They probably found out that
> it didn't have enough sand capacity. 

Looking in the distance of the 1910 photo, you can see a short tangent secion and then another curve.  I'm going to guess this photo was taken on the east side of the tracks looking north.  

If you go into Google Earth and put this search in, it should drop you right across the tracks from where i think the photographer was standing. Now occupied by a tree care company and their backlot.

A-Plus Sharon Hill Tow Rescue Co., Woodland Avenue, Sharon Hill, PA

You're figuring the engine was about here

https://mapper.acme.com/?ll=39.9058,-75.268&z=17&t=S&marker0=39.9058%2C-75.268

So no overpass existed in 1910?

Main problem is the train would be climbing 0.4% there,
so no track pans there.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/26 14:42 by timz.

Does this help? Same photographer, same location, dated 1918, the year Juniata built the 5342 shown taking water.
—Mac

timz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're figuring the engine was about here
>
> https://mapper.acme.com/?ll=39.9058,-75.268&z=17&t
> =S&marker0=39.9058%2C-75.268
>
> So no overpass existed in 1910?
>
> Main problem is the train would be climbing 0.4%
> there,
> so no track pans there.

---

That pic has no visible ballast -- that's usual,
at a track pan, isn;'t it? The first "track pan" pic
doesn't have the track brickwork that this pic does.
So maybe the first one isn't really picking up water?

Looking at the amount of spillage taking place, might not the bricks have been placed to protect the ballast? Is the building with the tall stack used to heat the track pans in winter?
—Mac

timz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That pic has no visible ballast -- that's usual,
> at a track pan, isn;'t it? The first "track pan"
> pic
> doesn't have the track brickwork that this pic
> does.
> So maybe the first one isn't really picking up
> water?