Unusual Steam locomotives

Hello, all!
I recently came across a few pictures of some unusual steam locomotives, and I thought I should share them. These photos are from the northeast railfan site and show a couple of interesting PRR steam locomotive classes, the "Q"s.
First up is a PRR class Q1 4-6-4-4, #6130, fresh from the shops.
Here's Q1 #6130 a little later in life.
This is a PRR 4-4-6-4, class Q2, an evolution of the Q1. Among other changes are moving the four wheel drive unit ahead of the six wheel set, and facing the cylinders foward.
Here's a pair of Q2s earning their keep in WWII.
Being from Arizona, I'm not so familiar with eastern locomoitves. I didn't even know that such odd locomotive existed, I think they're neat! If you have any interesting pictures, please share!
Matthew Imbrogno
Keeping Baldwins alive through the 21st century.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: Unusual Steam locomotives, Pennsyduplex, Feb-28-05, 10:49 PM, (1) RE: Unusual Steam locomotives, KeltikSylk, Mar-01-05, 09:26 AM, (2) RE: Unusual Steam locomotives, chuckzeiler, Mar-01-05, 06:53 PM, (3) RE: Unusual Steam locomotives, mp189, Mar-01-05, 11:17 PM, (4) RE: Unusual Steam locomotives, KeltikSylk, Mar-02-05, 09:09 AM, (5) RE: Unusual Steam locomotives, LoneSniperSG, Mar-02-05, 07:12 PM, (6) RE: Unusual Steam locomotives, KeltikSylk, Mar-03-05, 09:49 AM, (7) RE: Unusual Steam locomotives, mp189, Mar-03-05, 09:57 PM, (8) RE: Unusual Steam locomotives, KeltikSylk, Mar-04-05, 11:04 AM, (9) RE: Unusual Steam locomotives, mp189, Mar-05-05, 11:32 PM, (10)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Those are some very nice steamers that the PRR built. I always liked the look of the PRR duplex type locomotives. Even though they were a little big. Lol. I wish one was saved, not to run......but just to look at and to marvel at it. "The Standard Railroad of the World"
"Pennsylvania Railroad RULES!!!!"

Check out my site
http://www.freewebs.com/pennsypics/

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

You had to get me started...Luckily, I'm at work and don't have access to all my images, so you get the short version...I think the Q is one of the most interesting of the Pennsy duplexes. I don't know if you know this or not, but none of these locomotives are articulated. That wheelbase, all 10 drivers, is fixed. I believe only one other railroad experimented with duplexes, the Baltimore & Ohio. Most duplexes were experimental, only the Pennsy T-1 ever made it into production.The idea was to offset the main issue with all steam locomotives, all those hammering forces that constantly beat on the track and locomotive. It was thought that splitting the drivers into two smaller and better balanced groups could eliminate this.Some engines, like the Q1, had there rear cylinders mounted backward in an effort to optimize this effect. The problem was the valve and piston rods were directly in the airstream and loaded up with dirt and debris. In almost every case these locomotives were later rebuilt with the cylinders swung around to the conventional arrangement, as in the Q2.On most railroads during the same period, the 4-8-4 Northern types became the typical multi-purpose steam locomotive. With running gear made of lighter alloys they could match any of the supposed benefits of the duplex without the complexity of multiple sets of running gear.Of course, by then deisels had appeared and that was all she wrote...Most of the duplexes were extremely fast, designed for passenger service at speeds of 100 mph. My all time favorite duplex is the Pennsylvania S1...
http://crestlineprr.com/S1_1.jpg.html
only one was built and the wheel base was too long for the curves east of Pittsburgh, so it operated in the midwest between Crestline, Ohio and Chicago. The shorter wheelbase T-1 served in the Allegheny mountains between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. The Q's served as high speed freight engines.Here's a site with a bunch of oddball locomotives of all types...
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/locoloco.htm
I think the oddest of them all are the flexible boiler Santa Fe engines. Reminds me of those cartoons where things bend around curves.Frank MusickMoving America into the 19th Century!

www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

When the Burlington Northern came into existence in 1970, one of their first chores was to clean house. A friend of mine stumbled onto a dumpster at the CB&Q headquarters in downtown Chicago. Among the other items he saved was a 16mm film of tests conducted by the CB&Q and Timken Roller Bearing Company in 1938. They were testing what Microsoft might term a “feature”, known as Dynamic Augment.A total of six locomotives were tested: three 4-6-4’s, two 4-8-4’s, and one 2-10-4. The three Hudsons tested were S-4 #3012, equipped with friction driver bearings and conventional design carbon steel driving rods; S-4 #3001, equipped with Timken roller bearings on the driving wheels in 1938 but still outfitted with conventional carbon steel rods; and S-4a #4003, rebuilt two months before with Timken lightweight design reciprocating parts of alloy steel, Timken roller bearing driving rods, and Timken roller bearings on all drivers.Three movie cameras and several movie lights were mounted on the locomotives that were tested and filmed the driving wheels during the high speed tests at film speeds of 100 and 400 frames per second - fast enough to catch the action and make it clearly visible when projected at normal (24 frames per second) speed.The weight of the reciprocating parts on the two S-4’s with conventional rods was 2,109 pounds per side, while the S-4a #4003 with its lightweight reciprocating parts was just 1,026 pounds per side. Completely counterbalancing this reciprocating weight was virtually impossible; in fact the average percentage of reciprocating weight balanced in the two S-4’s was just 38%, while on the #4003, with its lighter parts, the average was just 30%.In the tests, conducted between Sept. 26 and Sept. 30, the locomotives pulled a five or six car train consisting of a heavyweight baggage car, dynamometer car #30, and three or four heavyweight coaches. A 504-foot section of track was carefully marked off, and then greased. The test train was backed off a mile or more to allow it to build up speed before hitting the greased section. With the three Hudsons, the train speed upon hitting the greased rails ranged from 56 mph to 81 mph, and the maximum slipping speed ranged from 98 mph to 128 mph. The calculated dynamic augment of the two conventional Hudsons at a speed of 78 mph (the driver diameter speed) was 14,111 pounds. For these two, the dynamic augment at the maximum slipping speed was tremendous – 23,193 pounds at 100 mph (the #3001), and 27,053 pounds at 108 mph (the #3012). For the #4003 with its lightweight rods and reciprocating parts, the dynamic augment at 78 mph was just 4,596 pounds, while at the maximum slipping speed of 128 mph, it was 12,377 pounds – a remarkable improvement over the conventional engines, but still a substantial force that caused damage to the track.While the tests showed conclusively that roller bearings and lightweight reciprocating parts improved the performance of steam locomotives and reduced the damage to the track, they served to confirm that steam power was less efficient and more damaging to the track. The film also showed clearly that the unbalanced condition on certain steam locomotives was sufficient to raise the main drivers an inch or more off the rails.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Interesting discussion about the Pennsy duplexes. However, there were two PRR duplexes that were in production. The T1, 52 in all including the two prototypes, and the Q2, 26 in all. The other two duplexes, S1 and Q1 were indeed one of a kind experimentals. And speaking of "unusual" steam engines, check out the PRR S2. http://crestlineprr.com/duplexexperimentals.html. Also a one of a kind experimental.Bill Ayers
http://crestlineprr.com
>I think the Q is one of the most interesting of the Pennsy
>duplexes. I don't know if you know this or not, but none of
>these locomotives are articulated. That wheelbase, all 10
>drivers, is fixed. I believe only one other railroad
>experimented with duplexes, the Baltimore & Ohio. Most
>duplexes were experimental, only the Pennsy T-1 ever made it
>into production.
>
>Frank Musick
>
>Moving America into the 19th Century!
>
>www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I didn't realize there were that many Q2's. Did they retain the big drivers?Frank MusickMoving America into the 19th Century!

www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

The thing that interests me is how the track could be damaged. Would it have been different if it was laid on solid ground with no gaps?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

The problem comes from the fact that steam engines have two very peculiar traits...A) All the reciprocating motion from the rods acts like a battering ram. Think of it as a huge steam powered jack hammer pounding on the rails.B) They don't turn through a curve as a deisel does, remember there is no pivot like you have in a truck. They do this funny shuffle as the rails force the wheels around the curve. It's hard to describe in words, all the wheels swing at the same time and the locomotive shifts sideways a bit with each swing. A series of small lurches gets you through a curve. Very few writers mention this "ratcheting" around curves. I think I've seen it described once in all the books and magazines I have in my library. With the bigger engines weighing millions of pounds I imagine these "small lurches" can wreak quite a lot of havoc.The combination of these two forces, both measured in thousands of pounds, tends to rip the track up over time.Frank MusickMoving America into the 19th Century!

www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I'm not sure what you mean by "retain" the big drivers. The Q2's had 69" drivers.Bill Ayers
http://crestlineprr.com>I didn't realize there were that many Q2's. Did they retain
>the big drivers?
>
>Frank Musick
>
>Moving America into the 19th Century!
>
>www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I just read something in Steamliners about the Q1 drivers being too large for proper freight work. I think the author claimed 70 inch drivers, but I'd have to check. I guess I was thinking that since the Q2 was built with all the "bug fixes", they would have used smaller drivers.Frank MusickMoving America into the 19th Century!

www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

While 69-70" drivers are on the large side for the typical frieght engine, the Qs were designed as heavy fast frieght engines. They were capable of doing an easy 50 mph with very heavy trains. But by dividing the drivers between two sets of cylinders, the weight of the drivers was reduced (drive rods, etc.), thus reducing the pounding on the rails. This is not to say they did not damage the track, they did. But the damage was not as severe as it would have been had all 10 drivers been coupled together.Bill Ayers
http://crestlineprr.com
>I just read something in Steamliners about the Q1 drivers
>being too large for proper freight work. I think the author
>claimed 70 inch drivers, but I'd have to check. I guess I
>was thinking that since the Q2 was built with all the "bug
>fixes", they would have used smaller drivers.
>
>Frank Musick
>
>Moving America into the 19th Century!
>
>www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | How To... | File Library ] Copyright © 2004 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.