Camelback engines

One reason was thyat some eastern roads used anthracite coal, which requires a larger (wider) firebox, which extended as wide as possible.  You can see this on the attached photos.  Visibility would be limited from a rear cab.  You were correct about the danger from siderods.

Visibility wasn't the issue--the issue was there would be absolutely no room in such a cab for any crewmen!

OK, I'm confused. Why did you post essentially the same question that you posted 7 hours ago, just 4 or 5 posts below this one? Did you not like the answers you received below?

I don't know if this question is rooted in the fact that MTH's email is pushing their

Erie 0-8-8-0 Camelback, but I had many of these same questions above when looking at that, and then I was thinking, in addition, the engineer could get an orbital launch if the boiler on one blew up as did that big C&0 articulated at Hinton, W. Va. (but that had a fatality, at least one, also), so blowing ANY up is not recommended.  How often was "breaking a side rod" an occurrence?  That happened on one of my dad's locos during WWII, and a poor welding repair was blamed. 

The MTH description mentions the "Starrucca Viaduct", which I've heard of for years.   Where is that, and is it still standing?

Sorry, Hot Water:  After I sent the first message I had to leave for a few hours.  When I got back the first message was still sitting there like it hadn't been sent.  I should have checked the forum first before resending it. 

 

My bad.  Paul Fischer

No matter where the cab is situated, the crewmembers in said cab in a boiler explosion would not be likely to survive. 

smd:  The cab could have been placed behind the boiler, where the fireman's platform is.

The Starrucca Viaduct is in Northeastern Penna. only several miles from the New York border (Southeast of Binghamton, New York). This structure was built for the Erie Railroad in 1848 and was considered a daring feat of Stone Vault engineering. Basic dimensions are 1040' long and 100' high. ......If you pull up the Library of Congress and type in "HABS/HAER" (that's Historical structures) or type in "Starrucca Viaduct", you'll get into a site where you can pull up civil engineering drawings of the Viaduct which is pretty neat. I'm sure this info is correct......The viaduct is still there. That's when the U.S. built good stuff!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

congressg 

The Reading Co. built the 1st Camelback.  Reading's earliest engines to employ the extra-wide "Wooten" firebox had the cab perched precariously on top of said firebox.  When RDG sent one of those engines to Europe as part of a pr stunt to sell more anthracite coal, they found a that the engine was far too tall for the low clearance on European railways (I think France in particular.)  The solution was to hack the cab off and put it in front of the firebox.  Why they design became so widespread, I can't speculate,  but eventually the Reading DID learn to hang the cab off the back of the firebox, and even converted some camelbacks to rear-cab engines during major overhauls.

Well now, that makes absolutely no sense.

I'm inclined to agree with RJR above that the cab was located ahead of the firebox to improve visibility.  I also have to wonder if part of the thought that went into Camelback engines was related to both vertical (as noted above) and horizontal clearances, wheel base and curvature. 

 

Being something of a cynic where any corporation is concerned, I'd also imagine it was entirely possible that certain railroads went with the Camelback simply because a chief mechanical officer "liked" them.  God knows, I've seen similar thinking from senior management throughout my career.

 

Curt

How at all would "visibility" be impacted? And how does cab placement have anything at all to do with wheelbase? In point of fact, the "visibility" of the crew was terribly curtailed with this design, since, without a fireman in the cab, the engineer was virtually blind when going around left-hand curves.

 

As can be seen below, the firebox is as wide or wider than the cab itself. You can't place the cab in the "normal" position because there would be absolutely no room for the crew; placing the cab "behind" the boiler also makes no sense; and placing it high enough over the firebox so that there was room for the crew would place it too high.

 

 

The usual crew was a fireman and an engineer...did the camels possibly run 3 for this type of set up so as not to have a blind side...2nd guy, in cab, for the engineer could yell over the boiler top if there was trouble...?...maybe the fireman had a dual purpose...shovel and watch the opposite side for the engineer...?

 

Cab forward and an auto loader in back would've been the hot set up...just sayin...

Auto loader????  I assume you mean stoker.

 

Even fires fed by a stoker need attention from the fireman time to time.  Plus the water level in the boiler is monitord by a water-glass and tri-cock valves on the backhead.

 

Rusty

Steve:

 

I'll explain my logic. 

 

First, the fact that the firebox is so wide makes it practically a given that placing the cab forward of it would improve forward visibility for the engineer.  I'll agree with you that the fireman would have had much worse forward visibility but, on a hand fired engine, I'm not sure how much time the fireman would have actually spent seated and looking forward.

 

Second, with regard to my wheelbase comment, to place the cab aft of the firebox, would require not only a wider cab, but also a longer wheelbase.  Given how wide a Wooten firebox was, it could not have "shared" the cab with the crew as in oil or bituminous coal fired locomotives.  Thus, the locomotive wheelbase would have to be lengthened to accomodate placing the cab behind the firebox.

 

Curt

I don't think it's a "given" simply by moving the cab forweard 10 feet. Any visibilty improvement would be negligible. There's just not much visibility to begin with on most steam engines, no matter where the cab is placed (cab-forwards excluded). Visibility doesn't have much to do with firebox size.

All firemen have that "dual prupose." And do you really think the railroad would hire a third enginman? You know what that would cost?

Um, yeah....auto stoker.

In all the steam locomotives I've been around (which isn't too many), the fireman and engineer call signals and crossings out to each other.  The fireman may not necessarily be sitting, but he does have to look out from time to time.  He is basically the engineers eyes for the left side of the locomotive.

It's my understanding that camelbacks were outlawed, with existing ones grandfathered, precisely because there was no way the fireman could work with the engineer on matters involving visibility, steam requirements, and possible disability or either fireman or engineer.

 

Note the photo I posted above.  The text that accompanied it when I came across it indicated that the photographer had probably induced the engineer or fireman to go to the left cab.  Which raises the question of why a left cab if the fireman was freezing (in winter) on the rear platform.

 

An anecdote I've read written by an engineer of a camelback, indicated that once his loco ran out of steam.  He stopped & walked to the rear, to find that the newly-hired fireman, tired of shoveling, had simply quit and left.

Sorry, there is no such thing as an "auto stoker" on a steam locomotive. Actually there really isn't much of ANYTHING on a steam locomotive that is "auto". The stoker "system" is all manually operated by the Fireman.

>>did the camels possibly run 3 for this type of set up so as not to have a blind side...2nd guy, in cab, for the engineer could yell over the boiler top if there was trouble...?<<

 

I have read that on express runs where maintaining schedules was the primary concern, some canmelbacks were assigned TWO firemen to maintain steam pressure  (much as multiple "stokers" were employed on steamships).  Note that the CNJ camelback in the B&O museum is equipped with TWO firedoors!

The main reason for the two fire doors is because those fireboxes were SOOOOOO WIDE, the Fireman, whether one OR two, was unable to throw coal to the back rear corners. Thus, two fire doors, but NOT necessarily for TWO Firemen.

Camelbacks weren't the only locomotives with two firebox doors! I have a Precision Scale model of a New York Central F12 4-6-0 (the type that worked on the Putnam Division), which was clearly a bituminous burning engine......with two firebox doors! Since these engines were built in 1905 and the firebox spread over the rear drivers, suspect that the view at the time was that such a "huge" firebox must need two doors to get coal properly dispersed! Canadian Pacific's small D4g 4-6-0's had the traditional firebox between the drivers and firing them was referred to throwing coal "down a bowling alley"!

It was engines like this that made Reading think Camelbacks made sense: 

 

What I've wondered about camelbacks, did some of them use "speaking tubes" between engineer and fireman? Speaking tubes, like on an older ship between bridge and engine room. I have seen rare mentions of this in internet research with no specifics; it's hard to find further info but it seems like speaking tubes would have probably been used.

The Lackawanna had a very large amount of camelback engines. From road engines with a 4-4-0, 2-6-0, 4-6-0 for passenger and freight. To switch & pushers with 0-4-0,0-6-0,0-8-0,2-6-0,2-8-0,4-8-0. The Lackawanna was buying camelback engines up to 1912, and still running them into the 1939-42 years. From 1845-1912, the Lackawanna had bought over 500 camelback engines. Not a bad record for such a "dangerous" steam engine. Believe what you want, the Lackawanna had a good track record with camelback engines. But new technology was the way of the future and the lackawanna went with it, that and the ICC with so called death reports from the camelback engines probably with poor maintance or lack there of.

 

In the end of the year for 1912, was the first new modern steam engine bought which was NOT a camelback. It was the 1101-1114 series pacific's with a 73" driver. 

I have read several articles that state that they were used by PRR specifically because they had a huge supply of anthracite coal and the wider firebox was designed to accomadate that. It turns out, the wide firebox also was good for bituminous as well. The ACL ran many of these also.

 

A couple of articles did allude to the "better visibility" version as well, but they all seemed to agree, the wider fire box was the main reason for the design.

 

Don't take any of this to the bank though. Greg

I doubt "speaking tubes" would have been used--mostly because I've yet to see any in any photos.

 

A good fireman will know the road, understand what he needs to do and when, and can tell what the engineer is doing by listening to the engine.

How do you explain this engine--lettered for the AT&SF?

 

 

 

An anomoly. 

 

Weird things happend in those early railroad days.  I'd wager it was rebuilt to a standard configuration or scrapped, can't tell untill I can check my reference books.

 

Notice the 2900's weren't camelbacks...

 

Rusty

That's pretty obvious, Rusty. But it demonstrates that one can't say Camelbacks were "unique" to a handfull of railroads.

looking at that "thing", I'm wondering what did it use for fuel?

I'll grant it's an example of the "prototype for anything" philosophy, but it hardly reflects a standard Santa Fe practice of using camelbacks as done on the Erie, DL&W, RDG, CNJ, LV, and D&H.

 

Rusty

Rusty, I'm simply responding to this statement:

 

they were unique to the true "anthracite" railroads: DL&W, RDG, CNJ, LV, and D&H.

 

Do you disagree that the photo above (and now below) disproves the statement? 

Probably something other than what Union Pacific Camelback 1301 burned...

 

I don't disagree about the photo, anymore than Pennsy Mikes or Russian decapods lettered for Santa Fe.

 

I'd be willing to bet the Santa Fe rostered more ex-NYC 2-8-0's than camelbacks.

 

As I stated earlier, a lot of strange things happened in early days, but it's hardly reflective of the overall Santa Fe steam operation philosophy.

 

rusty

PRR E1 class

 

NYO&W

 

It's not a matter of quantity. It's a matter of "uniqueness."

 

Heck, even the Southern Pacific rostered a camelback, designed to burn inferior Arizona fuel!

And THAT fuel would be?

That Santa Fe firebox looks like nothing I've ever seen; possibly an oil-burner. The UP looks like the front end is set up for coal.

Lackawanna #952

Now to muddy the waters a bit, attached are two pictures of the Winans Camel, where the cab is not on the side of the boiler, but on top.  One of these is in the B&O RR Museum in Baltimore; you can see it in oepration at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=272MSlvUIpI. 

 

Now if one was only available in O guage

Now if one was only available in O guage...

They were.. and Blow out too!

Here's the scoop:

 

#738 was built by Schenectady in 1889, builders #2405.

Rebuilt into a standard cab 4-4-0 #40 (road number and the only locomotive in the 40 class) 1892. Scrapped in Topeka 1925.

 

So, 3 years as a camelback 4-4-2 #738, 33 years as a standard cab 4-4-0 #40.

 

True, while this classifies the Santa Fe as an owner of A camelback locomotive, it hardly means that camelback locomotives had any influence (other than avoid at all costs) with Santa Fe motive power development like the previously mentioned eastern roads. 

 

The 738's not even a blip in the Santa Fe all time steam roster.

 

Rusty

 

02/05/13: corrected build date typo.

Prr***curve:  Are you saying a Winans Camel was avaiable in O?

All I can do is tell you that I repeated what I read. I was going to tell you that you would have to take it up w/ the author of the book, and I was going to post a pict of one that was in there.......but I just looked over the posts. MWB beat me to it. I see others chimed in also.

 

It appears PRR did use some to burn that ugly coal they had in those wide fireboxes.

 

Greg

I don't even understand what's going with that AT&SF thing... it's not a Wooten firebox... was the point to build the longest, narrowest firebox ever?  Did it burn telephone poles?!?

The PRR built three E-1 4-4-2 Camelbacks (698, 700 and 820) in 1899 to compete with Philadelphia & Reading 4-4-2 Camelbacks that were setting speed records on the Atlantic City Railroad and attracting lucrative passenger traffic between Philadelphia and the seashore. Those "Boardwalk Flyers" arrived and departed from Camden. Designed by Axel S. Vogt, PRR Mechanical Engineer at Altoona, the E-1's ran well. But the PRR did not like the separation of the engineer in the center cab and the fireman at the backhead. A speaking tube device was installed to enable them to communicate. The European six-wheel tender had a tendency to derail. Later 4-4-2's had end cabs. They culminated in the renowned E-6 4-4-2's. No. 460, The Lindbergh Engine, is displayed in The Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania at Strasburg.

 

Reading......

 

Thank you for your post, reading it made me see and error on my original post.

 

"setting speed records on the Atlantic City Railroad"

 

I said the ACL used them. I meant to type ACR, which is what you typed out, and the real intent for my letters. I saw my error when I read your post!

 

Man, this thread has legs, doesn't it!

 

Thanks again, Greg

You're simply not comprehending, Rusty. And it seems you're not even trying to get it.

 

It's not about QUANTITY. It's not about the INFLUENCE of the design.

 

Someone made a statement that said only a few roads had camelbacks. I showed that at least three other roads had them. Whether they had one or 500 rostered ISN'T THE ISSUE.

 

Geeze...

I understand things quite well, thankyouverymuch. 

 

The addition of three other roads STILL leave the owners of camelbacks in "the few" catagory.  Unless it can be proved that a majority of US railroads owned and operated camelback locomotives.

 

Quantity and design influence do have a place in this discussion as the camelback locomotive gained a measure of acceptance in the eastern part of the country but not the midwest or western parts of the country.

 

Rusty

No, you really don't.

 

By "few," I meant the roads listed in the poster's statement:

 

with exception of ERIE,  they were unique to the true "anthracite" railroads: DL&W, RDG, CNJ, LV, and D&H

 

Six roads listed as camelback owners. I added three more to that "exclusive" list. Again, I'm pointing out OWNERSHIP of camelbacks, not HOW MANY.

 

 

 

 

So, now we've gone from "a few" to "exclusive?"  I guess that makes things all better...

 

I accept the fact that the Santa Fe owned a camelback.  I haven't denied that fact, given the photograph and particularly since I was able to verify the builder, build year, constuction number and ultimate disposition.

 

Given that Santa Fe didn't follow up with any other cameback purchases and rebulit the locomotive into standard configuration 3 years into of the locomotive's overall lifespan of 36 years, I don't consider the Santa Fe in the same ownership league as DL&W, Erie, RDG, CNJ, LV and D&H.

 

Rusty

 

 

Can we call a halt to the aregument over semantics?

No...that's what I've always been saying, since the last page. Doesn't make anything better, it just means you're getting it now.

 

Ownership league? That's a good one. Either a railroad owned a camelback, or they didn't. Period.

 

How many they owned, when they owned them, who built them, what fuel they burned, or how long they had them is not what I'm addressing. Despite your attempt to change the direction of my point.

kent,

 

yes I am, two of my favorites were #988 with the wings & #1031 when they went to a rear cab.

Steve,

 

You're going to have to show me which post I deinied the Santa Fe ever owned a camelback. 

 

You asked a specific question: "How do you explain this engine--lettered for the AT&SF?"

 

And my in initial response was: "An anomoly."

 

That is not a denial.  It also provided an opportunity for additional facts, which I seem to recall being the one to provide them.  If I could have located additional data regarding the 738's life and operation in my reference materials, I would have provided that also.

 

I would have thought I provided "more or the story" regarding the 738, which also included obsevation, opinion, and the 738's significance(or lack of) in Santa Fe motive power development, but it's clear you're not interested in additional information, just your opinion, being able to say "I told you so" and a raw tally without any

substantiation of who owned what.

 

Rusty

 

 

Thank you for the gentlemanly act Kent. Now perhaps the posts can return to the subject matter of camel backs in general. It really had gotten interesting.

 

Greg

 

Now back to Camelbacks!

 

Although my plate is full at the moment, I've been thinking that the drivetrain from an MTH Railking 2-8-0 would be a great start to modeling an earlier Reading I-8 (when they still had slide valves, anyway.)

 

wowak:  if you search around on google, you'll find a posting by a person who converted a loco into a Winans Camel.  May give you some ideas.

A Winan's camel is a little outside my time window, but I did just win a DCRU MTH 0-8-0 on eBay that I'm going to use to build a Reading E-8 2-8-0.   Maybe some day if the projects get light I'll build a Winans just to sell.

I worked with a guy who had been a CNJ Fireman and had come to the Santa Fe in 1950 as an experienced Fireman.  He fired camelbacks in commuter service (all hand-bombers, of course), and talked with me about it.  He naturally had to fire the engine, and also look out the left side when necessary to see signals located around left curves, pick up orders if hooped up to the left side, etc.  Communication with the Engineer was by hand signals.  They could not "call signals".

That Looks great!

The IHB 0-8-0 is a USRA 0-8-0, albeit with slightly different details than the Lionel or MTH models.  Unfortunately the I-8 proportions are different enough from the MTH 0-8-0 I'm using as a base that  I'll probably build the whole boiler from scratch.  Maybe I'll base it on a big lead pipe so it still has some weight to it.

So which railroad had the biggest and baddest camelbacks? 

 

 

Pretty sure you nailed it with the Erie 0-8-8-0.

So how about them diesel camelbacks ...

 

 

Alco C415 stored at Council Bluffs 1980 (leased from/returned to Union Pacific)

So what is it, Ace?

I think the operative term is "Centercab". 

Some center-cabs kinda look like a camel.

 

http://motoriseddandruff.blogs...0_04_01_archive.html

Here's the B&O version that I could not find. Still, I'm happy with mine, and it will look good on the Civil War layout I will eventually build.

 

 

And just for funsies, here's another O gauge Camel.

 

Ah, Thanks Steve, I've been looking for this for years.  I'll be ording a copy today.

 

Have a great one!

 

John

There's a Williams brass camelback on eBay right now, starting at $239. 

 

An eerily similar Williams brass camelback is for sale right now on the OGR for sale forum for $230+shipping.

 

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/t...ionel-santa-fe-0-8-0

And so there is!

 

When did Williams market brass locos?

They used to market a bunch of them, they're made by Samhongsha.  I believe the late 80's and early 90's was the timeframe for most of these, then Williams stopped selling them.

 

Yep, those are Williams Imperial Crown models.

 

The 3-rail Brass Club (affiliated with QSIndustries) offered some with 2-rail detail (brake shoes, air hoses, etc.).

 

Williams' first brass model, made in Korea in 1983/4, was a B&O President (5300) Pacific. Fragile details were removed but other details were retained. The goal was a locomotive that could be handled like a Postwar Era diecast steamer but one that also had more detail. This was the first brass locomotive 3-rail "O" Gauge by a major player in that market.

 

NYC Hudsons, Pennsy K4's and L-1's (2-8-2's), and Baldwin Sharks followed. I think Mike Wolf participated because his own Standard Gauge models were being made by the same manufacturer in Korea.

 

Williams' best were Crown Edition brass models of NYC Niagaras, SP DAYLIGHT GS-4's, N&W J's, SP Cab-Forwards, and Camelback Ten-Wheelers made around 1990.

Hmmm  .  .  .  Would a GE 44-tonner qualify as a Camelback?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks for the info.  The loco for sale by Wowak has a few years on it then.

 

Wowak's web site (link is in his post above) shows he does some beautiful model loco modifications (too good looking to be called "kitbashing").  Worth a look.

 

Does a 44-ton have a boiler under the cab? Then it would qualify. Maybe we ought to ask "CSX Fan" his view on that, since he owns 2 full size ones.

No, because the cab is not sitting on top of the hoods, it is settled in between two hoods. 

 

That's why they're refered to as center-cab locomotives.

 

Otherwise, would not an RS-1, RS-2, RS-3 also be consisdered a "camelback?"  After all, the cab sits higher than the hoods.  If we apply the same logic, one's automobile could also be considered a "camelback..." 

 

Rusty

 

 

I have the Williams Crown Edition scale SP Cab Forward.  It does have great detail, though I'll have to work on the cab to "dress it up" when I upgrade it to command.

The Long Island Rail Road had a fleet of Camelbacks in commuter, named train and freight service. They were classes D53, E51 and G54. Perhaps the most spectacular event involving Camelback engines was the Great Golden's Pickle Factory Wreck in Calverton Long Island. Read about it here:

 

http://www.trainsarefun.com/li...recks/lirrwrecks.htm

 

Camelbacks on the Long Island Rail Road were speed demons, and in Steel Rails To The Sunrise by Ron Zeil there are several exploits of these engines running at mind boggling speeds.

 

 

 

For more on the pickle factory wreck, see

http://www.trainsarefun.com/li...recks/lirrwrecks.htm