Question on Prototypes: Were steam tenders "married" to their locos, or did they interchange at will?

Tenders are connected by drawbars to the locomotives.  Plus there are air lines, water lines, oil line and oil heater line(if oil fired) stoker screw and tube (if stoker equipped) and a steam line if a passenger locomotive.  It's not an easy task to swap tenders out on a whim.

Some railroads had separate numbers on their tenders ( I think the N&W,) but most railroads carried the locomotive number on the tender. 

Rusty

The engine and tender together were considered the “locomotive.” They were numbered the same.

and bad bulbs

"Bad bulbs"? You lost me here, mate! LOL!

BTW, N&W 611's tender carries the number 220165.

Rusty

N&W did run different tenders over the life of some locomotives. The tenders were switched as part of the shopping cycle. For example, all Y4s were upgraded with second hand tenders purchased from ACL in 1948. These tenders had a capacity of 27T Coal / 24K Gal. water. They had 8 wheel trucks instead of the 6 that was standard on the N&W.

As an example of a "marriage" to a tender, the N&W Class J 611 tender still bears the scars (on the Fireman's side) of the January 23, 1956 wreck where it derailed and slid down the embankment of the Tug River.

Swapping a tender was a big deal. In the case of the Y4s it was done as an improvement to the class.

As mentioned, it is not a trivial job to switch tender, but it was done quite often on the Pennsy.    Again as above mentioned, this seemed to be done during shopping for various reasons.    In some cases it was to increase tender capacity, in others it might have been replace something worn out.   For example, a of the C1 0-8-0 switchers seemed to have gotten tenders from much older passenger locos probably when the passenger locos wer scrapped.     A number of the I1 2-10-0 received much larger tenders built specifically to give them a larger range.    If you look at photos of the same class of steamers taken over the years, you see a number that have changed tenders.

Happens today.  UP 4014 right now has the tender from 3985.

What about SP 4449?

Does the 4449 have her original tender?

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

Happens today.  UP 4014 right now has the tender from 3985.

That was only because they ran out of time to rebuild and convert to oil fuel, the original tender from 4014. Besides, 3985 will not run again anyway.

What about SP 4449?

What about SP 4449?

WHAT ABOUT SP 4449?

lol, I don't know what you guys are talking about but I thought I'd get in on the action.

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

Happens today.  UP 4014 right now has the tender from 3985.

 

And it's been renumbered to 4014.

Rusty

After the Southern Pacific converted their AC-9 class 2-8-8-4's to oil it seemed that some changed tenders every year.  After the oil conversion SP used a bunch of ex-C&O H-7 rectangular tenders with different water capacities (why they didn't convert the original coal tenders to oil - drop in an oil tank - I don't know) it seemed that some of the class kept the same tender while others changed several times.

Stuart

If I remember correctly the tender behind 4014 when it was on display carried the number from a different big boy but can’t remember the number displayed. 

@Stuart posted:

After the Southern Pacific converted their AC-9 class 2-8-8-4's to oil it seemed that some changed tenders every year.  After the oil conversion SP used a bunch of ex-C&O H-7 rectangular tenders with different water capacities (why they didn't convert the original coal tenders to oil - drop in an oil tank - I don't know) it seemed that some of the class kept the same tender while others changed several times.

Stuart

 

When a railroad bought a "bunch of secondhand tenders" from another RR, were they transported on their own wheels (which brings up the question of coupling the drawbar end) or were they simply de-trucked and shipped on flatcars?

---PCJ

@RJT posted:

If I remember correctly the tender behind 4014 when it was on display carried the number from a different big boy but can’t remember the number displayed. 

Last year Kalmbach did a special issue on the 4014, and in the issue there is information of the tenders that got swapped around during their life on the U.P. And as we have said, it happened quite often. As tenders wore out, and steam was on it's way out, shop forces would swap instead of making major repairs.

@RailRide posted:

When a railroad bought a "bunch of secondhand tenders" from another RR, were they transported on their own wheels (which brings up the question of coupling the drawbar end) or were they simply de-trucked and shipped on flatcars?

---PCJ

Tenders would be shipped on their own wheels.  There would be an adapter coupler in place of the drawbar, (a photo in Classic Trains shows a brand new Lehigh Valley tender being shipped in the middle of a freight) or in the case of a pair of tenders, they could be connected by a drawbar at the bunker ends.

Rusty

OK, does the 4449 have her original tender?

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

OK, does the 4449 have her original tender?

Does it matter?

Rusty

While tenders and locomotives were certainly one locomotive, I have a photo of a PRR E6 with a K4 90-P75 tender mated to it.  It was interesting enough that I stole my Bowser HO K4 tender and placed it behind a MDC E6 that I highly customized back when I was in my 20's. 

I would assume it was a later photo as the tenders off of scrapped K4s were available for reuse.  However, I need to research the history more myself.

NYC upgraded some their Hudsons with pedestal tenders.  When the Santa Fe purchased three Pennsy L1 Mikados, they placed standard Santa Fe coal tenders behind them during operations, then sent them to scrap with their Pennsy tenders.

The lamented 4-6-2 GTW 5629, was outfitted with an ex Soo Line 4-8-2 tender.  If I recall correctly, Grand Canyon's heavily rebuilt ex-CB&Q 2-8-2 was also outfitted with a modified ex-Soo Line tender.

And there's very little of Southern 4501's original tender left, the tank was replaced with a new welded one and the trucks replaced with roller bearing trucks.

Tender swaps or replacements are really nothing new, it just they're just not done for the "heck of it."  As I mentioned before, it's not like coupling up to a freight or passenger car.  It's done in a shop environment.

Rusty

Come on, guys. Once again you are over-complicating what was actually a simple question.

The OP asked, "Were steam tenders "married" to their locos, or did they interchange at will?"  The answer is they were married and were not interchanged at will. Done.

Tenders were swapped among locomotives over the course of their lives, but a steam locomotive did not operate with one tender today and another one the next day. Tenders were not swapped at will.

The PRR upgraded and swapped tenders relatively frequently. Four examples:

1. Originally the K4's were build with low-profile tenders before upgrading to the 90-P75 tenders that they were retired with. A few of them even received long haul tenders. Lionel offers K4s with both the short and long tender. Nicholas Smith Trains offered an exclusive Lionel K4 with the as-built low-profile tender a while back (See here: https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...-profile-coal-tender) 

2. Some H10's were given upgraded tenders while some retained their low-profile tenders; PRR 7688 has the upgraded tender with steam heat lines from WWII as it was equipped to pull troop trains. Lionel did a good job of representing this in their recent release of H10's.

3. The I1's could be found with their as-built tenders or long haul tenders. 

4. When the Railroad Museum of Pa. restored PRR 460 a few years ago, they discovered the PRR had given it a tender from another E6 at some point in the 1940's or 50's. Most likely this was because that tender was in better shape than 460's original and they didn't want to invest in repairs. (I'm pretty sure PRR 3750 has PRR 1737's tender but not positive). Even 460's fireman(?) side drivers were swapped for ones from another E6. 

The PRR assigned each part of the locomotive with the road number of the original locomotive which is how the museum could tell. Each tender has it's own serial number as well as the number for original loco.

These are only four examples, this was so common place on the PRR; a huge credit to their practice of standardization of parts that allowed pieces to be interchanged between locomotives and classes. 

Interesting and informative discussion!

@Rich Melvin: I think you're right.  My question is essentially answered.  I just wanted to know if it made sense to number the tender and loco with the same number.  It does and I did.

But now I can't seem to shake the feeling that I'm missing something.  Something big.  Something important.  Monumental, even: For heaven's sake! WHAT ABOUT SP 4449????

Heh heh heh...

Random addition to this thread but the tender currently behind WMSR 734 is from the NYC. 

Ed Dickens told me during a visit I made to see 4014 that they planned to build a new tender for the engine. They got a quote from a company to build it, which they thought was too high, so they were planning to build their own tender for the 4014. Whether that happens or not, we'll just have to stay tuned, I suppose.

@breezinup posted:

HWHot WaterMember

 

Ed Dickens told me during a visit I made to see 4014 that they planned to build a new tender for the engine.

Yea, right. Except he planed all along to use the tender from 3985, since 3985 was never to operate again.

They got a quote from a company to build it, which they thought was too high, so they were planning to build their own tender for the 4014. Whether that happens or not, we'll just have to stay tuned, I suppose.

The budget for the steam shop has been SERIOUSLY cut.

@Jeff_the_Coaster_Guy posted:

@Rich Melvin: I think you're right.  My question is essentially answered.  I just wanted to know if it made sense to number the tender and loco with the same number.  It does and I did.

But now I can't seem to shake the feeling that I'm missing something.  Something big.  Something important.  Monumental, even: For heaven's sake! WHAT ABOUT SP 4449????

Heh heh heh...

It really doesn't matter, the 4449's been run quite a bit.  The collector's value is nil.

Plus, they lost the box 4449 came in some time ago...

Rusty

@Rusty Traque posted:

It really doesn't matter, the 4449's been run quite a bit.  The collector's value is nil.

Plus, they lost the box 4449 came in some time ago...

Rusty

LOL     

Not to worry.  You can probably get a replacement box at the next York.  

George

Well, I've learned a lot about locos and tenders. Locos may be married to their tenders, but divorce seems to be pretty common and a lot of these engines have had quite a few spouses. 

I'd have to go through my New York Central Historical Society "Headlight" issues to confirm, but I seem to remember that the PT tenders ordered from Lima carried their own numbers in a series separate from the locomotives they operated with. While they were being used with a particular locomotive, they carried that locomotive's number on the rear, however their numbers were on a plate on the frame. Union Pacific tenders also carried their own roster numbers and there is a documentation here showing which tender number was originally assigned to which locomotive. It would have the locomotive's number painted on the back of the tender. For instance, Big Boy #4000 was delivered with tender #25-C-101. 4014 was displayed in Pomona with tender 25-C-116, which was delivered new with locomotive 4015.

@Will posted:

Well, I've learned a lot about locos and tenders. Locos may be married to their tenders, but divorce seems to be pretty common and a lot of these engines have had quite a few spouses. 

You're right!  Check out the new reality series - "The Real Tenders of the Jersey Central".  Now streaming on Netflix.    

George

@Jeff_the_Coaster_Guy posted:

@Rich Melvin: I think you're right.  My question is essentially answered.  I just wanted to know if it made sense to number the tender and loco with the same number.  It does and I did.

But now I can't seem to shake the feeling that I'm missing something.  Something big.  Something important.  Monumental, even: For heaven's sake! WHAT ABOUT SP 4449????

Heh heh heh...

I believe only Hot Water could answer that question about the 4449's tender, if it's the original tender or not. But looking at the photos (which are mine by the way), You can see the old 4449 under the paint on the rear of the tender. I know, that don't mean much, cause they get repainted all the time. Also, in the one picture you can see some of the hoses the run between the tender the engine. These are essentially "hard" plumbed. It would be a time consuming job to swap out tenders.

Pictures of the Aux Tender.

@Jayhawk500 posted:

I believe only Hot Water could answer that question about the 4449's tender, if it's the original tender or not. But looking at the photos (which are mine by the way), You can see the old 4449 under the paint on the rear of the tender. I know, that don't mean much, cause they get repainted all the time. Also, in the one picture you can see some of the hoses the run between the tender the engine. These are essentially "hard" plumbed. It would be a time consuming job to swap out tenders.

Actually only the two water supply hoses, the fuel oil supply line, and the train line steam supply line are "hard coupled. All the air brake hoses have "glad-hand" connectors.

Now the comment about it being a "time consuming job" is not all that accurate, when it comes to disconnecting the tender from the engine. In fact, such a process MUST be done every quarterly inspection (every 90 days of service), in order to "hammer test" each drawbar, as required by FRA regulations.  Thus, it takes only a few hours to accomplish that task. Back in the days of steam, with roundhouses full of men of all crafts, that quarterly inspection process, including a comple boiler wash, would have taken less than 8 hours. 

@Jayhawk500 posted:

Pictures of the Aux Tender.

Of course, the Aux tender isn't original because the SP didn't use Auxiliary tenders on the GS-4's.  It's only "original" for post American Freedom Train operations of 4449.

Rusty

@Hot Water posted:

 Now the comment about it being a "time consuming job" is not all that accurate, when it comes to disconnecting the tender from the engine. In fact, such a process MUST be done every quarterly inspection (every 90 days of service), in order to "hammer test" each drawbar, as required by FRA regulations.  Thus, it takes only a few hours to accomplish that task. Back in the days of steam, with roundhouses full of men of all crafts, that quarterly inspection process, including a complete boiler wash, would have taken less than 8 hours.

Shows what I know. Thanks for the info, and knowing is half the battle. Learn something new everyday.

@G3750 posted:

You're right!  Check out the new reality series - "The Real Tenders of the Jersey Central".  Now streaming on Netflix.    

George

Ha,ha, ha, ROTFLMAO. Good one George!

I have a question related to this:  There are several connections between a tender and the engine, the drawbar, the brake line, oil supply lines I would assume (if oil fired), screw type coal delivery from tender to engine. Leaving out the obvious, where you have a coal fired engine and an oil fired tender, how interchangeable would tenders be (again, I realize it wasn't common).

I assume among a class of locos it would be doable, that the tender on a certain class of engine,like a NYC mikado, would work with another engine in the class, but what about between classes? For exampe, could a tender used on a NYC mikado be used on a Hudson? I would assume not, not just the drawbridge, but overhangs,etc between engine and tender might likely make that impossible, but was just curious. 

@bigkid posted:

Leaving out the obvious, where you have a coal fired engine and an oil fired tender, how interchangeable would tenders be (again, I realize it wasn't common).

Swapping out the tenders would be easy...I suspect converting your previously coal-fired engine to oil firing would be where the real work starts.

@smd4 posted:

Swapping out the tenders would be easy...I suspect converting your previously coal-fired engine to oil firing would be where the real work starts.

Yeah.  It's murder trying to shovel oil...

And sometimes the oil bunker doesn't fit under the cab overhang:

(RMC or R&R photo? Carstens Publications)

Rusty

I've seen clueless ebay sellers reverse the tender when selling toy trains, but I guess there really is a prototype for everything!

@Rusty Traque posted:

Yeah.  It's murder trying to shovel oil...

And sometimes the oil bunker doesn't fit under the cab overhang:

(RMC or R&R photo? Carstens Publications)

Rusty

Remember that the North-Western Steel & Wire complex in Sterling, IL was NOT under FRA regulations, and thus they could do what ever they wanted with their steam locomotives. Also, all those steam locomotives were purchased for scrap, and thus when one failed or went bad, they then scrapped it and fired up another one. It was certainly a great place to visit, back in the day.

@bigkid posted:

I have a question related to this:  There are several connections between a tender and the engine, the drawbar, the brake line, oil supply lines I would assume (if oil fired), screw type coal delivery from tender to engine. Leaving out the obvious, where you have a coal fired engine and an oil fired tender, how interchangeable would tenders be (again, I realize it wasn't common).

I assume among a class of locos it would be doable, that the tender on a certain class of engine,like a NYC mikado, would work with another engine in the class, but what about between classes? For exampe, could a tender used on a NYC mikado be used on a Hudson? I would assume not, not just the drawbridge, but overhangs,etc between engine and tender might likely make that impossible, but was just curious. 

Swapping tenders between different classes of locos depended upon whether the firing deck height was the same (or very close).  Usually the firing deck height on passenger locos was higher because of their larger driver diameter than freight locos.

Stuart

Anyone interested in Union Pacific's variety, use, and swapping of tenders would enjoy Union Pacific Historical Society's Streamliner Vol.22 No.3 Summer 2008

Has a nice article "The Tender Behind" by Gordon McCulloh & James L. Ehernberger.

Nice photos and reading.  Helpful for UP fans.  My favorite was a photo of a FEF using a modified Vanderbilt tender usually seen behind a TTT. 

Can't seem to remember where I put it to share.  

To echo an earlier post, tenders weren't swapped around willy-nilly. Yes an engine built in 1908 might only have it's original tender until 1940, when it might be replaced with a larger one whose added water and fuel supply allowed it to go longer between stops, and it used until it was retired in 1955. In 1995 the engine, which had been on static display, was restored to working condition - but the tender had considerable rust damage, so a tender that was available that had been used in maintenance of way service after it's engine was scrapped was found and mated to the restored engine. So yes the tender could change, but it wasn't like coupling a car to the engine where it would have one tender one day and a different one tomorrow.

@wjstix posted:

To echo an earlier post, tenders weren't swapped around willy-nilly. Yes an engine built in 1908 might only have it's original tender until 1940, when it might be replaced with a larger one whose added water and fuel supply allowed it to go longer between stops, and it used until it was retired in 1955. In 1995 the engine, which had been on static display, was restored to working condition - but the tender had considerable rust damage, so a tender that was available that had been used in maintenance of way service after it's engine was scrapped was found and mated to the restored engine. So yes the tender could change, but it wasn't like coupling a car to the engine where it would have one tender one day and a different one tomorrow.

I knew Willy Nilly. He never swapped tenders. He worked in the freight car shops. 😎

Actually, tenders were separated from all locomotives for class repairs. If a tender was serviced and ready to go and another locomotive of the same class was road-ready but its tender was still under repair, the tenders would be swapped. Many Union Pacific locomotives trailed different tenders for that reason. Roadworthy locomotives would not be held out of service just to get their original tender.

@breezinup posted:

HWHot WaterMember

 

Ed Dickens told me during a visit I made to see 4014 that they planned to build a new tender for the engine. They got a quote from a company to build it, which they thought was too high, so they were planning to build their own tender for the 4014. Whether that happens or not, we'll just have to stay tuned, I suppose.

Ed Dickens says lots of things. Many of the things he says directly contradict other things he has said.

He has little to no credibility as far as I'm concerned.

@Nick Chillianis posted:

I knew Willy Nilly. He never swapped tenders. He worked in the freight car shops. 😎

Actually, tenders were separated from all locomotives for class repairs.

Even more often than that. Remember that per ICC/FRA regulations, the engine to tender draw-bars had to be hammer tested (looking for cracks) every 90 days. That regulation still applies to this day.

If a tender was serviced and ready to go and another locomotive of the same class was road-ready but its tender was still under repair, the tenders would be swapped. Many Union Pacific locomotives trailed different tenders for that reason. Roadworthy locomotives would not be held out of service just to get their original tender.

Absolutely correct. In fact, a number of railroads even had entirely separate "tender/tank shops", where the tenders were overhauled. Thus, when a particular engine was almost finished with a major overhaul and ready for a tender, the appropriate class of tender that was finished, was transferred from the "Tank Shop" to the Back Shop, and thus connected to the engine.

 

This has been a really interesting thread. Thanks everyone!

Not only tenders swapped around different locomotives, but in some cases the front engines of articulated locomotives were sometime swapped as well.  When the Norfolk & Western upgraded their class Y-5 2-8-8-2's to cast bed frames they took the original front engines from the 19 Y-5's and used them under various class Y-3, Y-3a, and Y-4 locomotives.  You can tell by the Y-5's larger piston valves and bridge pipe.

Also, they went and swapped the front engines of at least two Class A 2-6-6-4's.  Engines 1205 and 1213 swapped front engines which is notable and noticeable because the 1205 was built with multiple bearing crossheads while the 1213 was built with alligator crossheads.  As a result the 1205 had alligator crossheads on the front engine and multiple bearing crossheads on the rear engine while the 12013 had multiple bearing crossheads on the front engine and alligator crossheads on the rear engine.

Stuart

@Stuart posted:

Not only tenders swapped around different locomotives, but in some cases the front engines of articulated locomotives were sometime swapped as well.  When the Norfolk & Western upgraded their class Y-5 2-8-8-2's to cast bed frames they took the original front engines from the 19 Y-5's and used them under various class Y-3, Y-3a, and Y-4 locomotives.  You can tell by the Y-5's larger piston valves and bridge pipe.

Also, they went and swapped the front engines of at least two Class A 2-6-6-4's.  Engines 1205 and 1213 swapped front engines which is notable and noticeable because the 1205 was built with multiple bearing crossheads while the 1213 was built with alligator crossheads.  As a result the 1205 had alligator crossheads on the front engine and multiple bearing crossheads on the rear engine while the 12013 had multiple bearing crossheads on the front engine and alligator crossheads on the rear engine.

Stuart

 

 

Thanks, Stuart 

Here's 1205 showing alligator up front and multiple bearing on the rear engine.

Here's 1213 showing the reversed order.

@smd4 posted:

I've seen clueless ebay sellers reverse the tender when selling toy trains, but I guess there really is a prototype for everything!

I like it when they call the tender a coal car..........

@Hot Water posted:

 

Just to drive this point home, a few years ago when 765 rolled a rail and derailed in the yard during the FWRHS open house, it was decided that they needed to un-hook the tender and roll it back out of the way.  It took them VERY LITTLE time to do that.

@Stuart posted:

Not only tenders swapped around different locomotives, but in some cases the front engines of articulated locomotives were sometime swapped as well.  When the Norfolk & Western upgraded their class Y-5 2-8-8-2's to cast bed frames they took the original front engines from the 19 Y-5's and used them under various class Y-3, Y-3a, and Y-4 locomotives.  You can tell by the Y-5's larger piston valves and bridge pipe.

Also, they went and swapped the front engines of at least two Class A 2-6-6-4's.  Engines 1205 and 1213 swapped front engines which is notable and noticeable because the 1205 was built with multiple bearing crossheads while the 1213 was built with alligator crossheads.  As a result the 1205 had alligator crossheads on the front engine and multiple bearing crossheads on the rear engine while the 12013 had multiple bearing crossheads on the front engine and alligator crossheads on the rear engine.

Stuart

 

The 2‘ gauge Festiniog Railway in North Wales are one of the very few operators still running a fleet of articulated locomotives, in their case a total of three double 0-4-4-0T double, and one 0-4-4T single Fairlies. They have a total of eleven bogies, of varying age and design depending on which loco they were originally built for. 

No pair are identical, and not all are serviceable but all are sufficiently similar that they can be, and are interchanged as servicing programmes dictate. 

The adjacent Welsh Highland Railway operate a fleet of five 2-6-2+2-6-2T Garratts, again not all identical or in simultaneous service, but engines are interchanged for servicing reasons. 

The K1 0-4-0+0-4-0T Beyer Garratt is a unique unit with no interchangeability, it is not in regular service. 

The 2‘6” gauge Kitson Meyer locomotive at Welshpool, and the incomplete locomotive at Cripple Creek are from the same series, but as neither are serviceable and they are so far apart, no interchange has ever taken place.