Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

It's a little odd that "smoke" comes out of the tender's overflow ports along the bottom of the tank on each side (designed to prevent the tank from rupturing), but the overall effect isn't too bad. Maybe the tank could be filled with water under pressure from compressed air, which could then be squirted out the ports, soaking everything along the track, including any onlookers who happen to be watching the action!

As additional information, both the NYC and PRR, with limited use by the B&O, had extensive track pans and water level/treatment facilities, for various steam locomotives to "scoop" tender makeup water, without stopping. The NYC continued to "perfect" the process of "scooping" water while underway, and eventually developed those large PT "Centipede" tenders for most all of their Hudsons and Niagara class passenger locomotives. The PT tenders, with those large air vent discharge pipes were designed to "scoop" water at speeds of 80 MPH, thus the requirement for all those large air vent discharge pipes, on both sides of the tender.

The general idea of "scooping" water into the tender was NOT to completely fill the tender, but keep a more than half-full tender, most of the trip. Thus, water was "scooped" often at regular intervals between New York and Chicago, on the NYC four track main line. The Fireman would operated an air valve handle on his front side of the tender, and when the Engineer signaled him that they were over the track pan, the Fireman would then lower the water scoop. Upon another signal from the Engineer, the Fireman would raise the scoop.

Edit,

As additional information, the PT tenders had drastically enlarged coal carrying capacity of 46 tons, since the water carrying portion could be correspondingly reduced, due to the ability to "scoop" water many times enroute. With such a large coal load, those Hudsons and Niagaras equipped with PT tenders, would only need to stop and take on coal once (at Cleveland, OH) between Harmon New York and Chicago.

Last edited by Hot Water
rattler21 posted:

Sometimes referred to as 'Jerking Water', hence the term Jerk Water Town for a municipality along the right of way which was too small to have a station at which trains stopped for coaling and water but did have on-the-fly pans for picking up water without stopping.  John in Lansing, ILL

Not quite. The perm "jerkwater town" was used LONG before the NYC or PRR ever developed "scooping water" from track pans.

B Smith posted:

It's a little odd that "smoke" comes out of the tender's overflow ports along the bottom of the tank on each side (designed to prevent the tank from rupturing), but the overall effect isn't too bad. Maybe the tank could be filled with water under pressure from compressed air, which could then be squirted out the ports, soaking everything along the track, including any onlookers who happen to be watching the action!

The PT tenders were truly fascinating bits of engineering. The reason the pipes are at the  bottom of the tender and pointed outward was because the water spray from higher overflow ports would soak any passenger with a window open. Before the redesign of the NYC tenders and the adoption of the PT type, many passengers complained of being woken up soaked during the night! As for soaking the onlookers, I think the NYC would rather they get wet than their paying passengers. Another story that spurred the development of the PT tender had to do with hobos. If anyone hitched a ride on the tender during the winter, they likely got soaked and froze to death, because of the overflow from the tender tank hatch. There was even an instance where a stowaway was found with his lands literally frozen to the grab irons on the back of a scooping tender. This was another problem that the NYC wanted to avoid, so they decided to point the overflow ports down and away from the train. 

One last hobo story: One night a hobo decided to hitch a ride atop the (non-PT) tender tank of an NYC engine. When the engine went over the track pans, the force from the overflow was so great, that the man was washed off the tender and deposited on the adjacent track in the track pan, just as another train was approaching. He was actually scooped into the tender tank of the oncoming train. Need I say it, he didn't survive. Just another reason to have the overflow ports pointed down and away. 

These stories were originally published by the New York Central Historical Society. They have graciously published comprehensive articles on NYC track pan and tender design, as well as many other subjects, on their website for free. The link to these articles may be found here: https://nycshs.org/nycs-research-information/

Last edited by Bandomnjr
Adriatic posted:

Excellent question actually 

Ask more

Agree with Adriatic, excellent question - learned a lot of interesting info on this thread. An awful lot of post war steam tenders had a "scoop" on them (probably more to allow the sounds from the primative whistle in the tender to be heard than for any prototypical reason!!!).

Always remember - there is no such thing as a stupid question.

Now, stupid answers on the other hand...   

I agree completely -- This was a good question that led to a lot of really interesting replies. I don't remember ever seeing a drawing of the interior of a PT tender, but I suppose the overflow ports at the bottom are connected to vertical pipes on the inside of the tender that run upward into the space just below the tender deck (perhaps a couple of feet below the deck?).

I was thinking that for a model PT tender, you could fill it with water (or some other beverage), put in a charge of compressed air, then let it spray out at appropriate (or inappropriate) times.

That's a remarkable story about the man who was washed off one tender, then scooped up and killed by another.

The scoop was also used in the UK. The Flying Scotsman was an express train between London and Edinburgh. To ensure the fastest nonstop journey to Scotland, LNER was faced with two hurtles. The locomotive carried enough coal to complete the 800 mile journey, but not enough water, so the scoop was invented. The crew though couldn't remain on the footplate for 8 hours straight, so a corridor was added in the tender so the second crew could switch with the first crew halfway without having to stop.

Last edited by Rich Melvin

According to a PDF document easily found, the pans varied:

The Rome pan was 20 inches wide, with a depth of 8 inches. The top of the pan was 1-9/16 below the top of the rail, and the water was 1/2 inch below the top of the pan.

The Painesville pan was 18-7/8th  inches wide, with a depth of 7-7/16 inches. The top of the pan was level with the top of the rail, and the water was 3/4 inch below the top of the pan.

The Marshall pan was 19 inches wide. The top of the pan was 1-3/4 inches below the top of the rail, and the water was 3/4 inch below the top of the pan.

Add Reply

Post

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×