The NYC PT-2 Tender

In my ever present enthusiasm for the New York Central, I decided to go through a few more old videos and historical books on it. I figured I had known almost all that was done with on the Hudsons, until I stumbled upon this one:

Related image

I found this recently online as well as in this video (around the 3:00 mark)

The design of this tender does look very much like the regular PT type used for the later J1 and J3 Hudsons as well as the Niagaras, but the coal bin bears more resemblance to something on the Union Pacific. If it wasn't for the familiar overhang at the back, I'd say they'd be almost identical.

Are there any experts who can give more info on these tenders and if they were used on any other NYC locomotives?

Thomas

Somerset County 4-H Trainmasters

TCA Member11-66911

LCCA 30247

ERR Upgrades and Custom Artwork

Original Post

To my knowledge, the "PT", i.e. Passenger Tenders were used only on the Niagara class (they were delivered with 'PT' tenders from Alco), and Hudson class. By 1946, the NYC was purchasing "PT" tenders for use on most of the Hudsons. There are even photos of the streamlined Hudsons equipped with "PT" tenders still painted in two-tone gray. The books "Know Thy Hudsons" and "Know Thy Niagaras" will provide a wealth of information.

mark s posted:

Believe the tender pictured is unique to the "Big 4".  Not the same as Niagara or other Hudson PT tenders.  Note the overhang in back.   Suspect it came to be so as to fit on a shorter turntable. Perhaps others have more insight.

For what it's with, by doing a Google search "NYC PT tender", the results will quickly to you to the New York Central Historical Society site, where there is a very lengthy article on ALL the various "PT" tenders the NYC used. Included is exactly which Hudsons received which design "PT" tender, and on what dates. There are also general dimensional drawings, which pretty much show that ALL the "PT" tenders were the same overall length, with the same length overhang on the rear. 

What might be confusion in that video clip, are the many L4 class Mohawks shown which had very big tenders, but NOT the "PT" pedestal design.

mark s posted:

Believe the tender pictured is unique to the "Big 4".  Not the same as Niagara or other Hudson PT tenders.  Note the overhang in back.   Suspect it came to be so as to fit on a shorter turntable. Perhaps others have more insight.

This is correct. There was only one PT2 tender and it was assigned to Big 4 Hudson  5401. All PT tenders had the large overhang to deal with the short turntables, not just the PT2. 

Pete

Hot Water posted:

For what it's with, by doing a Google search "NYC PT tender", the results will quickly to you to the New York Central Historical Society site, where there is a very lengthy article on ALL the various "PT" tenders the NYC used. Included is exactly which Hudsons received which design "PT" tender, and on what dates. There are also general dimensional drawings, which pretty much show that ALL the "PT" tenders were the same overall length, with the same length overhang on the rear. 

PT Tenders From the records of W.D. Edson, by H.L. Vail, Jr.

If I recall correctly, the NYC "Big 4" lines did not have track pans that would allow tenders to be refilled with water while the train was in motion.  For this reason, the PT-2 (which was assigned to a Big 4 engine) had a much greater water capacity, and therefore a smaller coal capacity, than the other PT's.

Hal Lewis, who was a student at Purdue University during the last years of Hudson service on the Big Four Cincinnati-Chicago passenger trains, noted that the Hudsons outfitted with PT tenders (as opposed to the 12 wheel tanks) had a heck of a time surmounting the grade out of Lafayette, IN, and the Wabash R valley. He described how a 2400 horsepower Fairbanks Morse Trainmaster on tests, performed the same as the Hudsons, despite the Hudson's posessing greater horsepower. Of course, the Hudsons' horsepower was expressed at a higher speed, and this demonstrated the diesel locomotive's power advantage at lower speeds.

Hal's experiences were written up in an article in "Railfan Magazine" about 20 years ago.

To my knowledge, the "PT", i.e. "Passenger Tenders" were used only on the Niagara class (they were delivered with 'PT' tenders from Alco), and Hudson class. By 1946, the NYC was purchasing "PT" tenders for use on most of the Hudsons. There are even photos of the streamlined Hudsons equipped with "PT" tenders still painted in two-tone gray. The books "Know Thy Hudsons" and "Know Thy Niagaras" will provide a wealth of information.

"PT" Stands for "Pedestal Type"

https://www.bing.com/images/se...4A91910474D7A281F918

Russ...

Ringo posted:

To my knowledge, the "PT", i.e. "Passenger Tenders" were used only on the Niagara class (they were delivered with 'PT' tenders from Alco), and Hudson class. By 1946, the NYC was purchasing "PT" tenders for use on most of the Hudsons. There are even photos of the streamlined Hudsons equipped with "PT" tenders still painted in two-tone gray. The books "Know Thy Hudsons" and "Know Thy Niagaras" will provide a wealth of information.

"PT" Stands for "Pedestal Type"

No it does NOT!!!! Per NYC internal documents, published by the New York Central Historical Society, "PT" stands for Passenger Tender.

https://www.bing.com/images/se...4A91910474D7A281F918

No matter what this website says.

Russ...

 

Ringo posted:

To my knowledge, the "PT", i.e. "Passenger Tenders" were used only on the Niagara class (they were delivered with 'PT' tenders from Alco), and Hudson class. By 1946, the NYC was purchasing "PT" tenders for use on most of the Hudsons. There are even photos of the streamlined Hudsons equipped with "PT" tenders still painted in two-tone gray. The books "Know Thy Hudsons" and "Know Thy Niagaras" will provide a wealth of information.

"PT" Stands for "Pedestal Type"

https://www.bing.com/images/se...4A91910474D7A281F918

Russ...

Um, typing what you think something is named into a Bing search doesn't really qualify as a source.

Just sayin.'

Steve

 

smd4 posted:
Ringo posted:

To my knowledge, the "PT", i.e. "Passenger Tenders" were used only on the Niagara class (they were delivered with 'PT' tenders from Alco), and Hudson class. By 1946, the NYC was purchasing "PT" tenders for use on most of the Hudsons. There are even photos of the streamlined Hudsons equipped with "PT" tenders still painted in two-tone gray. The books "Know Thy Hudsons" and "Know Thy Niagaras" will provide a wealth of information.

"PT" Stands for "Pedestal Type"

https://www.bing.com/images/se...4A91910474D7A281F918

Russ...

Um, typing what you think something is named into a Bing search doesn't really qualify as a source.

Just sayin.'

As a test I went to the link and tried replacing the word "pedestal" with "passenger".  Results had minor differences.  Guess the point has been made!

Dominic Mazoch posted:

The wheel arrangement on the PT looks like the one used on late UP steam tenders.  Did NYC, UP and ALCO share data?  Plus both types of tenders must be/were hard on tight curves.

All of the Centipede tenders used the same frame.

Stuart

 

The light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an on coming train!

Compare the wheelbase of the 5 axle casting with the wheelbase of even one Challenger engine, let alone an 80" drivered Northern.  The tender was not the limiting factor.  My Challenger tenders can go around far sharper curves than their locomotives can.

bob2 posted:

Compare the wheelbase of the 5 axle casting with the wheelbase of even one Challenger engine, let alone an 80" drivered Northern.  The tender was not the limiting factor.  My Challenger tenders can go around far sharper curves than their locomotives can.

BIG difference in the tolerances of models compared to the 1:1 scale trains.  The UP steam program has learned that lesson many times over the years that even though the engine can make it, the tender can get you into trouble, most famously with a wye in Kingsport, TN when the 3985 came east to pull the Clinchfield Santa Train some years ago.  The engine made it around fine, the tender not so much.  Long moves of towing the engine backwards ensued.

Model train physics and tolerances are a totally different animal, and rarely have any relation to how the real thing performed.

bob2 posted:

Compare the wheelbase of the 5 axle casting with the wheelbase of even one Challenger engine, let alone an 80" drivered Northern.  The tender was not the limiting factor.

Your statement is true for the FEF-3 #844, but NOT for #3985, as the tender is definitely the "limiting factor" on the real 4-6-6-4 "Big Challengers".

 My Challenger tenders can go around far sharper curves than their locomotives can.

Models are a whole different story than real locomotives!

 

Hot Water posted:
bob2 posted:

Compare the wheelbase of the 5 axle casting with the wheelbase of even one Challenger engine, let alone an 80" drivered Northern.  The tender was not the limiting factor.

Your statement is true for the FEF-3 #844, but NOT for #3985, as the tender is definitely the "limiting factor" on the real 4-6-6-4 "Big Challengers".

 My Challenger tenders can go around far sharper curves than their locomotives can.

Models are a whole different story than real locomotives!

 

When they moved the Big Boy out of Vermont in the early 80's to Steamtown's new location in Scranton the issue wasn't the locomotive but the rigid tender as they had to be carefull moving her around, that a wheel wouldn't jump a rail or spread the rails.  So I was told.

 

Dominic Mazoch posted:

Were there any advantages for NYC or UP for using a tender with such a wheel arangement?  A tendet with a 4 and a 3 axle trucks would give one the same number of acled in a more flexable wheelbase.

Weight distribution.

Water weighs a lot.  25,000 gallons or so in the case of the Big Boy.  There's less weight per axle.  14 axles distributes the weight on the rails more evenly than 4, 6 or 8.

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:
Dominic Mazoch posted:

Were there any advantages for NYC or UP for using a tender with such a wheel arangement?  A tendet with a 4 and a 3 axle trucks would give one the same number of acled in a more flexable wheelbase.

Weight distribution.

Water weighs a lot.  25,000 gallons or so in the case of the Big Boy.  There's less weight per axle.  14 axles distributes the weight on the rails more evenly than 4, 6 or 8.

Rusty

I believe the tender when full actually weighed more than the engine, at least more than a Hudson.

Pete

AFB56867-A9A3-45A9-BA16-00B3F3D405B1

this is the usual pic of the engine I see (above) or think of.

I noticed just how big the pilot wheels appear compared to our models. The pic below caught my attention.

 

Related image

I was given some advice when converting my Allegheny over to 2 rail. "The pilot wheels should be smaller" or I'll create a short. Sure enough I had to swap them out right away when I noticed severe sparking rounding the first curve I ran her on. It was a quick solution that I did not look into any closer. It solved it and I was happy.

 So I can't help but wonder if again, our models are modified just to make life easier? Real dimensions and the way the real weight is handled is probably much different than our toy models that have a different set of problems to solve. Probably why I read of so many shelf queen engines being produced over the years?

 Being a modern diesel fan has helped me avoid some of the basic steam engine problems, and solutions over the years. I ran HO when I was a kid and had poor results with steam vs. diesels running reliably. As my guests prefer steam era engines, I'm forced to look closer and study these goliaths.

 Blast away now!  I'm way behind.

Thanks for the topic and all the info provided. Now I have to go back and study everything closer.

 

" on Sour mash and cheap wine " ??

Why go back to DCC when I have DCS!

Rusty Traque posted:
Dominic Mazoch posted:

Were there any advantages for NYC or UP for using a tender with such a wheel arangement?  A tendet with a 4 and a 3 axle trucks would give one the same number of acled in a more flexable wheelbase.

Weight distribution.

Water weighs a lot.  25,000 gallons or so in the case of the Big Boy.  There's less weight per axle.  14 axles distributes the weight on the rails more evenly than 4, 6 or 8.

Rusty

DUH!  Miscounted axles.  What was I thinking???  That's what happens when the morning coffee hasn't kicked in.

Still, a centipede tender distributes the weight better than standard trucks.

Rusty

Hot Water posted:
bob2 posted:

Compare the wheelbase of the 5 axle casting with the wheelbase of even one Challenger engine, let alone an 80" drivered Northern.  The tender was not the limiting factor.

Your statement is true for the FEF-3 #844, but NOT for #3985, as the tender is definitely the "limiting factor" on the real 4-6-6-4 "Big Challengers".

 My Challenger tenders can go around far sharper curves than their locomotives can.

Models are a whole different story than real locomotives!

 

C'mon, Jack, 

Next you'll be telling us that the 3985 wasn't equipped with DCC and a Tsunami sound system.

 

Add Reply

Likes (0)


OGR Publishing, Inc. PO Box 218, Hilliard, OH 43026 330-757-3020
www.ogaugerr.com
×
×
×
×
×