Erie Railroad L1 Class: 2600, 2601 & 2602 - 0-8-8-0 \"Angus\" Articulated Compound Mallet Camelbacks

Click on the builders plate $\"\"$ at the bottom of each chapter\nto bring you back to this table of contents.

Simply put: this website\nis\ndedicated to the existence of three very unique locomotives - the Erie\nL1 Class 0-8-8-0 Articulated Compound Mallets.

I have always had a\nparticular fondness for camelback type\nlocomotives; and of all the wheel arrangements and configurations\nbuilt, these three\narticulated mallet types constructed by American Locomotive Works\n(Schenectady, NY)\nfor\nthe Erie Railroad are at the top of the list. A close second being the\nSt. Clair Tunnel\n0-10-0\nside tank Camelbacks.

\n The Erie L1's\nwere the seventh, eighth and ninth Compound Mallet articulated\nlocomotives\nconstructed in the United States, following the order to American\nLocomotive company for a single 0-6-6-0 for the Baltimore\n& Ohio (#2400 \"Old Maud\") built in May 1904 (ALCo c/n 27478);\nand an\norder to Baldwin Locomotive Works for five 2-6-6-2 for the Great\nNorthern. The\nMallet concept, as well as articulation; was rather new to the United\nStates, and still in the process of proving its worth.

But the Erie L1's were first and\nonly camelback articulated Mallet locomotives to be\nconstructed in the United\nStates - and for that matter, the world.

The Erie L1's were\nfurther noted as \"Mellin\ncompound\nMallets\", after Carl J. Mellin who patented the improved method of\ncompounding\nthe steam cylinders.

The L1's were designed\nfor\nand assigned to\npusher service over the Gulf Summit grade and Susquehanna Hill, which\nincludes\nthe famed Starrucca Viaduct on the New York - Pennsylvania border, and\nthe\nline was part of the Erie's Delaware Division.

The L1's pretty much\nnever\nventured\nwest\nof Susquehanna, Pennsylvania; or east of Deposit, New York. However, a\npublicity image by Erie Railroad shows one of the locomotives in Port\nJervis, NY in 1911.

But despite this local\nlimited use, they obviously left their mark on the collective history\nof\nrailroading as many items were produced to publicize their\nconstruction and service; postcards, paintings, and advertising scale\nmodels.

\n These locomotives remain the topic of many discussions today,\nbut\nunfortunately some of those discussions and comments are rooted in myths, misconceptions\nand misinformation.

So, a great deal of this\nwebsite is spent in dispelling and proving those myths wrong.\nThat is the premise behind the Real\nFacts - not Railfan Fiction portion of this\nwebsite.

As a historian, I am\npro-fact and\npro-accuracy, and I am as thorough as I can possibly be. I don't merely\nrepeat what I read, I go through the effort of verifying what I read.

As I gain access to established authoritative\nresources, I expand my base of knowledge. I even go out of my way to\ncollect older technical publications from the 1800's and early 1900's\nregarding the subjects I research.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n So, a great\ndeal of the erroneous information that circulates on the internet (and some books) have been proven incorrect on this\nwebsite with good old fashioned research,\nand posting the\ndocumentation to prove otherwise, hence the Real\nFacts - not Railfan Fiction chapters and the 1907 Test and 1908\nThesis chapters showing the\nunedited locomotive test results.

Furthermore, it is important to mention that a great deal of\nthe statistics\nI have stated do not come from\ncrowd-sourced and easily editable Wikipedia; but from established,\nreputable and\nauthoritative references and sources such as steamlocomotive.com,\nactual locomotives builders information, as well as industry and technical journals\nand compendiums from the era the locomotive actually operated.

\n Since all of the men that actually operated or worked on the\nErie L1 are long\nsince gone; some operational information and techniques comes from (and has\nbeen corrected) by both active and retired railroaders, especially\nthose with experience in steam locomotive operation.

\n But unfortunately, due sometimes in part to novice railfans\nnot\nunderstanding the technology that existed at that time when compared to todays standards; and\nsometimes in part to biased opinion; there\nis an inordinate amount of misunderstanding (or just plain bad\nassumption) on\ntheir parts regarding these Erie locomotives (and to be frank, other topics as\nwell.)

Regrettably, this\nerroneous info makes its way onto the web and before you\nknow it its being parroted in modeling forums, Facebook groups and\nrailfan\nthreads.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

I have been told I can be long winded, and it's been said I\ntake\nthe long way to get where I'm going, especially when disproving a\nfallacy.

\n But it is no longer enough to simply inform someone their\ninformation is incorrect, especially so in Facebook Groups, Reddit and\ninternet forums. People now become defensive, obstinate, argumentative, and indignant. Even when I have been polite.

Now, it seems it has become necessary to put all the data in black and white,\nand literally hammer this time and time again in front of the misinformed, to get them to realize the error of\ntheir ways. And sometimes that\nisn't even enough. As I grow older, I am sorry to say I have lost a lot of patience and diplomacy in\ndealing with these types. You may be better acquainted with them as the:

\n This is why you will find extensive history and information on this website pertaining to anthracite\nburning locomotives, what the difference between anthracite and\nanthracite culm is and so forth.

Because just another \"fan page\" on a locomotive\ndesign and bare basics information might not educate those types.

Naturally, if I\nam in error; please feel free to contact\nme and I will make a good faith effort to review the facts\nyou provide.

.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nChapter 1:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA veritable \"who's who\" of railroad notables
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n In one way or another, directly or indirectly; the design of\nthe\nErie L1 came about as the result of several inventors, engineers and\ndesigners of industrial apparatus who will be mentioned in the upcoming\nchapters:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$	Ross Winans
October\n17, 1796 - April\n11, 1877 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Vernon\nTownship, New Jersey, USA
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn\n1828, he developed a friction wheel with outside bearings that\nestablished a pattern for future railroad wheels. In the late 1820s, he became associated with the\nBaltimore & Ohio RR, entering their service as an\nengineer (designing). His first task was to help\nPeter Cooper build\nthe revolutionary \"Tom Thumb\" steam locomotive. In 1831, he would be appointed assistant engineer of machinery on the B&O.In\n1835, he went into partnership\nwith G. Gillingham and in 1836, they took over the 1834 lease of the\nB&O Company's shops at Mount Clare and continued the\nmanufacturing\nof locomotives and railroad machinery. In 1841 however, he opened his\nown shop adjacent to the Mt. Clare Shops. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWinans was a\npioneer in the development of coal-burning steam\nlocomotives, including the use of anthracite coal; and substituting it for the less\nefficient wood-burners of the era. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nWinans\nset trends in locomotive and car design rather than followed them. His\nsteam locomotives, popularly known as \"Crabs,\" \"Muddiggers,\" and\n\"Camels\"; were used all over the expanding Northeast U.S. rail\nnetwork. From\n1843 to 1863; Winans\ndelivered approximately three hundred locomotives to twenty-six\ndifferent American railroads. He is also credited with being the first\nUS locomotive manufacturer to export a locomotive to Europe. The B&O was Winans' largest\nlocomotive customer, with 140 locomotive deliveries going to that\nrailroad\nalone. Winans' second best customer was the Philadelphia and Reading\nRailroad. These two customers represented 70 percent of Winans' total\nsales. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nJames Millholland, master mechanic of the Cumberland\n& Pennsylvania RR (and then Philadelphia & Reading),\nworked with Winans on Cooper's \"Tom Thumb\", and was quite\nfamiliar with keeping these \"Camel\" engines running, and making\nimprovements to them. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Winans' customer relations were simple—he built\nengines his way, and you bought them. While he was eccentric, his locomotive\nbusiness made him independently wealthy. Bored with the business, and\nhaving a design disagreement with the B. & O., he closed his\nshops and pursued other endeavors.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
$\"\"$	Zerah Colburn
January\n13, 1832 - April 26, 1875 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSaratoga, New York, USA
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nColburn was the nephew of his namesake, Zerah Colburn, a noted prodigy\nin advanced arithmetic. With no\nformal schooling, Colburn was a teenage prodigy in engineering. Barely\nin his teens at the start of the railroad boom, he found work in\nLowell, Massachusetts as an apprentice in the \"drafting room\" of the\nLowell Machine Shops. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Colburn had a career of\nbreakneck speed. He was a restless man, quick of brain and also quick\nof temper. He would fall into jobs and fell in with people; but\nrepeatedly fell out with them too; but as\nhe moved about the various locomotive works of New England, he gained\nexperience as well as an eye for engineering detail. He also produced\nhis first book, \"The Throttle Lever\". Designed as an introduction to\nthe\nsteam locomotive, this became the standard U.S. textbook on building\nlocomotives. The book took Colburn, then not even 20 years old, deeper\ninto\nthe world of publishing, but it also earned him the wider respect of\nrailroad men across America – both locomotive builders and train\noperators. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nColburn worked or was associated with a number of\nlocomotive works between 1854 and 1858, including: Baldwin Locomotive\nWorks; Tredegar Locomotive Works at Richmond, Virginia; Rogers\nLocomotive Works; and the New Jersey Locomotive and Machine Company. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhile\nat NJL&M, Colburn began construction of the \"Lehigh\" for the\nDelaware, Lackawanna & Western RR in February 1855. It was of\nthe\n0‑6‑0 type, with an overhanging firebox of 7' 6\" in width. The first\nsuch use of the wide firebox for anthracite. Colburn's intention was to\nuse a firebox six feet long, but he left the New Jersey Locomotive\nWorks in a disagreement and before the \"Lehigh\" was completed, and the\nbuilders reduced the length to 4' 6. The locomotive proved a poor\nsteamer, and the firebox was subsequently lengthened to six feet, as\nproposed by Colburn. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nUltimately; overwork, an addiction to\nlaudanum, alcohol and poor financial management took their toll on his\nmental health. In\ntrying to ease his mind; he became increasingly delighted by\nLondon prostitutes whose pleasures he much enjoyed, but where he\ncontracted syphilis. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nColburn,\nsensing the impending shame offered by Fleet Street journalists and\ntheir diligence to seek out and publish the \"truth\", he became\ndepressed\nand reckless, leading to his return to the U.S. – where he found\nhimself disowned by his wife and daughter, of which led to his eventual\nsuicide at the mere age of 38. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
$\"\"$	James Millholland
October\n6, 1812 - August 1875 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBaltimore, Maryland, USA
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMillholland\nhad the honor of working on Peter Cooper's \"Tom Thumb\" locomotive\n(along with Ross Winans), and\nfound so much pleasure in working with it, he dedicated his profession\nto railroad locomotives. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Railway\nmaster mechanic for the Philadelphia & Reading; and designer of\nthe\nanthracite firebox for that railroad (and in separate but parallel\ndevelopment with Colburn); as well as many other\ninventions, which became standard on American railroads. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Also an early user and advocate of\nthe\nsuperheater, the feedwater heater, and the injector. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Inventions and\ncontributions include the cast-iron crank axle, wooden spring, plate\ngirder bridge, poppet throttle, initial design of the anthracite\nfirebox, water grate, drop\nframe, and steel tires.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
$\"\"$	John\nE. Wootten
December 23, 1822 -\nDecember 16, 1898 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWootten\nwould assume Millholland's position of master mechanic; when the latter\nresigned from the P & R. While James Millholland first designed\na\nfirebox for burning anthracite; it would be Wootten that would go\non to perfect the final result for burning anthracite culm, and have\nhis name inextricably\nassociated with the design. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Wootten\nalso realized in the mid-1870s, when he held the position of\nSuperintendent\nof Motive Power (and soon after General Manager) of the\nPhiladelphia & Reading RR; that if a firebox be could be\ndesigned\nto utilize the vast unwanted quantities of anthracite culm (mine /\nbreaker waste) in the Northeast United States; a vast savings in the\ncost of operation of steam locomotives could be achieved. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Due\nto its width and placement,\nthe design of the Wootten firebox required the repositioning of the\nengineers cab which resulting in the Camelback locomotive type. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThis\nis without a doubt the most significant part of the Erie\nL1 design, not to mention all those Camelback style\nlocomotives that\nboth preceded and succeeded it.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
$\"\"$	Anatole\nMallet (pronounced\nmal-LAY - rhymes with ballet)
1837 - October 1919 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLancy, Switzerland
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMechanical engineer, inventor of the first successful compound\nsystem with articulated railway steam locomotive, patented in 1874. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n He developed\nthe boiler over articulated frames containing drive wheels\nand compound cylinder placement (in contrast to the Beyer or Garrett\ntypes of\narticulated locomotives); and of which the Erie L1 fell into this\nArticulated Mallet design type. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThis\nMallet style of locomotive became popular not only for the heavy\nfreight drag or pusher operations; but for timberland\nharvesting\nfirms with excessive curvature and steep grades as well.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
$\"\"$	Angus Sinclair
1841- January 1, 1919 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Laurence-kirk, Mearns,\nForfar, Scotland
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nErie\nRailroad special instructor, locomotive engineering, publisher of\n\"Railway & Locomotive Engineering\" technical journal and the\n\"Development of the Locomotive Engine\", one of, if not the\nmost comprehensive history on the construction of locomotives. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSinclair was respected by all designers and master mechanics, no matter\nwhich railroad they worked for. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSinclair's\n\"contribution\" to the Erie L1, was that he is believed to have stated\nbefore the L1's were completed, that the L1 would \"dry up the country's\ncanals and make water transportation obsolete\". \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhile this was\nclearly hyperbole, it is understood that the Erie RR saw fit to honor\nthis statement by assigning Sinclairs' name to the class of locomotive:\n\"Angus\"
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n While\nall the men mentioned thus far have contributed to the advancement of\nsteam locomotives, or at least certain design philosophies; \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nit\nis this man that is most directly and specifically involved in the\ndesign and construction of the Erie L1 Articulated Compound Locomotives: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
$\"\"$	Carl J. Mellin
February\n17, 1851 - October 15, 1924 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n parish\nof Hagelberg;\n Skaraborg\nCounty; Västergötland\nregion, Sweden
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMechanical\nengineer and designer of steam locomotive and marine steam\npropulsion systems. From 1877 to 1887, after completing technical\nstudies, apprenticeships and internships; he was employed by Robert Napier\n& Son, Glasgow, Scotland; as\na designer for maritime propulsion systems, as well as the ships\nthemselves. He then was employed by Atlas (now Atlas Copco) in\nStockholm, Sweden. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHe immigrated to the United States in 1887.\nIn 1894, he obtained the position of chief engineer for the Richmond\nLocomotive Works, in Virginia; and in 1902 began employment as a\nconsulting engineer for American Locomotive Works of Schenectady, New\nYork. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHere, Mellin directed the design office as well as\nsupervised the workshops for the construction of propulsion machinery\nfor US Navy battleships; but his forte was designing\nlocomotives. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHe\nis recognized for the designing the \"The Spirit of the Twentieth\nCentury\", a 4-4-2 \"Atlantic\" built for the \"Big Four\" (the Cleveland,\nCincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway) exhibit\nin the Palace of Transportation at 1904 Worlds Fair / Louisiana\nPurchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri. This exhibit earned him a\ngold medal. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSpecific to this website, Mellin was supervising\nengineer for American Locomotive Company when the Erie L1's were\ndesigned\nand built, and\nhe developed and patented the specific compound cylinder system used on\nthe Erie L1 design.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nChapter 2:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhy the cab is in the middle: the Wootten\nFirebox
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
That's\nWootten, with two O's and two T's;
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nCamels vs. Camelbacks,
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nand
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nAnthracite vs. Anthracite Culm
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(No, they weren't the same thing.)
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2.1:\n\"Camels\" vs. \"Camelbacks\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Some\nreaders may not\nknow the reason for the cab astride the\nboiler arrangement of Camelback locomotives, so it is here that I will\ntake some time to explain. It is quite lengthy so be forewarned.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n First, it bears mentioning that there were two distinct types\nof\nsteam locomotives that had center mounted cabs. They are often\ninterchangeably called camels and camelbacks, but this is incorrect;\neach type were specific to their own design.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The original \"Camel\"\ntype locomotives were built by Ross Winan, a prolific railroad inventor\nof the era. First\nbuilt in 1848; these \"Camel\"\nlocomotives were designed to burn anthracite coal appropriately sized\nfor locomotive use; not anthracite culm. These locomotives were\ndesigned as slow speed, heavy haul\nfreight locomotives and all were originally of the 0-8-0 wheel arrangement. Over\n200 were produced.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The\nouter perimeter of the firebox was contained completely between the\nwheels and over the axles. They\nhad sloped top fireboxes further defined by a loading chute on top of\nthe firebox in which to feed coal. Originally,\ncoal was fed from a elevated\nplatform on the tender, and not from the tender deck; but this was\nlater modified and the use of fire doors on the rear became standard.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

So successful was the\nlocomotive, that\nthe design was copy-catted by several builders as well as subsequently improved\nupon by Samuel\nHayes, Master of Machinery at Mount Clare Shops of B&O RR; and\nby\nMatthias Baldwin of Baldwin Locomotive Works, among others. Even the Altoona Shops\nof the Pennsylvania RR rebuilt at least one Winan's Camel.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n As these locomotives were rebuilt, other wheel arrangements\n(namely\n2-6-0 and 4-6-0) were adapted to the Camel design. Nevertheless, it is this\ndesign of locomotive and this design only\nthat should be referred to as \"Camels\", and are seen below\nleft.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Camelback or \"Mother\nHubbard\"\nlocomotives had firebox doors on the rear, a firebox that extended over\nand wider than the wheels, and the boiler went through the cab, not\nunder it. They were designed to burn anthracite culm.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2.2:\nAnthracite vs. Anthracite Culm
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Before\ncommencing with the next chapter; it is imperative for the\nreader to understand that at this juncture, firebox development was\ndesigned to use screened or sized anthracite; not\nanthracite culm, which was small, and irregularly sized waste.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately,\nmany contemporary railfan websites and discussions co-mingle the words\n\"anthracite\" and \"culm\" when discussing it as a\nfuel; but which in fact were very different from one another. While\nthey both come from\nthe same type of coal; it was screened (sized) anthracite that\nwas used first in locomotives,\nand of which was produced by the coal mill or \"breaker\" and sorted by size using metal screens of various sizes.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Anthracite, is a type of coal. It has the highest content of\ncarbon, and less impurities of the other types of coal, those being: bituminous,\nsub-bituminous, lignite and peat. Anthracite burns cleanly and produces little\nsmoke and is the hardest of all the coals; therefore it takes longer\nto\nignite and burn. Because it has the highest amount of carbon, it burns\nthe hottest. Anthracite is prevalent in the Northeastern Pennsylvania\nregion.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Culm waste, was the\nleftovers after breaking\n& sizing raw anthracite; as well as coal that had already been\nscreened and sized but fractured as it was\nbeing handled and progressed down the chutes, it fell through the\nscreens to the bottom of the breaker house and transported to the culm\npiles.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Here is an analogy: think of lumber;
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

A tree is cut down. This is the equivalent of mining coal.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
First\nthe bark could be cut off thereby squaring the round tree trunk.\nThen that is cut into sizes: 2\"x 3\", 2\" x 4\", 2\" x 6\", 4\" x 4\", 6\" x\n6\", etc; and is also cut to different lengths. This is known as dimensional lumber. This is the equivalent of breaking and screening coal to dimensional sizes.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
After\nyou have cut that lumber to size; you have the bark slabs, odd shapes,\nends, thin trim pieces, and a lot of saw dust left over. This is\nequivalent to culm.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2.3: Screened (or Sized) Anthracite

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

When it came to the\nearly steam locomotives, they burned screened anthracite, not culm waste.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Screened coal (of any type) are sizes of coal that were able to\npass or not pass through a specific sized sorting screen and\nconstituted a maximum dimension. A large piece of coal would pass over\nthe screen, which coal that fit through the sized opening would fall\nthrough.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The most commonly used\nsizes of screened anthracite coal for locomotives was \"grate\" (also known as \"broken\"); or \"egg\" which was the next size smaller.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

It should be emphasized\nthat smaller sizes of coal under \"egg\", which are comprised of the following sizes (in diminishing order) of which were used for:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"stove\" and\n\"chestnut\" for domestic household stoves and heating.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Smaller sizes of coal such as: \"pea\", \"buckwheat\"\nand \"rice\" and\n\"barley\" (not shown); were used for industrial applications such\nas automatic stoker\nfurnaces used for power generation and for use in electric arc furnaces\nto produce foamy slag.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Also not listed or shown below is larger sized \"steamboat\" (4½\"\nto 6\") which was used for steamships. This size was not preferred for locomotive use either.

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Coal Trade - 1920 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	sizes of screened coal: 12\" tile, US\nquarters: 15/16\" diameter \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nsteamboat, rice and barley sizes not shown.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

.2.4: Parallel Development for the Anthracite\nBurner

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n According to Angus Sinclair's \"Development of the Steam\nLocomotive\", 1907; there were a multitude of attempts to burn hard coal\nin locomotives by locomotive designers and master mechanics.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Each of these locomotive designers carried their own\nindividual\nbeliefs into what would work and why \"the other guys design didn't\nwork\", but they all had one thing in common, and that was their desire\nto\nburn anthracite.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n While several of the designs produced never made it to widespread\nacceptance or production; some in part to their genuinely being\nunsuccessful from a technical or operational standpoint, yet other designs did.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

But there was\nanother reason why some designs did not find widespread acceptance. The following statement by Henry F. Colvin as\nquoted in Sinclair's book, and of which struck a chord with\nme:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\"Colburn's\n \"Lehigh\"\nwas not any more popular with the locomotive department than\nthose\nbuilt by Winans.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
A\ndeparture from established forms always excites\nprejudice among enginemen. Five more were ordered, but they never\nbecame popular.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n So\napparently, even if the locomotive performed acceptably; it was still\nsubject to\nprejudice from \"old timers\" that turned their nose up at it.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

How little\nhas changed in society, and how we continue to this day to pooh-pooh new ideas, designs, and ways of \"doing things.\"

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Some of the designs that saw success sprung from the minds of Ross Winans, Zerah Colburn, and James Millholland.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2.5 - James Millholland\n

James Millholland\nbecame involved with the railroads at an early age, with the honor of\nworking as an apprentice on Peter Cooper's \"Tom Thumb\" locomotive;\nwhich was the first American built locomotive to operate in the US and\non a common carrier railroad.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Millholland had found so\nmuch pleasure in working with that one locomotive, that he dedicated\nhis profession\nto railroad locomotives. He progressed his way up through the ranks\nof the mechanical forces until he eventually attained the position of railway\nmaster mechanic for the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n At this point in time, most locomotives were primarily fueled\nwith wood or soft coal: bituminous, which was also available in\nPennsylvania and neighboring West Virginia. It was here that\nMillholland realized, due to the plentiful\nsupply of anthracite coal located in Northeast Pennsylvania; that he\nattempted to design a firebox capable of burning this plentiful but\nhard\ncoal.\nAnthracite was so hard in fact, it was also called \"stone\ncoal\".

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Millholland would take\nwood burning locomotives that were either at or nearing\nthe end of their service life, or had suffered various forms of firebox\nor boiler failure; and rebuild them with fireboxes of his\ndesigns.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Millholland's final\ndesign found that a wider\nand shorter firebox than normal was needed to burn this anthracite. As anthracite coal is\nharder than bituminous (soft) coal and\nby taking longer to burn, locomotives using anthracite\ntherefore needed\nmore \"grate area\" to sufficiently \"fire\" (generate steam) in the\nlocomotive.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

A simple comparison\nwould be to wood species used for heating:\nsoftwoods such as pine or fir burned fast; while hardwoods such as\nmaple, oak and ash burned slow.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Typical wood or bituminous (soft coal) burning fireboxes on\nlocomotives\nof that time were long and narrow, and fit between the locomotive\nframe. Because anthracite burned slower, more was needed on the grate\nto produce enough heat to evaporate water to make steam. In stationary\nor very large objects like factory boilers and ship boilers, there was\nall the room that could be had for larger grates. But on locomotives it\nwas a different story - they were small by comparison.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Millholland found if\nthe\nfirebox was enlarged and made wider (instead of long and narrow),\nanthracite could be\nburned in a mobile object such as railroad locomotives.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

His plans were\ninterrupted in January 1854, when the Philadelphia\n& Reading Shops burned, and his attention was needed on the\nrebuilding of those facilities. While he was eventually able to return\nhis\nattention to converting the P & R's fleet of locomotives to\ncoal\nburning; he never truly succeeded in developing a successful anthracite\nfirebox. He eventually resigned his position in 1866. His successor would be\none John E. Wootten.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2.6\n- John E. Wootten & Using Anthracite Culm

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n John Wootten began his locomotive apprenticeship at the\nBaldwin\nLocomotive Works in 1837. He left Baldwin Locomotive in 1845\nto\njoin a small shop operated by the Philadelphia & Reading\nRailroad.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Over the course of his career, he was appointed to Engineer\nof\nMachinery on February 1, 1866 when Millholland resigned; then he\nadvanced to Assistant Superintendent and Engineer\nof Machinery\non February 2, 1871. On January 15, 1873 we was appointed to the\nposition of General Superintendent, and finally to General Manager on\nJanuary 10, 1877.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Like Millholland prior to him, Wootten was aware of the\nplentiful amount of anthracite from the areas mines.

$\"\"$

\n But even more prolific, was\nanthracite waste or\n\"culm\".
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Culm is the granular remnants and smaller pieces\nof coal after it had\nbeen broken and sized by screening for commercial\nuse.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n As this culm was mostly small and irregularly sized,\nit was\nunwanted and contained up to 15% of foreign matter: slate, stone,\nsand, etc.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Waste\nculm accounted for 18 to 20% of the production of anthracite coal for\ncommercial use. And without a salable use, this culm found\nitself\nbeing piled next to or in close proximity to the breakers (the coal\nsizing\nmills) and in quantities to be considered a nuisance.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

As\nwith most things unwanted,\nit\nwas extremely cheap and in large abundance. In \"large abundance\" might\nvery well be an understatement, as there were hundreds of veritable mountains of\nthis unwanted culm scattered throughout Northeastern\nPennsylvania.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Anthracite Culm

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Wootten came to the\nrealization, that if a locomotive firebox could be developed to\nuse this culm and burn it easily, efficiently and reliably; the\nrailroad(s) would benefit\nfrom it as a cheap fuel source.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2.7 - How\nCheap was Culm?

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Putting it into\nperspective for the era: circa 1890; the\nrates for coal was as follows: screened anthracite coal of the pea size\ncost 60 cents per gross ton, whereas anthracite culm was only 10 cents\nper gross ton.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

This\nconstituted a 50 cent per ton difference. However it\nshould be\nnoted that the pea anthracite and the culm was blended 1:1 for use in\nErie locomotives. This brings the averaged amount to 35 cents a ton,\nbut still allowed for a net savings of 25 cents per ton of coal. Other railroads would use a\nblend of bituminous and anthracite culm. And when you have\nhundreds of locomotives burning hundreds to thousands of tons of coal a\nday; in using the culm, those cents add up into dollars.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Also, it should be known\nthat culm to be used for locomotives was not used\ndirectly from the coal tip.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Culm was first washed to remove sand, shale and other small\ndebris inherent from mining. But even with this washing step, it was\nstill much more economical to use anthracite culm rather than the\ncommercially sized coal that came from the production run.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2.8:\nTrial and Error and then Having to Break Old Habits

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Culm consisted of sizes smaller than \"buckwheat\" coal,\nincluding \"rice\" \"barley\" & \"pea\"; with a small allowance for\npowders as\nwell as larger sizes.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

One of the issues\nthat Wootten encountered in using culm as a locomotive fuel\nwas by its being small and light, it\nwould become airborne and lofted through the\nhigh draft fireboxes\nthat were commonplace of that time for burning wood or larger chunks of\nanthracite coal. Or, it\nwould fall through the grates with wider openings that were used for\nthat same wood or bituminous coal and wind up in the ash pan.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Thus Wootten began using a finer grate (smaller and thinner\nopenings), and less (or softer) draft through the firebox. This\ncombination had the effect of leaving the culm on the grate to burn\ncompletely; and when it did, the\nculm burned\nevenly and well.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n The addition of a combustion chamber between the firebox and\nthe\nflue sheet, furthered more complete combustion, allowing for greater\nheat transfer for increased efficiency and reducing soot and fuel\nwastage.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Yet, as soon as he\nhad those problems solved, another issue cropped up. As the locomotive left\nthe roundhouse and started working, the fire struggled.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The firemen of that\ntime were used to piling the wood or\nlarger\nchunks of coal thickly on the grates, which by nature of\ntheir size had ample space around the chunks for air to\ncirculate through. This is also known as a \"deep bed\";

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

That method may have\nworked well for those large sizes of\ncoal or wood as the voids around the fuel allowed air to filter\nthrough, but it did not work for anthracite\nculm.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Here is an analogy:\nthink of a road made of rock and another road made of dirt. Here the gravel\nrepresents large sized anthracite, and the dirt represents culm, and\nwater represents air. Water\nwill drain through the rock because of the void spaces around the\nrocks; but puddles form on the dirt road, because the water has nowhere\nto drain to.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Well, Wootten learned the firemen were piling the\nanthracite culm into thick beds. Not enough air could rise through the\nbed of culm to support combustion and\nessentially they were smothering the fire or starving it. They took the air out\nof the fuel + air + heat equation or \"fire triangle\".

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n In their defense, this is what the firemen of that day had\nbeen\ntrained for and used to. They were not used to any other methods.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2.9:\nSuccess = Large Grate Area, Thin Bed of Coals with Short Flame, Minimal\nDraft, Lower Brick Arch and a Combustion Chamber

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n By dispensing with the\npreviously established practices of firing by that method,\nand now\nspecifying to the firemen that a thin bed of fuel\nand short flame; Wootten was able to make\nhis firebox design meet the criteria required of being\nreliable, efficient, easy to maintain and\nas such; the heat output steady. And with these instructions, even a\nnovice fireman could maintain it.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

And\nso in 1877, the firebox design fitted to P&R #408, and the new\nfound firing practices meant Wootten had found the answer.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

In\nother words; anthracite culm / waste was now a suitable fuel for\nlocomotives, where men of\nvarying degrees of ability could satisfactorily achieve and maintain\nthe fire fueled by culm, for producing a steady and reliable\nproduction of steam for all operating conditions; whether it flat and\nlevel or\nmountainous territory; the slow pulling of a heavy freight; or a fast\npaced running of a passenger train on a tight schedule.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n This new \"fuel\" equated into a savings of $2000 per\nlocomotive\nper year. And in 1883, the Philadelphia & Reading rostered 171\nlocomotives with the Wootten firebox. That equaled $378,000 per annum\nin saved fuel costs. Obviously, the corporate higher ups and the\nshareholders were pleased.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

The Wootten firebox also\nchanged the weight distribution on the\nlocomotive\nchassis, and due to the increased size of the firebox, meant the\nfirebox needed to be mounted as far over the rearmost driving\nwheels as possible for support; and to avoid Colburn's issue of a\nexcessively long drawbar connecting the engine and tender.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n This (mostly)\nprecluded the use of trailing trucks on the frame to support the\nfirebox with smaller diameter wheels common to freight service; but it\nincreased tractive effort as more weight was directly on the drive\nwheels.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n So revolutionary was this design, that sister locomotive\nP&R\n#412 was shipped overseas to be demonstrated. The locomotive won the silver medal at\nthe Exposition Universalle de 1878 (Paris, France); after demonstrating\nthroughout\nEurope\nand proving successful.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The Wootten firebox\ndesign also was awarded the following medals: the John Scott medal\n(bronze) awarded by the City of\nPhiladelphia and by recommendation of the Franklin Institute; and in\n1883,\nthe Philadelphia & Reading won an award for \"best locomotive\nmeeting\nimportant new principals\" by the National Exposition of Railway\nAppliances, held in Chicago, Illinois.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n At the end of 1895, there were about 800 locomotives in\nservice\nwith Wootten's firebox design. By 1925, there were approximately 3,500\nto 4,000 locomotives in service with Wootten's firebox.

\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2.10:\nBoth Sides of the Coin

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n There was another positive attribute to be said for Wootten's\nfirebox design: it burned bituminous coal equally as well as\nanthracite.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

When the\nprice of anthracite and with it culm, rose due to both growing\npopularity as\nwell as due to coal miners strikes; the railroads began using either a\nbituminous / anthracite culm blend, or simply straight bituminous.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Obviously, because bituminous burned faster, not so much coal\nwas\nneeded on the grates, so grate boxes or frames were fabricated which\nreduced the grate firing area confining the coal to the centered middle\nof the firebox.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Bituminous\nfireboxes however, because of their smaller square footage of grate\narea; could not be fired on anthracite or anthracite culm.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2.11:\nBut Not Everyone was Happy

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

But, this oversized\n\"Wootten\" firebox took\nup most if not all of the space on the rear of the boiler or \"backhead\"\nwhere\nthe cab was normally placed. This position of the\nfirebox also presented the issue of the\ncab\nfloor now being higher than the standard tender deck height.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$

Also, due\nto the broad nature of the firebox, the engineer could not see around\nthe firebox as he would encounter with a normal rear mounted cab.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n If the cab were to be mounted on top of the Wootten firebox,\nthe crew\nwould be in effect sitting on top of the firebox.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Also as a result of\nthis placement, the cab would be raised higher than before, and would\nnecessitate that some of the tunnels of that time to be raised. This of\ncourse was\nnot an option.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n As we can see by the bottom left image, the Philadelphia\n&\nReading even contemplated this rear cab Wootten firebox arrangement.\nUngainly to say the least!

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n So,\nnecessity dictated the\nlocomotive cab be located towards the center of the boiler in front of\nthe firebox instead\nof on the rear as normal; sort of like a horse's saddle.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Hence the modern\n\"camelback\" locomotive was born.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

This\nplacement of the cab allowed the engineer to retain access to the\nentire length of\nthe boiler, and likewise from the front or the rear steps to maintain\nthe\nappliances and bearings.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

The fireman would\nremain to the rear of the firebox to feed the fuel as customary, and\ntenders with high deck heights were constructed\nfor use with camelback locomotives.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n With the engineer in the cab to operate the locomotive; this\nwould mean the engineer and the fireman\nwould be out of instant communication with one another.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n This would be one of the serious concerns brought about by\nopponents of the camelbacks. At first, these were old timers set in\ntheir ways.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

In some cases, a\nspeaking tube (like those used on ships) would\nbe answer.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

It was this separation\nof the crew, that was so widely publicized in opposition of the design.\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n As\nmentioned above, a sister locomotive to #408 shown above (#412) was\ndemonstrated throughout\nEurope; and while successful, the camelback design was frowned upon by\nengineers and\nfireman there as well!
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n We will get to these oppositions in a later\nchapter.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2.12\n- A Trailing Truck - To Be or Not To Be?

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n \nAs mentioned, the weight of the large firebox box and resultant weight\ndistribution of the locomotive required the firebox to be placed over\nas much of the driving wheels as possible.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

And with the smaller\ndiameter wheels common to freight locomotives, is\nwhy Camelbacks are predominantly seen in wheel arrangements\nwithout\ntrailing\ntrucks, and where the rear driving wheels could carry the full weight\nof the\nWootten\nfirebox.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

These wheel arrangements\nwere mostly comprised of (but not\nlimited to) those\nlisted: \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n0-4-0 and
0-6-0\nswitchers;
0-8-0\nand
0-10-0\ntransfer engines;
0-12-0T\npusher for P&R
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nand of course our dear friend, the
0-8-8-0\n\"Angus\" pusher that brought you to this website.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
And, there were road engines as well, such as:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2-6-0\n\"Mogul\"
4-6-0\n\"Ten-Wheeler\"
2-8-0\n\"Consolidation\"
4-8-0\n\"Twelve-Wheeler or Mastodon\"

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Exceptions to this rule\nof course, were high drivered - high speed passenger locomotives such\nas:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

4-4-2\n\"Atlantic\"
2-6-2\n\"Prairie\"
4-6-2\n\"Pacific\"

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n There was even a 4-2-2\n\"Bicycle\" Vauclain Compound Camelback built by\nBaldwin.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n These high speed passenger locomotives were\nequipped with 72\" (6 foot) up to 80\" (6.6\nfoot) driving wheels, which raised the whole locomotive; thereby\nleaving sufficient space\nunder the Wootten firebox to squeeze in a set of trailing wheels.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In mentioning these \"wheel arrangements\" brings us\nto a small side chapter:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2.13\n- Whyte Notation

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

also\ncalled the \"wheel arrangement\"

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n In the United States and United Kingdom, wheel arrangements\nof\nlocomotives are described by the leading or pony wheels (in any), the\npowered drive wheels and the trailing truck (in any).

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

This system was devised\nby Frederick M. Whyte, and came into use in the early Twentieth\nCentury. Geared\nsteam locomotives, electric locomotives as well as diesel electric\nand gasoline mechanical locomotives do not use the Whyte notation.\nThese are classified by\ntheir model and the number of axles and trucks, and whether those axles\nare powered or unpowered.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The Whyte Notation\ncounts from left to right (with left\nbeing the front of the locomotive); the number of idle leading wheels\n(not\nthe axles as in other systems), then the number of powered driving\nwheels, and\nfinally the number of idle trailing wheels, with these numbers being\nseparated by hyphens.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n For example, a locomotive with four wheels (on two axles)\nleading\nin front, then six driving wheels (on three axles) and then two wheels\n(one axle) trailing is classified as a 4-6-2 locomotive, and is\ncommonly known as a \"Pacific\".

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n A small switching locomotive with no leading wheels, (four\ndriving\nwheels on two axles), and no trailing wheels, is notated as an 0-4-0.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n With this system being explained, let us return to camelback\nlocomotive design.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.\n

2.14 - Camelbacks: Who Used Them?

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Returning to camelback locomotive design, as a\nresult of\nthis large firebox on the rear of the locomotive, the cab\nwas relocated\nto middle of the boiler and such locomotives became known as\n\"Camelbacks\" or\n\"Mother Hubbards\".

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n The camelback design worked very well for many of the\nrailroads\nlocated in the Northeastern United States that either operated their\nlines through the \"hard coal country\" of Pennsylvania, or those that\nreceived coal from Pennsylvania for local coal suppliers.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

There were many and by\nno means should\nthis\nbe considered a complete list:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Philadelphia\n& Reading
Erie
Central of New Jersey
Lehigh Valley
Delaware, Lackawanna\n& Western
New York, Ontario & Western
New York, Susquehanna & Western
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Delaware & Hudson
Lehigh & New England
Long Island
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Wheeling & Lake Erie
Maine Central
Pennsylvania (minimally)
Staten Island

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Even some Western and\nCanadian railroads experimented with and / or rostered Camelback\nlocomotives:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Union Pacific
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Southern Pacific
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Santa Fe
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Canadian Pacific
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2.15 - Evolution to Mounting the Cab on the Rear
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n When\nlocomotive design practice evolved to accommodate rear mounted cabs on\nlocomotives with Wootten fireboxes, these cabs lacked the usual doors\non\nthe front wall. This is perfectly illustrated by the image\nof the rebuilt Erie L1 at right.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Without a doubt, this\nlack of front doors on the cab hindered the engineer and / or fireman\nfrom their\nbasic maintenance duties such as but not limited to:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

filling the sand domes;\nadjusting valves; cleaning the bell; oiling and maintaining\nthe steam generator for locomotive lighting; all of which are along the top of the\nlocomotive as well as lubricating / maintaining the air pumps for\nthe brakes, which were mounted along\nthe side of the locomotive.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The engineer or fireman (or both) would have to\nclimb down\nat the rear cab / tender access steps, walk to the front of the\nlocomotive, then climb\nback up to boiler walkway; instead of exiting directly from the front\nof the cab as had been\nthe practice.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Erie Railroad #2600\nafter Baldwin rebuild - 1921
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n authors collection

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

In the case of a 55 foot\nlocomotive chassis as on the L1 - from rear cab /\ntender steps to front steps; it was a hike: 4 or 5 feet down,\n55 feet to the front, 5 to 6 feet up, 50\nfeet back to the cab; 50 forward to and down 5 or 6 feet to dismount at\nthe front steps and then 55\nfeet back to the cab / tender steps and up again 5 feet.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

And you thought the\nengineer sat on his seat and the fireman leaned on his shovel all day!

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

It should be noted -\nthis trend away from camelbacks was due in part to safety. But as I\nwill cover in a later chapter,\ncamelbacks were not\nuniversally banned by the Interstate Commerce Commission or any other\nfederal agency, by locomotive employees unions, et cetera; despite the\npopular misconception they have been.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Then if the camelbacks weren't outlawed, what did cause the\ntrend\naway from camelback type locomotive design? What usually talks the\nloudest? Money!

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Just as in the beginning when anthracite was cheaper than\nbituminous and culm was the cheapest of anthracite, anthracite rose in\nprice due to its desirability of being\nclean burning and low dust; which made it a favorable fuel for home\nheating. This led anthracite coal breakers to be more\njudicious in what they dumped as culm (waste), as well as the\nresulting increased prices\nfrom increased demand.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Added to this increase\nin the price of anthracite, was the Anthracite Coal Miners strike of\nMay - October 1902.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n That led locomotive manufacturers to revert to firebox\ndesigns\nthat burned the now cheaper bituminous coal that did in camelbacks. And\nas stated previously; a Wootten firebox is just as capable and\nefficient at\nburning bituminous coal as it could culm, so existing locomotives with\nWootten fireboxes could run either.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n This is to\nsay nothing of the development of the diesel-electric locomotive in the\n1930's; first as switchers, then in increasing quantities of road\nlocomotives; which\npretty much supplanted steam as a locomotive power on the whole by the\n1950's.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2.16 - Crew\nComfort in Comparison to Another Type of \"Camelback\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

A lot of people,\nrailfans and non-railfans alike; inevitably ask: \"If\nthe camelback design was so questionable, then why was it popular and\nsaw\nwidespread use?\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n First as has been\ndemonstrated, its design was out of desire to use the cheap fuel type\nat hand - anthracite culm. And\ndespite the over-hyped media outcry about its \"dangerous design\" due to\na few\ndramatic accidents; it was in fact a successful design from a cost of\nfuel standpoint, but not in terms of crew comfort.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n And the following comparison might be somewhat of a stretch,\nbut the\ncamelback locomotive would not be the only widely successful locomotive\ndesign where\nperformance and reliability was exceptional, but its\nshortcomings were crew ergonomics or comfort. What locomotive is this\nyou ask?

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

None other than the\nPennsylvania Railroad GG1. Another center cab design, it could\nin a way, be considered a \"camelback electric\nlocomotive\".
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n While a GG1 was not steam powered, nor did it have\nthe\nassociated reciprocating main or side rods; it is well documented that\nthe visibility\nfrom the cab (engineer or firemans side, to the front or to the rear)\nwas poor, due to the high long hoods.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Access to the\nlocomotive\ncab was via a rather tall vertical climb. And\nonce inside, both the\nengineers and firemans stations were notably cramped. There was a small\npassageway connecting the two sides, but with floor to ceiling banks of\ncontrols and gauges, it made it visually difficult to see from\none side to the other from either station. I can personally say\nI have\nbeen in the cab of a GG1. Even though I'm 5' 9\" (and not very svelte),\nit\nwould a very tight squeeze for even someone of smaller\nstature.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Then there is all that electrical energy being converted from\nAC\nto DC, the transformers, and traction motors; it all gave off heat. Add\nto\nthis the\npresence of an oil fired steam boiler in the cab which was used to\ngenerate steam heat for the passenger cars. No doubt it made for some\nuncomfortable\ncrew conditions, especially on long distance trips.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

But\nundoubtedly, the GG1's were in fact a successful locomotive design and\nmany\nwere built.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

There were thousands of center-cab\ndiesel locomotives built\n(especially by General Electric) so having the cab located in or\ntowards the center of the locomotive, therefore the center placed cab was not\na disqualifying factor in and of\nitself.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Again, as I and others\nhave pointed\nout, despite the outcry over steam powered camelbacks, they were in\nfact; successful as well.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nChapter 3:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhat is Mallet Compounding?

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n The three Erie L1 0-8-8-0 locomotives were the only\narticulated Mallet Camelbacks\nbuilt, and they would also have the distinction of being the Erie\nRailroads' first\n\"Mallet\"\nlocomotive, as well as their first articulated locomotive.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n For the record, the correct pronunciation\nis mal-LAY, after\nAnatole Mallet, who was a Swiss mechanical engineer and consultant.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n However, and all too frequently here in\nthe States, it is often pronounced mal-LUTT (like the hammer).\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n You may say ta-MAY-to, I may say toe-MAH-toe; but\nmal-LAY is the correct pronunciation in this case.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Mallet Compounding is a system designed to utilize steam\ntwice, instead of once (also known as simple expansion).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Compounding thereby extracts additional energy or\nforce out of steam, making the engine more efficient.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Therefore\nin such an engine that steam from a boiler is used first in high\npressure (hp) cylinders, then piped partially expanded to a second set\nof low pressure (lp) cylinders for final expansion.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Compound:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
intake \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
primary\nhigh pressure expansion
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
exhaust\nto low pressure cylinder
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
secondary\nlow pressure expansion
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
exhaust\nto smokebox (to atmosphere.)
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nvs.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Simple:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
intake
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
expansion
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
exhaust to smokebox (to\natmosphere)
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Because steam that needed to be expanded will\noccupy a larger\nvolume, therefore means the low pressure cylinders have to be larger\nthan the high pressure cylinders.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n After this final expansion, steam is then vented to\nthe\natmosphere through the smokebox, to induce draft for\nthe firebox.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n This compounding method is a very\nefficient way to use\nthe steam twice for large multi-cylinder locomotives, as well as marine\nvessels and stationary steam locomotives used for electrical generation\nor pumping; and where\nsingle expansion would have used up the steam capacity too quickly.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

3.1 - The Intercepting Valve

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

But there was another\nfeature inherent to the design of Mallet Compounding; the intercepting\nvalve.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n This valve, located in the left side high pressure cylinder,\nallowed the engineer to admit high pressure steam into the low pressure\nsystem. This was especially useful when starting the locomotive and\ntrain on a grade. Not often, but when required; a train may have had to\nstop while already on the the incline. If the train was heavy enough,\neven an L1 could have issues getting moving again with all that\ntonnage. By admitting high pressure steam into the low pressure system,\ngave the front cylinders more power, and having more power assisted in\ngetting the train started moving again.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n But, there was a drawback to using this intercepting valve:\nin\nits \"simple\" setting where it diverted high pressure steam to the low\npressure cylinders, it\nused up the steam pressure in the boiler at a quicker rate.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Therefore\nit only was used absolutely when needed, and was not\nintended to be used in\nnormal operation. Westing referencing to this in the Erie Power\nbook (as you will read later).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \"The\nL1's could operate as simple or single expansion locomotives, if\ndesired, by use of an intercepting valve. This was a feature on Mallets\nand arranged for live, or high-pressure steam to be fed to all\ncylinders, thereby, increasing tractive force considerably. On\nthe\nother hand it had the effect of speedily draining the boiler of\nsteam\"...

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Westing clearly states simple expansion was an option \"if\ndesired\".. Nowhere does he state that it operated in this simple\nexpansion mode all the time.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Unfortunately, most railfans only read the second half of the\nchapter. Perhaps Westing could have worded it better, but it is still\nvery clear that when read carefully and thoroughly, the boiler was only\n\"speedily drained\" in the simple expansion mode of the intercepting\nvalve, not all the time during regular compound\noperation.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n And this effect was known long before the L1's. It is\ninherent to\nthe design of the Compound Mallet with intercepting valves. For the\nrecord, a Compound Mallet could be built without an intercepting valve,\nand it would be useful in a normal capacity just the same.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Where\nI will pick apart Westing's description: \"live,\nor high pressure steam\". Live\nsteam is under pressure, any pressure; whether it be 215 psi or 50 psi\nor 5 psi. Under any pressure, it is \"live\" steam. Only once it is\nexhausted and not under\npressure, is it considered \"dead\" steam.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n You can have a 1 hp single cylinder steam engine that\noperates at\n5 psi.. like the little alcohol powered novelty toy engines that are\nsold. If steam is under pressure, it's live steam. It's still alive\npartially expanded from 215 to 50 psi. Only when fully expanded and no\nlonger under pressure, is it dead. Like electricity: any voltage in a\nwire is live voltage. Zero voltage is dead.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n So, he should have stated \"live, or pressurized steam\". Other\nthan that, and quite obviously, this Mallet Compounding design was\nsuccessful, as these L1 locomotives\nserved not only the\nErie\nRailroad reliably for 23 years for but before\nthen, as well as after; on many other articulated Mallet compound\nlocomotives that were built for several different railroads.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

3.2 - Articulated ≠\nCompounding

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n It\nshould be kept in mind\nthat an articulated locomotive does not equate to Mallet Compounding.\nArticulated denotes the type of frame or chassis, and from that you had\nSimple Articulated or Mallet Compounding Articulated.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n As such, not all articulated steam\nlocomotives need be of the Mallet Compound type. A significant number\nof articulated locomotives were built were\nof the simple expansion type. And plenty of rigid frame locomotives\nutilized compounding, but were not of the Mallet Compounding design.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Commencing in the\nlate 1920's,\nsaw the advent of\nsuccessful, high efficiency superheating, feedwater\nheating, improved metallurgy and manufacturing practices for higher\nboiler pressures, mechanical coal stokers, etc; which led locomotive\nbuilders away from the\ncompound Mallet\nlocomotive design, but the design did not become extinct.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The\nChesapeake & Ohio Railway ordered twenty-five H-6 class 2-6-6-2\nin\n1940 for use as low-speed coal mine shuttles between the mines\nand\nclassification railyard in Russell, Kentucky. Ten locomotives were\ncompleted before the order was cancelled with the final locomotive\ndelivered in 1949. It is these ten locomotives that would carry the\ndistinction of being the last compound Mallets constructed.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n If any class of service to which type was better suited at\nthan\nthe other; compound Mallets seemed to be preferred for low\nspeed,\nheavy drags and pushing; whilst simple expansion types were\npredominantly used for higher speeds over longer distances; but this is\nnot set in stone.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n A short, very incomplete list of the popularly known types of\narticulated locomotives, both Mallet compound and simple:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Mallet (Compound) Locomotives \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n		Simple Expansion Locomotives \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
year built	railroad	class	wheel arrangement	notes	year built	railroad	class	wheel arrangement
1904	Baltimore\n& Ohio \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	2400\n\"Old Maud\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	0-6-6-0 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	first Mallet Articulated	1910	Southern\nPacific	MC-2,\nMC-4, MC-6	2-8-8-2
1907	Erie	L1	0-8-8-0		1936	Norfolk\n& Western	A	2-6-6-4
1910	Norfolk\n& Western	Y	2-8-8-2		1936	Union\nPacific	CSA-1/2;\n4664 \"Challenger\"	4-6-6-4
1912	Pennsylvania	CC1	0-8-8-0		1941	Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range	M-3 / M-4	2-8-8-4
1914	Erie	P1	2-8-8-8-2	Triplex	1941	Union\nPacific	4000\n\"Big Boy\"	4-8-8-4
1918	Virginian	AE	2-10-10-2
1940	Chesapeake\n& Ohio	H-6	2-6-6-2	last Mallets built

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nChapter 4:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhy the need for Articulation?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"It\ndon't mean a thing, if you ain't got that swing - doo wah - doo wah -\ndoo wah!\"

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

4.1\n- What is Articulation?

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n An articulated locomotive is a steam locomotive with an engine unit that can move independently of the main frame.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The purpose of articulated locomotives was to provide\nadditional drive wheels (which in turn added\ntractive effort), but avoid the drawbacks of the\nlengthening the wheel base as would on a rigid frame locomotive; of which would limit the locations\nthe locomotive could be\noperated at, that being track profiles with sharp curvature, whether\nthey be\nmainlines or mountain logging railways.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n More axles meant a longer wheel base, which equated to the\nshallower curve that particular locomotive could be operated on. The\nmost axles ever\nincorporated into a single rigid frame in US locomotive design, was the\n9000 class 4-12-2 for the Union Pacific Railroad. The most axles\nincorporated into an articulated locomotive set, is four: 0-8-8-0,\n2-8-8-2 and 4-8-8-4, as well as the 2-8-8-8-2 and 2-8-8-8-4 triplexes.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Another benefit of the articulating\nlocomotive, is that it allowed one large locomotive to replace multiple\nsmaller locomotives, which would have also meant their needing a\nseparate engineer\nand\nfireman for each locomotive. A single articulating locomotive also\neliminated the associated cost for maintenance and upkeep of those multiple locomotives.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The articulated locomotive is designed to allow the front set\nof driving wheels and its mechanisms be mounted to a frame\nthat pivots or \"swings\"\nto the left and right (on the horizontal plane), separately and\nindependently from wheels and machinery on the main\nframe.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n On an articulated locomotive, each group of these drive wheels with their cylinders, drive\nrods and other\nassociated components; is called an \"engine\". Therefore, articulated\nlocomotives have a front engine and a rear engine. In the case of the triplexes; there was a front, a middle and a rear engine.\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

So, by dividing up the\naxles into two groups (or even three groups as\ndone on the Erie & Virginian Triplexes) allowed the locomotive\nto be operated on sharper\ncurves than a single long rigid frame locomotive could.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

This was\nespecially\nuseful where numerous curves existed along a rail line; such as those\nencountered on mountainous territory like the Erie, or on logging\noperations in the Pacific Northwest.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n For the record, the front engine of the Erie\nL1 could swing a maximum of 16 degrees from center.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The pivoting group of drive wheels or \"engine\" - the\nfront set; and the rigid frame drive wheels - the rear set; of an\narticulated locomotive are represented by the two\nmiddle numbers in the Whyte Notation. The\nnumbers on either side of the center two numbers (if other than zeros)\nrepresent the lead or pony truck on left, and trailing truck on right;\nso reading from left to right, and the left being the front of\nlocomotive): \n

leading or pony truck - powered\ndrive wheels - powered drive wheels - trailing truck

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

As such is the case of\nthe Erie Triplex, those were 2-8-8-8-2: a two wheel lead or\n\"pony\" truck, three\nengines of eight drive wheels, and a two wheel trailing truck;\nor in the case of the\nVirginian Triplex 2-8-8-8-4, denotes two wheel leading truck, three\nengines of eight\ndrive wheels and a four wheel trailing truck

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

By comparison,\nthose Whyte notation examples\nof rigid\nwheelbase locomotives such as the 0-4-0 through the 4-12-2;\nthe\nsingle center number represents the powered drive wheels.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The following table\nrepresents the wheel arrangements of known standard gauge articulated\n(simple and compound) locomotives built and\noperated in the United States.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Whyte Notation	Whyte Name	user railroads
0-4-4-0	\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	D&RGW
2-4-4-2	\"Little River\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	Columbia River Belt Line
0-6-6-0	\"Two six-coupled\"	B&O, KCS, WM, NYC, WM
2-6-6-0	\"Denver & Salt Lake\"	D&SL
2-6-8-0		GN, AGS, B&O
2-6-6-2	\"Mallet Mogul\"	GN, C&O, WM, NdeM
2-6-6-4	\"H4-A\" also \"Norfolk & Western\"	N&W, P&WV, SAL, B&O
2-6-6-6	\"Allegheny\"	C&O, VGN
4-6-6-2	\"Cab Forward\"	SP
4-6-6-4	\"Challenger\"	UP, Clinchfield, NP, D&H,\nD&RGW, SP&S, WM, WP
0-8-8-0	\"Angus\"	Erie, PRR, NYC
2-8-8-0	\"Consolidation Mallet\" or \"Bull Moose\"	PRR, GN, UP, RDG, B&O, KCS,\nAT&SF
2-8-8-2	\"Chesapeake\"	N&W, SP, UP, OR&N, Southern,\nVGN, GN, Clinchfield, D&RGW, RDG, WM, MP, SL&SF,\nDM&IR, PRR
2-8-8-4	\"Yellowstone\"	NP, SP, DM&IR, D&RGW
4-8-8-2	\"Cab Forward\"	SP
4-8-8-4	\"Big Boy\" (originally Wasatch)	UP
2-10-10-2	\"Virginian\" \"3000 class\"	AT&SF, VGN
2-8-8-8-2	\"Triplex\"	Erie
2-8-8-8-4	\"Triplex\"	VGN
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n abbreviations: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAGS\n= Alabama Great Southern; AT&SF = Atchison, Topeka\n&\nSanta Fe; B&O = Baltimore & Ohio; \n C&O =\nChesapeake & Ohio; D&H = Delaware\n& Hudson \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDM&IR = Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range; D&RGW = Denver, Rio Grande &\nWestern; D&SL = Denver & Salt Lake;\n GN = Great Northern; KCS = Kansas City southern:\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMP = Missouri Pacific; NdeM = Nuevo de Mexico; NP\n= Northern Pacific; N&W = Norfolk & Western;\n NYC = New York Central; \nOR&N = Oregon Railway & Navigation; \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPRR\n= Pennsylvania RR; P&WV = Pittsburgh & West\nVirginia;\n RDG = Reading; SAL = Seaboard Air Lines;\n SL&SF\n= St Louis & San Francisco \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSP = Southern Pacific; UP =\nUnion Pacific; VGN = Virginian; WM = Western\nMaryland;\n WP = Western Pacific

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Before concluding this\nchapter, it should also be taken into account that some rigid frame\nduplex locomotives, like the 4-4-4-4, 4-6-4-4, 4-4-6-4 or 6-4-4-6; while they have two\ngroups of drive wheels and two sets of cylinders similar to an\narticulated locomotive, they were not\narticulated, and consisted of a single rigid frame containing both sets of\ndrive wheels.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nChapter 5:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"Pushers\" and \"Helpers\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nalso known as \"banking locomotives\" in the United Kingdom
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\nSome websites state the L1's were used for switching, whether that be\nflat switching or hump yard service (shoving cars up a small hill and\nthen sorting them by gravity onto designated tracks by destination).\nWhile several other railroads did in fact use articulated Compound\nMallets or Simple Expansion locomotives in this role; this was not\nthe\ncase for the Erie L1's.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

The L1's were designed from the very beginning for, and\nassigned to \"pusher service\"; that is, they\nassisted by pushing heavy freight trains over Gulf Summit on the\nPennsylvania / New York border.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The Gulf Summit was not simply straight up and over, it had\nnumerous curves and reverse curves on both sides of the summit.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nThese freight trains normally had one or two locomotives on the head\nend; which was sufficient for most of the route, which was fairly level\nalong\nthe banks of the Susquehanna River and the West Branch of the Delaware\nRiver.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n But to go over the\nsteep Gulf Summit, those two locomotives were inadequate.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n While placing a\nthird or even fourth locomotive at the head end of the train would\nprovide more pulling power; the weight of the train pulling\nbackwards downhill due to gravity, the train could then incur a pulled draft\ngear\n(the bar that holds the coupler under the freight car) or a broken\ncoupler knuckle.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This would make the train\n\"break\" into two parts, and even with the recent advent of air brakes,\nthis was not something a railroad wanted to happen on steep grades.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Pusher locomotives were therefore added to\nthe rear of the trains if needed at Susquehanna, PA\nfor the eastward trains; and at Deposit, NY for westbound\ntrains to push them up and over Gulf Summit.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Pushing relieved the tension and strain on the draft gear and\ncoupler knuckles throughout the train length, as well as alleviated\nslack action which is also known as run in / run out.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The maximum grade of the west slope: from Susquehanna to the\nGulf\nSummit is 1.36%, and is slightly steeper than the east slope:\nDeposit to Gulf Summit, of which the maximum is 1.01%.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors\ncollection
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nadded 08 January 2022
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n A 1.36% grade equates to a 72' of rise over\n5,280' of length, or a 1 foot rise over 73 feet (1/73). It\nshould be noted, a 1.36% grade is not the steepest grade\nencountered on a railroad in the United States, much less on the Erie\nRailroad system. The steepest grade encountered on the Erie\nRailroad is the Blossburg to Alford, PA segment which was a staggering\n2.84%. (The steepest grade ever worked successfully by an adhesion\nlocomotive (not geared or cog driven) was 5.89% in Madison Hill, Madison,\nIndiana of the Jeffersonville, Madison and Indianapolis Railroad.)
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n But this 1.36% grade was not\nthe only factor involved requiring the addition of locomotives\nfor assistance in surmounting Gulf Summit, as there also exists many\nsharp curves on both sides of Gulf Summit which induced even further\nresistance upon the train. One curve in\nparticular, progresses from 5 degrees 30 minutes then reverses to 6\ndegrees in the opposite\ndirection\nand then back to 5 degrees 25 minutes in the other - all in less than a\nmile.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n These reverse\ncurves add significant resistance to the train already struggling to\nmake it up the grade; so again, it was not an easy \"straight run\" up\nand over or that of which a train can get a running start. Because\nof these grades and curves, speeds for negotiating Gulf Summit are low.\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n In some cases, other railroads that also had steep inclines\nalong\none or more of\ntheir routes; opted to utilize older freight locomotives to\nhelp\npush these trains up and over the grade. This helped alleviate the\nexpenditure in\ninvestment of newer more powerful designs for the cost conscious\nrailroad; as well as made use of\nlocomotives past their \"prime\" of mainline / long distance service; but\nwere still serviceable\nand useful none-the-less.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Or a railroad could rebuild, say an older design\nof\nheavy freight to a pusher by changing cylinder dimensions, valving,\nmethod (compound to simple and vice versa) and such.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The Erie Railroad however, chose to purchase dedicated\nlocomotives for\npushing. In \"Development of the Locomotive Engine\"; by Angus Sinclair,\n1907; the Erie previously had built two 0-8-0 pusher engines,\nnumbers 57 & 58\nby M. W. Baldwin in June 1850; which\nwere specifically designed for use on 68' grades (68 feet to the mile)\nwith 18½\" x 23\" cylinders and 48\" drivers and weighed 27 tons. Sinclair sourced his\ninformation from an 1858 American Railway Journal compilation on Erie\nMotive Power.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In\nStaufer's \"Erie Power\"; by 1891, the Erie ordered six units of the S1\nclass locomotives (to be\nused in pairs) specifically for pushing. These locomotives were prior\nto the order of and would be the locomotives replaced by the\nL1's, when they were delivered in 1907.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n So, it is quite apparent that Erie management was\nnot\nadverse to having locomotives constructed specifically for, and assigned\nsolely; to pusher service.\nWhich further reinforces their decision in 1906 to invest in the L1\nlocomotives, which by\ndesign were built from the beginning for this specific purpose of\npushing.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The L1's were not built to lead fast freights\nhundreds of miles, or to pull passenger\ntrains on a strict timetable. They were built to push, push slowly, and\npush firmly in an operating area very close to a major servicing\nfacility and almost always stayed in a 20 mile radius of that\nfacility.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nChapter 6:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe History of the L1 Locomotive as published by Staufer & Westing\n

and the P1 Class Triplex \"Matt H. Shay\" for\ndirect comparison

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

We were fortunate that a\nvery nice\nhistory concerning the construction and reconstruction of these\nlocomotives\nis contained in the 1970 book: \"Erie Power\" by Fred Westing &\nAlvin\nStaufer (Staufer\nPublishing,\n1970).\nYou will find these pages under the chapter of Erie Mallets, pages 198\nthrough 215.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

For the sake of\nthoroughness, I have scanned and\nreproduced\nthe pages here on the chapter of Erie Mallets for reference. I highly\nrecommended purchasing a\ncopy\nof the book, if for nothing else, the great action photographs. The\nbook can be found for very reasonable amounts on most used book\nwebsites, internet auctions and shopping sites.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Until my own research,\nand for the longest time; I pretty much regarded this historical\naccounting as gospel - and many others did as well. After all, it was published 50 some odd years\nago and within a generation or two of the locomotives\noperation. There also was not much available open source to the average railfan to dispute.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

6.1\n- Unfortunately, it contains some inaccuracies and indistinct statements

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n However, as original documents and photographs surfaced\nduring my\nresearch, I uncovered several discrepancies and / or indistinct statements; some\nmajor, others merely\ncosmetic.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Insomuch,\nlearning of these inaccuracies was kind of disappointing, as I have\nalways\nrevered the older publications (like the Staufer \"Power\" books) to be\nthe last word and authoritative.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

It now appears that in\nhis\ncomposition, Mr. Westing may have allowed a little too much personal\nopinion\nsway his judgment on overall performance or in captions for the images. In particular are his\nconclusions regarding\nthe performance testing conducted by the Erie Railroad and\nCornell\nUniversity in 1907, and of which the explanations for some of\nthe\nlackluster results.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n The test results are defined in great detail, and explain the\nreasons\nbehind the results of the \"third\" test, and how it skewed and lowered\nthe\naverage performance numbers on the whole. These explanations can be\nread in The\nErie Test - 1907 and the Cullen\n/ Gridley - Cornell U Thesis - 1908 chapters later in\nthis website.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n I have also included the last few pages of that chapter which\npertain to the experimental Erie 2-6-8-0 Mallet and the Erie\nTriplex\n2-8-8-8-2 \"Matt H. Shay\", and as the images of the Erie L1\nboth as\nbuilt and as reconstructed by Baldwin Locomotive Works were on those\npages, even though the text was for a different locomotive entirely.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n I have annotated the scanned pages with those differences I\nfound\nor highlighted details that reinforce my disproving of common myth and\nmisinformation.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Please\nnote, the following pages have been digitized for reader convenience,\nreference and review under the Fair Use provision of the US Copyright\nOffice and\nno such infringement should be inferred by the use of said documents\nfor\ncommentary, criticism, and research as discussed below. Original copyright remains with\noriginal author (Frederick Westing) and publisher (Alvin Staufer /\nStaufer Publishing). \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n .\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n . $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n ..
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n 1)\n\"two fire doors to facilitate spreading coal\" and; \"if you\nwanted to use two fireman\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 2) \"speedily\ndraining the boiler of steam\" in simple or single expansion\nmode; \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nnot in compound expansion mode, of which this was the\nstandard / normal mode for use. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n 3)\ndynamometer car rated to 70,000 lbs tractive force, but the L1's were\nrated at 94,000 lbs.! \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n If the\ngeiger counter at Chernobyl only read to 3.6 roentgens, does that mean\nthere wasn't 15,000? \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 4) \"results\nshowed ONE good fireman could\nget plenty of power from an L1.\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n5) \"satisfactorily replaced\" (not questionably, barely, could not or\nunsatisfactorily) \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n6) Subjective assumption. The L1's did everything they were designed to\ndo and did it for 21 years, reliably. Perhaps\nthis chapter could have been better worded as \"the\nfull power potential of the L1's could not be measured accurately with\nthe equipment available at that time of testing, and perhaps should\nhave been retested if and when that equipment became available.\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Since\nthis authors having secured a first generation high resolution scan of\nthe\noriginal DeGoyler negative housed in the Southern Methodist University\narchives; that is a person (presumably the fireman) standing by the\nfiremans canopy, not a head or tender light.\nFurthermore, with\nthe new scan, we are able to discern that train is on the eastbound\ntrack, the tender light is not illuminated, thereby the train is going up\nGulf\nSummit. So yes; they are pushing against the four wheel bobber caboose.\nThis is not unheard of: in the Placement of the Caboose\nchapter, there is a postcard of three Consolidations pushing on a\nbobber caboose and coal train. Returning to this\nimage, the train is stopped and posing for the photographer, hence the\nmen on top of the tender and cars. The image as well as a zoom and crop\nmay be seen in the Memorabilia\n& Photographs chapter below. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n .\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n The\nwooden pushing beams were installed from the beginning. They are seen\nin the erecting drawings, builders\nphotographs (including the E. DeGolyer construction image on p.202\nabove) as well as images in Railroad Gazette (p.174). \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n .\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n While\nthis\nhighlighted text has nothing to do with the Erie L1 Class; it\ndoes\nshow how misinformed present day railfans assume that when the coal and\nwater was used up in the Triplex, it lost tractive effort. Which as\nread here, was not the case as it clearly states that factor\nwas\ntaken into account in the design! Not to mention the locomotive being\nused on short runs and replenished more quickly, the coal and water was\nnot run down as other distance hauling locomotives would be. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
.	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Table\nof comparative statistics among the various Erie Mallets (L1 class\nhighlighted). \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \"Erie Power\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nchapter on Erie Mallets; pages 198-215 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nby Fred Westing & Alvin F. Staufer \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(Staufer Publishing, 1970) \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n added 13 January 2013\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
.. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n . \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nChapter 7:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nReal Facts - not Railfan Fiction!
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

“The irony of the Information Age is that it\nhas given new respectability to uninformed opinion.” John Lawton\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nor if you prefer:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDamnant quod non intellegunt. Translation: They condemn\nwhat they do not understand.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Sigh, where do I even\nbegin?\n

Camelback locomotives\nalready have erroneous information swirling about\nthem. The Erie L1 class Mallets appear to be doubly damned in regards\nto misinformation.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Not only do a lot of railfans not understand how they worked,\nbut also do not understand what they were designed for and the work\nthey performed; why only three\nwere built; and when they were designed, they were cutting edge\ntechnology of that era.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n It is all too easy for todays generation of railroad\nenthusiasts to look at the culmination of\nsuper-power steam locomotives of the 1940's through 1950's; and then\nerroneously think these Erie L1's weren't good enough, simply by\ncomparison to\nthose latter designs.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Some\nof these misconceptions arise from the Staufer / Westing chapter of\nErie Mallets in \"Erie\nPower\"; while others come from\npresent day misunderstandings and myths posted in Facebook Groups by\nthe misinformed; or worse, the less-than-minimally informed. You know\nthe\ntypes: \"If I didn't see it, it didn't happen\" juxtaposed by the \"I read\nit on the internet, it must be true!\" types.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n So, the next several chapters are dedicated to dispelling the\nall-to-prevalent myths and misconceptions about the Erie L1\nlocomotives.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDispelling Myths & Misassumptions
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\"It\nwasn't the biggest - \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n the Big Boy was\"	\"They\nwere too big - \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n the cabs struck each other kiiling engineers and\nfireman\"	Reliability\n& Longevity: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 23 years at 1,700 miles per month \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nin 8.5 mile increments!	They only\nbuilt three - \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n because it wasn't successful.\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBecause three were only what Erie needed.	\"They Used Two Fireman.\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n No. One\nFireman! \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n and Dual Firebox Doors
\"That Small Tender\n- \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n it coudn't have been that useful.\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Because\nit only had to go so far.	1=2 or 1=3 or 3=6 or 3=9 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n No, it isn't Enron math	Unsuccessful? \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNot in the least. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Let's\nadd up the numbers..	Placement of\nthe Caboose \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Before or after the pusher locomotive?	\"Camelbacks Were Banned in the U.S.\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n No they weren't. More bad myth.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nChapter 7

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\"The Erie 0-8-8-0 wasn't the\nbiggest - the 'Big Boy' was.\"

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"World's\nLargest Locomotive\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The Erie L1's when they were first built in 1907\ncarried the distinction of being the World's Largest Locomotive.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Whether that \"largest\" consideration\nwas to be judged by wheel arrangement, length or weight; cannot be\nargued because; when built in 1907 and in the case of the L1's, this\ntitle could be applied to both total weight as well as the wheel\narrangement. Up until the time of construction of the L1's in 1907;
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

No\nlocomotives had a total weight that had exceeded 410,000 lbs. (205\ntons) at time of construction,
No\nlocomotives had a tractive effort of 94,070 lbs. at time of\nconstruction,
No\nlocomotives carried a 0-8-8-0 Whyte notation wheel arrangement or had\n16 drive wheels, thereby\nthis locomotive had the most amount of drive wheels at this time of\nconstruction.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Obviously, this title would be held by another locomotive\nprior to the\nL1's being constructed; and the title would eventually pass onto other\nlocomotives as\ntechnological developments allowed ever longer frames to be cast,\nlarger / longer boilers to be manufactured; leading to larger, longer,\nheavier locomotives to be built and that operated at higher boiler\npressure and achieved greater tractive effort.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n But for that time in history, these L1\nbehemoths had undisputed\nworldwide recognition as the \"largest\". Period.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n In early 2024, I received an email from a railfan,\nstating\nthe Erie L1 wasn't the largest locomotive ever built - it was the Union\nPacific's \"Big Boy\". The tone of correspondence was rather indignant, I\nmay add.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n First off, I had to take a minute and re-read his email to make\nsure\nI was not misreading it. When I realized I had not misread it; the next\nfew\nmoments I took were to come out of a state of shock over the tone of\nindignancy. Only then, could\nI take a few minutes to actually explain the \"Big Boy\" wasn't built\nuntil 1941, and\nthese L1's were built in 1907, and when they were\nbuilt 34 years before the \"Big Boy\"; the L1's were\nthe\nlargest steam locomotive built - at that\ntime.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n And even then, if you were take all the steam power built up\nto\n1954 (the year the last steam locomotive was built for general service\nin the United\nStates); the \"Big Boys\" were still not\nthe undisputed \"largest\" by several units of\nmeasurement. referencing the page: \"The Largest Steam Locomotives\" on steamlocomotive.com website:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

by\nweight:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nthe first batch of C&O H-8 Allegheny's were heavier:\neven\nif only by 150 pounds: 1,208,900 lbs vs. the UP Big Boy at 1,208,750 lb.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAnd the C&O M-1 class weighed in at 1,233,970 pounds; 25,220 pounds\nor 12 tons heavier than the UP Big Boy.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
by\nwheel arrangement:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nthe Virginian Triplex holds that record at 2-8-8-8-4\n(24 drive wheels), vs. 4-8-8-4 (16 drive wheels) for the UP Big Boy;
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
by\nhorsepower:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n7,500 hp @ 46 mph for the C&O H-8\nAllegheny vs. 6,290 hp @ 41 mph for the UP Big Boy;
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
by pulling force:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nthe UP Big Boy doesn't even crack the top ten in tractive effort.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
by\nlength, locomotive & tender:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nUP Big Boy: 130' 10\" vs. PRR S1 Duplex at 140' 2\" (and\nwhich was not articulated!) or vs. the N&W Jawn Henry which\nwas even\nlonger at 161' 1\" (engine & tender).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
by length, loco only: (and since the locomotive couldn't operate without a tender, this measurement is quite inconsequential):
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nN&W Jawn Henry: 111' 7\" and C&O M1: 106'; UP Big Boy: 85' 10\"

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Needless to say, despite my reply; I am\nstill awaiting a response from this person (but I'm not holding my\nbreath...)

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n There are those that will counter with that the C&O M1 was not a\ntrue\nsteam locomotive, it was a steam turbine; as was the N&W \"Jawn\nHenry\". But, both were coal fired, had boilers and ran on steam. The PRR\nS2 was a steam turbine locomotive, and no one ever questions whether or\nnot that was a steam locomotive.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

I\nam not anti-\"Big Boy\" or anti-Union Pacific in the least; nor can I say\nwith honestly that I\nfavor eastern railroads over\nwestern; pre-superpower designs over superpower; experimental\nlocomotives vs. those commercially\nproduced and sold, etc. I am not an Erie Railroad historian or even an\nErie \"buff\",\nnor can I consider the Erie my \"favorite\" railroad. That honor\nbelongs to the\nrail-marine operations of the Brooklyn Eastern District\nTerminal.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

But,\nI can say -very enthusiastically- that the Erie L1 is my favorite\nlocomotive design.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

An analogy would be like\na \"car guy\" trying to compare a 1920's Model T to a 1950 Cadillac.\nOf course the Caddy was bigger, more powerful, much faster, heavier,\ncould go further, and do\nso more comfortably. Yeah,\nthey both had four wheels and ran on gasoline, but that is about where\nthe similarities end.\nHell, one shouldn't even compare a Model 'T' to a Model 'A' for that\nmatter because of the advancements made in automobiles in that 20 year\nperiod.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n As\nof her restoration to operation in 2019, the Union Pacific 4014 \"Big\nBoy\" is the\nlargest steam locomotive currently in operation\nin the United States.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

But she is not by any\nmeans, the largest steam locomotive \"ever\nbuilt\" and certainly not before 1941. Not here in the United States,\nand certainly not in other places\naround the globe.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nChapter 8

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\"They Were So Big -\nThe Cabs Struck Each Other\"

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Here is yet another head-shakingly unbelievable statement\nthat I\ncame across on the internet in November 2024.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Posted to a Youtube\nvideo\nof an O scale model of an Erie 0-8-8-0 Camelback being demonstrated;\none of the\ncommenters, (inhereafter referred to as the \"defendant\") made the\nfollowing comment to the video.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\"Here is another fact for\nyou: The Angus boilers were so big\nthat when two Angus passed one another, the cabs struck each other.\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThere were a number of engineers and fireman killed.\"

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n How does one even counter a so blatantly erroneous and false\nstatement?\nThe fact that this claim is so egregious; disturbs me\ngreatly.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Defense: Motion to\ndismiss your honor.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Motion denied.\nProsecution; present your case.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Good day your honor, members of the jury. The\nProsecution\nwill prove that the defendant has no idea what he is talking about.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

8.1\n- Exhibit A: The Erie Railroad had Broad Gauge Clearances with Standard\nGauge Operations:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n The Erie Railroad when originally built in 1832, was\nconstructed\nto broad gauge; that is 6 feet between the rails and not the present 4'\n8½\" standard gauge. This would include the specific route the 0-8-8-0\nAngus' operated on, between Binghamton and Port Jervis.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n As such, locomotives and rolling stock that were built for\nthe\nErie Railroad in this broad gauge era, were somewhat oversized by\ncomparison to standard gauge equipment.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Commencing in 1876, when the Erie decided to re-gauge its\ntrackage to meet the then newly\nadopted U.S. standard of 4' 8½\"; an inner third rail was installed,\nmaking for \"dual gauge\" track, allowing both standard gauge and broad\ngauge to operate.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

This\nthird\nrunning rail was installed in-board of one of the rails by 15½\". This\nthird (or standard gauge) rail was installed to the gauge side of the\ninner rail on two track mains.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

When the broad gauge rail was removed in 1880, this had the\neffect of leaving\neither more room between tracks (on two or multiple track main lines),\nor more room to\ntunnel walls and trackside objects such as signals, walls, stations\netc. Track clearances actually increased\nby default and upon removal the broad gauge rail.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

But the standard gauge \"rolling stock\" (locomotives, passenger and freight cars)\nhaving been manufactured for standard gauge;\nwas inherently narrower by original construction than the original Erie\nequipment. Reference Alleghany\nCounty Historical Society:

New York\nTribune - January 4, 1879
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nErie's Narrow Gauge
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Laying of the Third Rail.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAdvantages of the New Gauge.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

In April last of the Erie Railway\nreorganized, and under the new\nmanagement the familiar name was changed to New York, Lake Erie and\nWestern Railroad. But the new management made other changes besides\nthat of name.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The\nmost important of these has been change of the gauge\nof the road, which has been accomplished by the laying of a third rail.\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThis work was begun in 1876, when the alteration was made on the\nBuffalo, and a part of the Susquehanna Division, so that narrow-gauge\ncars of the Lehigh Valley Line were run from Philadelphia through to\nBuffalo on the Erie Road from Waverly.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Last\nsummer the laying of the third rail was continued to Binghamton,\nconnection being there made with Albany by the Susquehanna Railroad (the Albany & Susquehanna RR; to\nbecome the Delaware & Hudson Railroad; PMG).\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The\nwork was completed last when the additional rail was finally laid to\nJersey City, and yesterday the first train passed over to Port Jervis,\nthe end of the Eastern Division. Hereafter it will be in constant use.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

and:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"We have ordered thirty new engines, which are being made in Patterson [sic]*,\nand 3,000 new freight cars. The present rolling-stock will not be\naltered but will be replaced as fast as worn out by those of narrow\ngauge.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n (*\n\"Patterson\" refers to Paterson, NJ; which was home to Cooke Locomotive\n& Machine Works as well as Rogers Locomotive Works and Grant\nLocomotive; all of which were located in Paterson, NJ; PMG)
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n On two track mains, another reason for the decision in moving the\ninside\nrails\nand not the field (or outer) rails, is that the majority of existing\nstation\nplatforms on said two track mains were for local service, and were\nlocated the field side of the rails. Had the field rail been moved\ninwards towards the\ncenter, these \"local\" platforms would have to be\nextended to take up the space.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

As it\nstood, there were a lot more \"local\" stations with platforms to\nthe field side of the rails, than \"express\" platforms where platforms\nwere located in the center of, and served by both two tracks. Therefore, renovating\nmore local stations (as opposed to fewer express stations) would bear\nthe greater expense, and therefore it was more economical to widen\nthose fewer center-positioned express platforms.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

As such; the rights of\nway, bridges, tunnels and other physical\ninfrastructure of the Erie, had been constructed to\naccommodate the original Erie 6 foot gauge; and were now wider than needed, what with the narrower equipment of\nstandard gauge.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Returning specifically to the clearances between L1\nlocomotives, as I have stated in Chapter 8.1 above; the L1's would\nhave\nhad to go over the Delaware & Hudson Railroad trackage first,\nwhich\nhad NOT been built to wide gauge standards like the Erie Railroad had\nbeen.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Therefore, if the L1's did not collide with anything while in\ntransit on the Delaware & Hudson; more likely than not they\nwere\nnot going to collide with anything on the Erie.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

But I will admit, this\nis circumstantial evidence, and that is insufficient to prove my\ncase.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

8.2\n- Exhibit B: Firemen on Camelbacks Were Getting Killed in the Cab\nCollisions? Wait. What? Firemen Weren't in the Cab!
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Here is yet another point (presented in two parts) to disprove the\n\"defendant's\" statement:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n One of the established and\ndocumented drawbacks of the Camelback style locomotives, was that the\nengineer was in the center cab, while the fireman remained behind the\nboiler and between the locomotive and tender to feed coal to the\nfirebox.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This\nwas part of the inherent concern about Camelback locomotives being\n\"dangerous\"; in that the engineer and\nfireman being\nseparated,\ncould not communicate freely; or if the\nengineer became incapacitated, the fireman would be delayed in knowing\nor reaching the controls.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n Standard operating practice in the United States is right\nhand running on multiple track mains.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Therefore, if a) the engineer is on the right side\nof the cab, the\nleft side of the cab is unoccupied on those Camelback locomotives\nheading towards each other and in opposite directions, because b) the\nfireman in behind the locomotive on the tender.\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
Therefore, a collision\nbetween two Camelbacks as stated, would have had the unoccupied\nsides of the cab facing towards each other (on the inside of the\ntracks). Therefore, if that side of the cab is unoccupied, then who then exactly is\ngetting hurt or\nkilled?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Obviously, not the fireman; who is in the\nback behind the boiler shoveling coal from the tender; and not\nthe engineer as he is on the other side of the boiler.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Therefore, \nhow can the fireman get injured or killed if the fireman is not even in the Camelback\n(center) cab?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\"when two Angus' passed\none another, the cabs struck each other\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This apparently is a case\nof Schrödinger's fireman!

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n8.3 - Exhibit C: Loading Gauge a/k/a Clearance \"Plates\":
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n The United States railroad industry (and other railroads\naround the world) have\nwhat are referred to as \"loading gauges\".
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This \"loading gauge\" is not to\nbe\nconfused with \"track gauge\", which is 4' 8½\" (56½\") or 1435 mm.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n In the US, Class 1 railroad main line loading gauges began to\nbe\nstandardized in 1886; an were\nusually published annually; and as seen at right this was the diagram\nfor the year of 1907 - the same year the L1's were constructed. This\nloading gauge did not apply to narrow or broad gauge operations,\nstreetcar / trolley, or industrial railroads (terminal switching, steel\nmill, logging, et al.)

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n In 1956, they became better known as clearance plates; but\nfor now we\nwill only concern ourselves with the era in which the Erie L1's\noperated: 1907-1930.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

The alleged clearance\ninterference between the cabs of the Erie L1's as allegedly stated by\nthe \"defendant\"; I refer you to the diagram at right \"Railway\nLine Clearances\" as published.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Please note, the overall width allowable by a piece of\nequipment\nis 15\nfeet; or 7 feet 6 inches to either side of the centerline of the track.\nThese clearances are for main lines and passing sidings; not secondary\nlines, industrial or plant sidings, loading platforms at warehouses,\ncoach yards, etc.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n If one now refers to the diagram below right, which are the\ndimensions\nof the Erie L1 as contained within the original American Locomotive Co.\nplans; we will see that the maximum width, which is the cab of the\nlocomotive; is 151\".

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

151\" = 12.58 feet (or slightly over 12½ feet),\nwhich is precisely 12 feet 7 inches.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Therefore, the maximum\nwidth of the Erie L1 is LESS THAN\nthe maximum allowable loading gauge / clearances prescribed for that\nera of operation.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

These\nclearances have existed since 1886 and are the dimensions\nshown are minimums for standard mainline\noperation. These dimensions have steadily grown larger over the decades\n and\nwere\ncontained (in part or in whole) in many public references for new\nrailway\nconstruction as well as\nin standard railroad references (Railway Engineering, Master Car\nBuilders Association, Official Guide of the Railways, et al.)

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

These references were\nusually published\n annually\nand could be found in the offices of railroad physical &\nmechanical\nengineers; maintenance of way department heads and track\nsuperintendents; among many others.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n The Official Guide further noted individual size and weight\nrestrictions for each class of freight car for large and small railroad\nlines and industries. This standard reference could be found in just\nabout every freight depot, yardmasters offices; and on freight traffic\ndirectors shelves;

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Do you think for even\none minute, the American Locomotive Company in 1907 constructed a\nlocomotive so incredibly huge, without first checking track clearances,\ntunnel clearances, and other restrictions on the Erie Railroad where it\nwas going to be used?

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

8.4: The\nL1's: Shipping Them Over Two Railroads

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

In\naddition, the Erie L1's didn't just magically materialize in\nSusquehanna upon being constructed. They\nobviously had to be moved from where they were built, to where they\nwere going to operate.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n The Erie L1's were built by American Locomotive which was\nlocated\nSchenectady, NY. To get to Susquehanna, PA; the most direct route by\nrailroad would\nhave been:

Schenectady,\nNY to Binghamton, NY:	via\nthe Delaware & Hudson Co. Railroad
Binghamton,\nNY to Susquehanna, PA:	via\nthe Erie Railroad

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Therefore, the L1's would have had to have their clearances\nchecked for transport over not one, but two\nrailroads: first over the Delaware\n& Hudson Co. Railroad; and then over the home railroad of Erie;\nand again, this is before being\nshipped.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Coincidentally, the Delaware & Hudson RR (which was\nborne out\nof the Albany & Susquehanna RR in 1870), was also 6 foot gauge\nwhen\noriginally laid.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n As such, the\nmovement of the L1 locomotives over the Delaware & Hudson would\nhave presented any interference of clearances along that route first\n and before the L1 locomotives even got to the Erie\nRailroad. (And keep in mind, the D&H operated Camelback\nlocomotives as well.)

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

And in discussion of\nthese clearances, brings us to the next chapter.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

8.5 - Exhibit D: Interstate Commerce Commission Accident Reports

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Here is another reason how the defendent's alleged \"fact\" can\nbe determined\nto be false:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

By law; the railroads\nmust report all serious\ninjuries and fatalities to the Interstate Commerce Commission:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\"The\nICC began collecting accident reports in 1901, but details in those\nearly reports could be sparse.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nStarting in 1910, the ICC required that\naccident reports include the location of the accident and any injuries\nor deaths that occurred, within 24 hours.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n These records have been preserved in the National\nTransportation Library archives. Furthermore, these records\nhave been digitized and cross referenced by\ntype of various search parameters.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

For my research, both\nhere on the Erie\nL1 locomotives on this website, and in the course of my research on the\nRail-Marine\nTerminals in New York City; I personally have\nresearched\nthese records on numerous occasions.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately,\nthere\nis a small four year gap of records between the start of operations of\nthe Erie L1's (1907) and the earliest date of records scanned to the\npublic domain (1911).

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

That aside, nowhere\nis\nit mentioned in these records; during the operational period of the\nAngus' between 1911 (when the record compilations begin), through 1921\nwhen they were rebuilt by\nBaldwin to rear cab (or even to December 1930 when they were ultimately\nscrapped); that any crewman was injured or\nkilled while operating or in the cab of Erie locomotives 2600, 2601 or\n2602; or as the result of a collision\nwith any another locomotive of any type.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The only\naccidents recorded having taken place with one of the Erie Angus', was\na\nderailment October 10, 1910 (no injuries and reported by the local\nnewspaper); and an injury by a shop employee\nwhen a broken stay-bolt blew out of the firebox under pressure, and\ninjured the worker.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Both of these incidents\nare mentioned in further detail in the chapter: L1\nMishaps

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Before defense has an\nopportunity to cite incomplete accounting, I submit the following\nadditional exhibit.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

8.6 -\nExhibit E: Sponholtz Compilation

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Apparently, I am not the only one to have researched these\nICC records, because in my searching the web for injury / fatality\nreports\nfor the Erie prior to 1911, I encountered the\nfollowing webpage:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

ICC\nReportable Accidents and Other Events - Erie Railroad; by James Sponholz

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Mr. Sponholz's research went one step further over and above\nthe\nICC records, by referencing newspaper article archives along the Erie Railroad in searching for\nthose accidents.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n His compilation is tabulated by date, division, nearest town,\nthe\ninjured party's position of employment, as well as locomotive numbers and\ntype\nof train; when applicable. His\ncompilation goes back farther in time, to 1869; using these newspaper\naccounts; and of which further helps fill in the gap of\n1907-1911 as mentioned\nabove; and when the Erie L1's first entered service. \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Once again, I searched\nthrough all the entries; and once again, nothing\nwas found regarding any accident involving Erie #2600, 2601 or #2602;\nwhere they operated. I even expanded the geographical areas to include\nPort Jervis and Binghamton. Nothing.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

8.7 -\nExhibit F: Erie Railroad Rule Books

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

To further drive home\nthe fact that the defendent's statement is\nblatantly false, if a said conflict of clearances were to\nexist\nbetween any locomotive to any other locomotive or fixed object, it\nwould be so stated in the Rule Books issued to employees for that time\nperiod.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Since I own the very\nRule Books and Special Instructions from 1908 through 1930's (for when the Erie 0-8-8-0\nMallets operated); these Rule Books are scanned and presented\nin Chapter 23: Erie\nRR Rule Books & Special Instructions. The jury and the court\nare of course invited\nto look through them for yourselves.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Not a single\nRule Book or Special Instructions Book issued by the Erie Railroad\ndefines or specifies a clearance\nrestriction for the Erie L1's operating on opposing tracks, other than\nthose regarding weights on\ncertain bridges when in operation with similar class or other heavy\nlocomotives.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

These Rule Books and\nSpecial Instructions are the\nvery last word in regards to these operational\nconditions. If it is not\nlisted or prohibited, there was not a rule for or against to the point.\nIt should also be mentioned that the engineers had to carry these rule books\non duty.

\n\n\n

8.8 - In Conclusion

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Perhaps what is most astounding about the defendant's statement,\nis\nhow anyone can believe for even a single minute that even after the first\nsuch (alleged) incident of the cabs\ncolliding between two Erie 0-8-8-0's operating side by side; that the\nErie would\nhave not remedied the issue immediately; and would allow it to\ncontinue repetitively. And by allowing the situation to continue,\nthereby killing \"multiple\" numbers\nof engineers and\nfireman?

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Furthermore, removing the human element out of this\nequation; is it the defendant's assumption that the Erie Railroad would allow\nthese\nlocomotives, read: expensive pieces of equipment;\nto be damaged\nonce, and again, and again, to the great expense of time out of service, labor to\nrepair and monetary expense of both?

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Quite obviously this is\nnot the case,\nbecause the Erie was not running a demolition derby.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Any railroad as a whole: whether corporate mechanical\nengineers down to\nthe divisional superintendent, down to individual shop superintendents\nat\nthe local level; would\nnever intentionally allow any defect that would\nroutinely damage\nextremely expensive equipment, not to mention remain a danger to the\ncrews.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Both the locomotive builders and\nthe railroads were incapable of that level of incompetence, to say the\nleast.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n But apparently the defendant believes they did.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The prosecution hereby\nrests your honor.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Your honor, the defendant would like to change his\nplea of not guilty to guilty by reason of insanity.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n So accepted. The court hereby imposes\nsentence upon the defendant of:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n a) being confined to mommy and daddy's basement to play with his model\ntrains,\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n b) not to impersonate someone who thinks they know\nwhat they are talking about;
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Sentencing for a period not less than old age, and\nnot greater than eternity. So ordered.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nChapter\n9
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"They Weren't Reliable and Didn't Last Long.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Reliability\n& Longevity: 23 years at 1,700 miles per month. In 8½ mile increments!
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n Some railfans state the L1's were \"not successful\" or they\nwere \"short lived\".\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This also could not be further from the truth.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

9.1 - Reliability\n& Down Time
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n According to the Cullen\n/ Gridley - Cornell U Thesis - 1908; out of a 6\nmonth period (180 days), an L1 was out of service 6% of those days due\nto maintenance. This includes scheduled periodic maintenance, to\ninclude but is not limited to: cleaning the flues and smokebox,\nflushing the boiler,\npacking grease in the journals, checking the firebox staybolts,\nadjusting valve linkage and motion, packing fittings of the flexible pipe for the\narticulated unit, changing the packing on air compressors, blowing\naccumulated moisture out of the air brake system; adjusting\nfeedwater\ninjectors.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This 6% equates to 10 days out of 180 that a\nparticular L1 locomotive was out of service being maintained.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n It is also stated, quite clearly; that of the three\nlocomotives\npurchased by Erie, two locomotives were in daily use, with the third in\nreserve. So, Erie took this into consideration when they ordered three\nL1's.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n So apparently, excessive downtime for unexpected\nrepairs, or time out of service for standard maintenance was not\nan issue for the L1's.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Therefore, this reason cannot be a valid\nconclusion for being \"unsuccessful.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

9.2 - Mileage Accrued in 6 month period
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Yet another and perhaps better way to calculate the\nsuccessfulness of the L1\nClass, is the mileage accrued.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Taking the following criteria\nlearned\nfrom the six month test of the L1's concluding on March 31, 1908 showed\nthe L1's cumulative total locomotive mileage (of all three locomotives)\nas 31,763 miles.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Breaking this number down:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

31,763 miles divided by the three\nlocomotives = 10,587.6 miles per locomotive, for that 6 month period.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n10,587.6 ÷ 6 (months) = 1,764.6\nmiles per locomotive per month.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n1,764.6 miles\nper locomotive per month ÷ 30 days = 58.82 miles per day
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 58.82 ÷ 17 miles (1 round trip Susquehanna to Gulf\nSummit & return; or Deposit to Gulf Summit and return) = 3.46\ntrips per day
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n (Obviously, you can't have 3.46 trips, so let's just round\nthis down to 3 trips.)
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This is until one\nrealizes, that initial figure was the cumulative miles for all three\nlocomotives. However, as The Erie Test - 1907 reports, only two were in\nregular service, with the third locomotive held in reserve.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n It is not stated further, but let us presume when one\nlocomotive\nneed its periodic shop servicing, it would come out of service and\nenter the shops, with the\nreserve locomotive taking its place. So it is entirely logical that\nonly\ntwo L1 locomotives were in actual use at any one time.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n So, let us recalculate:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n 31,763 miles divided by\n two on duty locomotives = 15,881.5 mile per\nlocomotive, for that 6 month period
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 15,881.5 ÷ 6 (months) = 2,646.9\nmiles per locomotive per month.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 2,646.9 miles per locomotive per\nmonth ÷ 30 days = 88.23 miles per day.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 88.23 miles ÷ 17 mile round trips = 5.19 trips per day;\n(or 5 trips).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n This number is lot more conducive with the amount of trips\nthe\nlocomotives are known to have taken on an average work day.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n As can be read in the Cullen\n/ Gridley - Cornell U Thesis - 1908; locomotive\n#2602 (the one used in the test), took five trips in an average work\nday over nine hours (09:00-18:00).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n It made four round trips to perform pushing duties\nand\na fifth trip strictly to replenish coal and water, however the time is\nnot included in the thesis of this fifth trip.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFour\ntrips averaging 70 minutes equals 350 minutes (or 5.8 hours),
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Run	Time	Elapsed Time \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(Minutes)	Notes
1	09:25 - 10:25	60
		53	coast downhill & wait
2	11:18 - 13:11	113	This\nrun is actually marked as Run 3 in the Thesis, but the clock times as\nnoted are then out of sequence for those of Run 1 and Run 2 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAlso, this was the run as listed as having an inexperienced fireman who\nlet the steam fall below usable pressures.
		156	coast downhill, possibly took on coal
3	15:47 - 16:50	63
		10	coast downhill
4	17:00 - 18:08	68

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n So, three to five trips is by what I calculate to\nbe an accurate amount of trips per work shift.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n There\nis yet another minor factor to be taken into consideration: the\nlocomotive assigned to the east slope\n(Deposit to Gulf Summit) had to travel an extra 8.5 miles to\ngo on duty at Deposit. When required, it also incurred an extra 25.5\nmile trip to replenish its supply of coal: from\nGulf Summit to Susquehanna (8.5 miles) and back to Deposit again (17\nmiles).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n That's not two 17 mile round trips, that\nis actually two 34 mile round trips (or the equivalent of 4 round trips\nfor the\nwest slope locomotive) and that was twice a shift. So in fact, one of\nthose\ntwo\nlocomotives in that rotation, (the one assigned to the east slope -\nDeposit to Gulf Summit) had to travel further for servicing twice;\nonce at the beginning and once around the middle or end of shift to\ntake on a load\nof coal.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Not only do these calculations appear to be\naccurate regardless\nof how you calculate and average the hours, but these figures further\ncorrelate to the rule\nbooks, which specified Mallet pusher locomotives could operate at no\nmore than than 22 miles\nper hour as stated in the Erie\nRR - Special Instructions - 1914; and that L1\nengineers earned pro rated overtime over 10 hours: L1\nEngineers Pay Rate - 1910.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n So, in conclusion:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Remember: the L1 was a locomotive that\nits only purpose was to make\nshort duration (17 mile) round trips: 8.5\nmiles from Susquehanna up to Gulf Summit and return to Susquehanna (by\ncoasting downhill) or Deposit to Gulf Summit which is also a distance\nof 8.5\nmiles; and they still managed to rack up 2,650 miles a month.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n No matter how you calculate the averages, the L1's were\nobviously not\n\"shop queens\". A \"shop queen\" for those of you not familiar\nwith the\nterm, is a somewhat derogatory moniker assigned to locomotives (or any\nequipment for that matter) that\nspent more time in the shops having issues fixed,\nthan actually working and being used and making revenue.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

9.3 - Longevity
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Simply\nput: the three L1's served\nthe Erie Railroad reliably as built and without\nmodifications or major repairs, from 1907 to 1921. That's 14 years.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Fourteen years is a decent period of\ntime for service\nlongevity on a steam locomotive, especially so for those locomotives\nbuilt towards the beginning of the 20th Century, and those in\nround-the-clock heavy pushing service, and unlike the pampered\n&\npolished\nspeed queens of crack passenger trains.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This era of manufacture saw primitive to\nmiddling metallurgy, and was pre-\"super power\", meaning before the\nadvent of reliable and efficient superheaters, feedwater heaters and\nmechanical\nstokers that would make the later generations of steam locomotives\nhigher\npowered in a compact size.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Add to this yet another seven years of service after 1921;\nand following their\nrebuilding\nby Baldwin to rear cab, and with (the then) installation of the most\nmodern appliances (at that time) of mechanical\nstoking,\nfeedwater heaters and superheating. It should be noted this rebuilding\nretained most of the original valve & piston assemblies\n& sizes, valve ratios & gearing (only the front\ncylinder set was changed), chassis, driver size, the boiler\nand the steam distribution system.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This gave the Erie L1 Class a total\nservice life of twenty-three (23)\nyears.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

9.4 - Rebuilding Locomotives
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n When we compare the L1 with its direct predecessor; also built specifically for Gulf\nSummit pushing service, we find the Erie S1 / J1 Class (2-10-0 Decapod)\nof which only six were built in 1891. These locomotives were built for\nthe same\npurpose as the L1: pushing service over Gulf Summit.\nHowever, these S1 class locomotives would be paired up, to help push\nheavy freights\nover the hill.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In 1907, after 16 years of reliable service (and following the arrival\nof the L1's); these S1 Decapod's would be rebuilt and converted\nfrom\ncompound cylinders to simple expansion (and now reclassed as J1) and\nthen relegated to yard service, where they would soldier on\nuntil the mid 1920's.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n So, here we have yet another successful class of\nlocomotive, of which only six\nwere constructed; with a rebuild taking place at 16 years of age, and a\ntotal service life of approximately twenty-five years. But, no one\nconsiders those locomotives to be \"unsuccessful.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n With the S1's retired from pushing assignments over Gulf\nSummit, these duties now fell to\nthe L1 and then other newer locomotives like the R Class 2-10-2 \"Santa\nFe\"\ntypes, which began arriving in 1915. Forty-two R1 Class were\ninitially built, followed by fifty-five more by the end of 1919.\nAnd these were built for system-wide service - not dedicated locomotive for just Gulf Summit\npushing. All ninety-seven R1 class were out of service by 1949 which\ncorrelates to a thirty-four year service life.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n If a rebuild or reconfiguration takes place within a year of a\nlocomotive being placed into service, (exempting derailments and\nwrecks) then I would wholeheartedly agree, there was a design flaw or\nunsatisfactory condition in the original build that required addressing\nand remediation.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n But to say a locomotive was\n\"unsuccessful\" because it was rebuilt \"only\" 14 years after being\nplaced into service? Sorry, no dice.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

9.5: Comparing L1 Service Life to More Modern Locomotives
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Now, let us really try to stack the deck against the L1; and\ncompare the L1's twenty-three year service life (and being a\nnon-superpower locomotive\nbuilt in 1907) with later popular and proven \"superpower\" locomotives,\nboth\narticulated and rigid wheelbase and built towards the middle of the\ncentury with pretty much all the modern appliances developed and\nmaximized to enhance steam locomotives:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

railroad	locomotive\ntype	# built	usage dates	service\nlife	notes
Union\nPacific	4-8-8-4\n\"Big Boy\"	25	1941\n- 1962	21\nyears	And\nthe Big Boy's are undoubtedly considered successful.
Union\nPacific	4-6-6-4 \"Challenger\"	105	1936 - 1958	24 years	Some were rebuilt to\nfuel oil and other modifications at midpoint through\ntheir lives. All successful.
Norfolk &\nWestern	2-8-8-2 \"Y Class\"	16	1942 - 1959	17 years	Successful.
Chesapeake &\nOhio	2-6-6-6 \n\"Allegheny\"	60	1941 - 1956	15 years	Successful.
Norfolk &\nWestern	4-8-4 \"J Class\"	14	1941 - 1959	18 years	Successful.
Reading T-1	4-8-4 \"Northern\"	30	1945 - 1959	14 years	(originally built as 2-8-0's in 1923);\nheavily reconstructed in 1945 to 4-8-4.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The list can go on and on. If one simply looks at\nthe website steamlocomotive.com;\nand browse through the data tables; you will find even more\npopular steam locomotive designs that did not last as\nlong as the Erie L1, but were undoubtedly considered \"successful\".
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nChapter 10:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"They Only Built Three, Because It Wasn't Successful.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n10.1: No, They Only Built Three Because Erie Only Needed Three = a Low Construction Quantity
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The L1's were not designed to be the sole or\ndouble-headed power long haul locomotives like the C&O\nAllegheny's were, which were used to haul\n11,500-ton coal trains for 250 miles from Hinton, West Virginia to\nColumbus, Ohio;
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Nor can they be compared to be high speed heavy\nhaul freight locomotives like\nUnion Pacific's Challenger's and Big Boy's; which saw long distance service between\nOgden, Utah and Green\nRiver, Wyoming - 160 miles over Sherman Hill.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The L1's did not see fast passenger service like the 4-8-4\nN&W\nJ Class\nto pull crack passenger trains between Norfolk, Virginia, and\nCincinnati, Ohio; a distance of 610 miles through the Appalachians.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The L1's were unlike the 4-8-4 Reading T-1's, which were\nextensively rebuilt from\nI-10sa 2-8-0 Consolidations; and were designed to pull time-sensitive\nfreight trains up to 150 cars in length, and travel as fast as 65 miles\nper hour. Ironically, the T-1's also saw pusher service.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Nor were the L1's like the vast fleets any Class 1 heavy freight\nlocomotives, which could be found in service anywhere and at anytime\nthroughout a system.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n So, if by chance you are\njudging the success of the L1 locomotives by the number built, as some\nare trying to; in this\n\ncase a low production total (three), does not always equate to lack of\nsuccess.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Erie only had three L1's built, because they only\nneeded three.\nTwo for service, one as reserve.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

10.2: Supplanting Moderate Capacity Power
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Three L1's replaced six S1 Decapods (2-10-0) or\nnine H10 Consolidations (2-8-0). Which is what Erie had the L1's designed and purchased them for, to which they did.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n For 23 years.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The crewmen\nrequired for the three L1's equaled 6 men, and reduced the need for 18\nmen to crew the nine H-10 Consolidations or the 12 men needed to\noperate\nthe six S-1 Decapods. This reduction in manpower and payroll added up\nto serious financial savings.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n This was the purpose of the articulated\nlocomotive design: to reduce the need for multiple locomotives, to accomplish the\nsame assignment.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This is in conjunction with the fact the\nsmall area of operation as in the case of the L1 - a seventeen mile radius;\nand a specialized duty\nassignment (a slow pusher) for heavy freights.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Therefore, the task did\nnot require a large fleet of locomotives\nas would be needed with long distance operation, where a\nfleet locomotive would or could be away from its home terminal area for hours\n(or even days) at a time, like they would on\nthrough freight trains or passenger train traversing multiple states\nand over hundreds of miles.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n The\nfast passenger trains transiting over Gulf Summit did not\nneed an L1 to help push it over.
\n Neither did the local way freights.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n It was only the real\nheavy tonnage through freight trains needed that help: coal drags, and 60-75\ncar freight trains of 3000 to 3500 tons needing to surmount over Gulf\nSummit.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n So three locomotives of\nthis design were sufficient to supply the necessary power and\nassistance for the\npurpose and area needed. And since they did not venture far from their\nassigned area, they returned to their originating assignment location in a short\nperiod of time. Which was about an hour to an hour and 15 minutes.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The short (and ultimate) answer is; the Erie only ordered\nthree,\nbecause it only needed three. It did not make the L1 Class locomotives\nany more or less successful if Erie had ordered ten or just one.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n We will address this matter again and in greater detail in Chapter 13: 1=2 or 1=3 or 3=6 or 3=9.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Chapter 11:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"They Used Two Firemen.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n No, the L1's used ONE\nFireman - ONE!
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n and Dual Firebox Doors
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

11.1: One Fireman
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Returning to the subject at hand (pun intended),\nthe\nthree Erie 0-8-8-0 locomotives as built, were originally hand fired\n(meaning\na\nfireman had to hand shovel coal into the firebox). It should be noted\nthese\nlocomotives has 100 square feet of grate area and the\nlocomotives were equipped\nwith\ntwo doors on the backhead.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Due to these two doors, it is quite frustratingly\nstated\nrepetitively in internet groups, that these Erie locomotives utilized\ntwo fireman, one\nfor each firebox door.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n And it is this, without any room for doubt;\nwhich is the most prolific case of misinformation regarding the Erie\nL1's.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Recently added to my collection is the June 1970 issue of\nRailroad Magazine. This issue contains a five page article on \"Erie's\nMonster Mallets\", pages 30-34 as authored by Robert A. Le Massena.\nWhile\nmost of the article is concerned with the Triplexes, there is a brief\nmention of the L1's; and sure enough it is stated the locomotives\n\"gulped steam in such vast quantities that two fireman were needed to\nspread coal over the 100 square-foot grate.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

► By\nall historical accounts and documents, this is not the case. ◄
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Official railroad recordations and documents\nto date,\nindicate\nthey were fired by a single\nfireman.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This is confirmed through official\ndocumentation,\nnamely the The Erie Dynamometer Test - 1907; as well as the Cullen\n/ Gridley - Cornell U Thesis - 1908.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n I think it is safe to conclude the\nrailroad and University engineers of that era were a little better\ninformed to the staffing requirements than some railfan's assumptions\nhalf a\ncentury later. I know what you are thinking, aren't I (mean the author)\na railfan? Yes, however I am drawing my conclusions from official\ndocuments from the era,\nnot erroneous information being repeated a century after.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n If one actually takes the time to read the historical\naccounting of the design\nof these locomotives as written in Erie Power (as seen above);\nreferences are made,\nseveral times in fact, to a singular fireman:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \"...\nHand fired loco had two fire doors to facilitate spreading coal over\nthat huge grate area. Also handy if you wanted you use two fireman.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Not: Locomotive\nhad two fire doors for two fireman, nor anywhere in the chapter does it\nspecify two fireman were needed to fire this locomotive.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"... if you\nwanted to use two firemen\" not \"when you used two fireman\" or \"for two\nfiremen\".
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The use of\nthe second fireman was an option secondary to the need of covering the\ngrate area with even coals. One fireman\nwas the norm, and nothing about this locomotive required noting or\nneeding a second fireman in normal operation.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \"...\nOn the other hand it had the effect of speedily draining the boiler of\nsteam which on a hand fired L1, did much to prevent a fireman from\nviewing the majestic panorama from Starrucca Viaduct.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Reference to a singular person \"a\nfireman\", not\nthe firemen.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Also this reference to \"speedily draining the boiler\" was in\nreference to the simple / compound intercepting valve being set for\nsimple instead of compound. According to multiple documents; the\nmajority of the time and in normal operation, the intercepting valve\nwas set for\ncompound; with the simple position being reserved for emergency\nsituations of having to\nstart the locomotive from a dead standstill on the grade with a load.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \"...\nseveral runs showed one good fireman could get plenty of power from an\nL1 Mallet without being taxed to the point of collapse.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Again, reference to a fireman in the singular: \"one\ngood fireman\", not\nfiremen in plural.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n On page 18, in the Cullen\n/ Gridley - Cornell U Thesis - 1908 upon their observing\nthe The Erie Dynamometer Test - 1907 it is stated:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \"The Coal... it was weighed and\ndumped out for the use of the fireman.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Once again; for the use of \"the fireman\",\nin the singular.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In the photo of #2602 that appeared in the\nAlexander book, again, one man by the air compressor (the fireman), one\non the walkway in front of the cab (the engineer) and one on\nthe\npilot (the brakeman). Three men: One fireman. One engineer,\none brakeman / switchman.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Some of you may wish to point out in some of the photos,\nthere\nare more than three crewmen. I refer you to the Erie Rulebook\nwhich stipulates:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \"Pusher locomotives\nbetween Susquehanna and Gulf Summit will be provided with flagman.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Normally, there was no conductor for pushing locomotives; as\nconductors were assigned to the through train the pusher locomotive was\nassisting. Some of the photos show men in suits. Obviously they are not\npart of the crew. It is also understood the Port Jervis taken in 1911\nimage was an Erie publicity photo (hence the suit clad men) and\nother employees were included in the image.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n And, saving the best proof for last; in the dynamometer car\ntests conducted in 1907 by the Erie Railroad; the written context\nof The Erie Dynamometer Test - 1907 makes reference to\nseveral times to \"the fireman', (in the singular)\nand not \"firemen\" (in the plural) and this official document\nholds\nadditional\nand necessary\nconfirmation of the assignment of a SINGLE fireman to fire the\nlocomotive:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

. $\"\"$
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n I submit verbatim:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\"... clearly illustrates the\ncapacity of one of these machines when being fired by one\nfireman, who was not by any means seriously overworked.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\"The poor results of the third run,\nas compared with the first and second, are explained by the fact that fireman was\nnot of a grade equal to the men who fired the first two tests.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \"fired by one fireman\", \"That\nfireman\". In the SINGULAR.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

<Mic\ndrop>
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n It is indeed unfortunate some railfans cannot fathom such a\nlarge\nlocomotive being\nsingularly fired.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Yet, according to all archival sources, it\nwas.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Part of the reason for the\nconstruction of the L1's was to reduce the need for multiple smaller\nlocomotives\nrequired for pushing, and this was to include saving on manpower by\neliminating an engineer and fireman on each of the pusher\nlocomotives, which were used in multiples.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n When referencing\nthe misconception of the second firedoor equaling a second fireman; the\nplacing of that second fireman on the L1\n(as it is wrongly assumed) would\nhave partially negated\nthat savings in manpower and defeated the purpose of the design of the\nL1 in the first place.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Perhaps some of you may have visons of that scene\nin\n\"Emperor of the North\" where 'Shack' and 'Coaly' are shoveling in coal\nas fast as they can to get out of the way of fast mail they are about\nto meet head on; or in the movie \"The Train\" with 'Pesquet' and\n'Didont' are frantically shoveling coal to outrun the RAF fighter.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n But that is not the case here. The L1 was a locomotive\ndesigned\nfor slow speed pushing over a short limited distance; not main line,\nrequiring fast speed over a long\ndistance.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Also, it is pertinent to read the operations manuals and\ntrade\nliterature of that era and pertaining to the locomotives and railroads\nof that day. Fortunately, these publications are readily available for\nfree on Google Books, and I have included them below.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n And now, I shall explain the actual reason for two\nfirebox doors.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 11.2: Dual\nFirebox Doors: It Doesn't Mean There Were Two Firemen!
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n It should be noted it is now understood that the\nErie L1's used both anthracite culm OR\nbituminous coal. The Cullen\n/ Gridley - Cornell U Thesis - 1908 clearly lists the\ncoal used during the The\nErie Dynamometer Test - 1907\nas\nbituminous, from Erie Railroads' own Dagus Mine located in Kersey,\nPennsylvania.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Oddly enough, in my research about this mine; this supply\ncould\nnot have lasted much longer after the test; as the Dagus Mine closed in\n1907; when production and supply commenced at the Brockway Mine. Both\nwere part of the Shawmut Coalfield located in Elk & Jefferson\nCounties of Pennsylvania.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n As the\n1907 test incurred no special preparations; it can be concluded that\nthe coal used during the test was used as well in regular\nservice,\nand of which was dispensed at the Susquehanna Coaling Tower near the\nshops for all locomotives.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Anthracite coal\nburns\nslower but hotter than bituminous coal. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n And any\ncoal fired boiler requires an even bed of coals - and with a\nwide firebox as used in the Wootten design; two fire doors\nallowed a single fireman to\nmore evenly distribute the coals over a larger area. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Whereas, a single\ncentered door on a Wootten firebox (as commonly seen on other\nfireboxes) would hinder or outright prevent the fireman from reaching\nthe\nrear most corners (blind spots) of the firebox making it difficult or\nimpossible to either shovel in coal or rake it even to those corners,\nthereby being \"IMPRACTICAL\". \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In practice, an uneven coal bed (the layer of coal on the fire\ngrate) would cause uneven heating of the steel firebox;\nwhich at best,\nwould cause inefficient firing and steaming qualities. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n This uneven firing would lead to irregular expansion and\ncontraction rates of the metal, and this would greatly reduce the\nservice life of the firebox; even possibly\nleading to a catastrophic failure. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n You will note, that the center graphic in the\ndiagram at right, illustrates these difficult areas of accessibility or\n\"blind spots\" in conjunction with that single, centered firebox door. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n This is why on coal fired locomotives, the fireman; after\n\nshoveling coal into the firebox, may have to rake the coal bed even with a hoe,\nwhich is a long bar with steel blade fastened at 90 degrees on the end. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n By having two doors on the backhead enabled\na single fireman\nto shovel, distribute and maintain the coal in a much more even manner in the Wootten firebox,\ngreatly\nincreasing firing and steaming efficiency, and of which can be better\nvisualized by the right most graphic \"PRACTICAL\" in the diagram at\nright. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The basics of firing of with anthracite culm and the tools\ninvolved are covered below, in an excerpt from \"Steam Boiler\nEngineering\", 1920. (see diagram below). \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	$\"\"$
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n Many\nCamelback locomotives used dual firebox door backheads, and this was\nnot\nin relationship to the overall size of the locomotive or to\nuse\ntwo fireman. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Referring backwards in time to the initial development of the\nWootten\nfirebox, the first successful class of locomotive to carry the Wootten\nfirebox was\nPhiladelphia & Reading #408. (Remembering, first Millholland\nand then\nWootten were master mechanics for that railroad.) \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n #408 was a 4-6-0 \"Ten\nWheeler\". We are most fortunate that both side and rear photographs\nexist. Obviously the rear photo is the one most important to this\nchapter and of which we will address. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n What\ndo we notice about this firebox backhead? Two firebox doors. Note the\nsize of the locomotive; not large at all in comparison to the width of\nthe firebox. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Mention of these dual firebox doors are noted in\nthe Wide Firebox chapter as contained in The\nRailway Engineer, February 1907
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n There was more involved to maintaining a fire in a locomotive\nthen just shoveling a load of coal in and slamming the firebox door\nshut. Several different tools were necessary to even out and maintain\nthat fire; which are illustrated below and being able to access the\nentire firebox with those tools, was quite important.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$

It should also be\nnoted that even some conventional\nbituminous coal fired fireboxes\nwere sometimes equipped with dual firebox doors.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Referring to the images below, the left photo is\nof Lehigh\n& New England RR #207; an 0-6-0 switcher built by Baldwin\nLocomotive\nWorks in 1936 and now preserved at the Illinois Railroad Museum. It is\nnot a camelback nor does not have a Wootten firebox.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The\nphoto at below right, is of Central Railroad of New Jersey\n#592, a 4-4-2 \"Atlantic\" built by American Locomotive Works in 1901,\nand\npreserved at the Baltimore & Ohio RR Museum. This locomotive is\na camelback with Wootten firebox.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The 4-4-2 in comparative terms is not a\nmuch larger locomotive than the 0-6-0 either, but CNJ 592 was designed\nfor\nand was used in high speed (60+ mph) express passenger service. It is a\ncamelback, and has a Wootten firebox.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Here, we can clearly see both camelback and conventional\nfirebox\nlocomotives are equipped with dual firebox doors.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Different service\napplications, different service speeds, different locomotive builders,\na 30 year difference in build time, but:\nsame fuel (anthracite culm). And both\nhave dual firebox doors.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n at\nleft: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Lehigh\n& New England Railroad #207 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 0-6-0\nswitcher - Baldwin Locomotive Works, built 1936 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n NOT a\nWootten firebox, not a Camelback \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n but still\nequipped with dual fire\ndoors for burning anthracite. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Illinois\nRailroad Museum, \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Union,\nIllinois \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMatthew Gustafson photo \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n at right: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Central Railroad of\nNew Jersey #592 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 4-4-2\n\"Atlantic\" - American Locomotive Co, built 1901 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Wootten\nfirebox, Camelback \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Baltimore\n& Ohio Railroad Museum \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Baltimore,\nMaryland \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAl Hafner photo \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n below: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Reading # unknown \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n4-4-0 \"American\" (Baldwin Locomotive Works or Reading Shop) \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWootten firebox, Camelback \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Reading\nCompany Coaling Tower & Roundhouse; Reading, PA March 8, 1926. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ncollection of Gerry Meyle, Sr. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	$\"\"$
$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n It should also be noted however, not all\ncamelbacks had two firebox doors. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Small camelback style locomotives that were equipped with\nWootten fireboxes, such as pre-1900's\n4-4-0's and\nthe Reading Class A4b 0-4-0's, had a single extra wide firebox\ndoor. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This single extra wide firebox door on these\nlocomotives was acceptable, because even the Wootten fireboxes\non this small a locomotive were not so excessively wide that a single\nwide firebox door would not hinder access to the back corners for the\ntools. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
$\"\"$	at left: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Philadelphia\n& Reading Railroad #1187 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n0-4-0 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Baldwin Locomotive Works, built\n1903 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Wootten\nfirebox, Camelback \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n formerly\nStrasburg Railroad, Strasburg, PA \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npresently at Age of Steam Roundhouse, \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSugarcreek, OH \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDick Leonhardt photo \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n at right: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Franklin Double\nButterfly extra width \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nwhich would have been used on the P&R 1187 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n with\nmany thanks to Kelly Anderson \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMachine Shop Foreman, \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nVice President of Motive Power and Shops \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nStrasburg Railroad \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nStrasburg, PA \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n So, to make a short story long; two firebox\ndoors did NOT mean two firemen.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n It meant easier accessibility for ONE\nfireman to tend the coals on either side of the\ngrate to efficiently fire the\nlocomotive,
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nespecially so on those locomotives equipped with a\nwide\nWootten firebox for burning anthracite culm!
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Think of this analogy: you can fit four people in a two\ndoor\ncoupe, but a four door sedan made it easier for all four to get in and\nout. And having a two door coupe didn't mean there were two drivers,\nlikewise a four door sedan didn't equate to four drivers. And,\na\ntwo door coupe with really big doors also made it easier for people in\nthe back seat to enter and exit.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n I wonder if I have gotten the point across yet?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Chapter 12:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"That small tender - it couldn't have been that useful.\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

It was more than sufficient, because\nit only had to go so far...
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n It is often noticed and commented on, that the tenders of\nthe L1's were small in\ncomparison to the size of the locomotive. The tenders used by\nthe L1's had capacities of 16 tons of coal and 8,500 gallons of water.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n And, unfortunately once again\nit is often assumed\nby the unknowledgable that this \"must have limited the L1's\nusefulness or success\". Yet once again, this is a false assumption.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Due to the L1's limited area of operations, the L1 locomotives\ndid not\nventure far from coal or water facilities. Its primary assignment was pushing the train up to and\nover Gulf\nSummit, with the L1 being uncoupled at the summit and coasted back\ndownhill to its originating point, whether that be Susquehanna or\nDeposit. This method of operation is described in detail in the trade journals\nbelow.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n So, its normal service distance during regular operations; an L1\nlocomotive\nonly had to pushing a heavy loaded train 8½\nmiles\nupgrade from Susquehanna to Gulf Summit, or from Deposit to Gulf Summit.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n If; for whatever the reason, the locomotive was in\nSusquehanna,\nPA\nand was needed in Deposit, NY; that still equated to only 17 miles one way\nor 34 miles round trip. And at 15 miles an hour, this\nwas\njust over an hours service time between pushing a train over the Gulf\nSummit to Deposit and returning,\nincluding the time required in getting their telegraph orders,\nuncoupling from a train, and throwing the switches and switching to the\nappropriate eastbound or westbound track for the return trip and\nreturning the switches to normal position.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n This would be like expecting a small yard switching locomotive to\nhave a long haul tender. Those locomotives did not venture far from\ntheir fuel and watering facilities either, so a large tender was\ntotally unnecessary for the assignment.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The Erie Railroad facilities at Susquehanna were quite\nextensive:\nthere was a large machine shop and roundhouse: 774' by 138' with room\nfor up to 40\nlocomotives; a boiler shop, a blacksmith's shop, a pattern shop, a\npaint shop, a foundry and engine rooms for the equipment in the various\nshops.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n It also was the location\nfor both the coaling tower and water tank of 55,000 gallon capacity\n(pump\nfed); where as the Deposit, NY location offered only a water tank of\n33,000 gallon capacity (gravity & pump fed).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Should an occasion so arise where an L1 would have to make a\nlonger journey, say for example, to Port Jervis the next largest\nterminal east of Susquehanna;\nthis was just under 100 miles from Susquehanna;\nand equated\nto 3½ hours running time.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

12.1 - Coal Consumed
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n According to the Cullen\n/ Gridley - Cornell U Thesis - 1908; the L1 used the\nfollowing pounds of coal during\nits four trips tested:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

	5,065
	3,711
	7,218	*
+	3,986
total	19,980	lbs. or roughly 10\ntons of coal
* inexperienced fireman on\nthird run, lost steam pressure

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Thereby,\ndividing 19,980 lbs. by 4 trips give us an average of 4,995 lbs. or\nroughly 2½ tons per trip.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Further\ndividing 4,995 lbs. by 17 miles round trip equals 293.8 pounds of coal\nper mile.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n That\nmay sound like a lot, until you consider the standard railroad coal\nscoop (shovel) handled and average of 20-30 pounds of coal per\nshovelful.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This equates\nto \"only\" ten to twelve shovels per mile.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n And most of that shoveling\nwas only needed going uphill, when the locomotive was working hard; not as the locomotive\nidled while waiting\nfor the train to be pushed to arrive and to pass and to couple onto the rear of; or\nwaiting to be uncoupled from; waiting for switches to be thrown, and\ncertainly not as the locomotive coasted back downgrade to its starting\npoint or simply waited for a heavy freight train to arrive, that would\nneeded assistance.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n So from these figures, we can extrapolate that the tender and\nits 16 ton coal capacity was\nquite sufficient for about 6 round trips. At an average of 78 minutes\nper trip, equals 468 minutes or 7.8 hours; or more than half of a 12\nhour shift.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

12.2 - Water Consumed
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n According to the Cullen\n/ Gridley - Cornell U Thesis - 1908; the L1\nused the following pounds of\nwater during its four trips tested:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 43,410,\n 20,540, 40,270 and 48,920.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n First, we have to convert those pounds of water to gallons.\nWater\nweighs approximately 8.3 pounds per gallon, therefore:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 43,410 ÷ 8.3 = 5,230 gallons
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n 20,540 ÷ 8.3 = 2,474 gallons
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 40,270 ÷ 8.3 = 4,851 gallons
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 48,920 ÷ 8.3 = 5,893 gallons
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The sum of\n5,230, 2,474, 4,851, 5,893 equals 18,448 gallons.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 18,448 gallons ÷ 4 trips = 4,612 gallons per round trip.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 4,612 gallons ÷ 18 mile round trip =\n271 gallons of water per mile.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 8500 gallons capacity tender ÷ 271 gallons per mile = 31 miles per tender\nof water.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n This may not seem like much, and here I will agree, it isn't.\nBut it is a generally\naccepted rule, that a working locomotive uses a 10:1 ratio of water to\nfuel. Hence why almost every town along a rail route had a water tower\nor standpipe; not just for this locomotive model, but for most others.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n As listed in the Erie Official List #7, issued January 1,\n1909,\nhere are the following locations with water facilities on the Delaware\nDivision. Notice they are not more than ten to twenty miles apart from\neach other:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

location	milepost	capacity \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n (gallons)	type: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Gravity or Pump
Parker's Glen	102	20,000	G
Lackawaxen	110	50,000	P
Nobodys	124	20,000	G
Callicoon	135	50,000	G\n& P
Lordville	153	33,000	G
Hancock	163	50,000	G\n& P
Deposit (x2)	176	33,000 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n33,000	G\n& P \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nG & P
Susquehanna, old terminal	190	50,000	P
Susquehanna, new terminal	190	54,000	P
Susquehanna, west of station	191	50,000	P

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Again, this was under hard working\nconditions pushing 3000-3500 tons up a 1.36% incline for 8.5 miles,\nthen coasting down in the other direction.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Normal, more moderate working conditions would of course use\nthe\nwater more sparingly and increase the operating distance.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

12.3 - Operations over Longer Distances
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Naturally, the amount of coal and water consumed would be\nless if\nthe locomotive was working moderately easy, on mostly level\nground along the banks of the Susquehanna River; or as the railroaders\ncall it \"river grade\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Say a trip\nfrom Susquehanna, up and over Gulf Summit (hard working), down to\nDeposit (coasting); and then all the way to Port\nJervis (easy working); a distance of 104 miles. Only the first 9 miles\nwould be hard\nwork, then the locomotive would coast down, then resume easy to\nmoderate pushing work in\nDeposit, albeit not working nearly as hard as shoving up Gulf Summit.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n But the numbers above are for \"hard work\" for 8.5 miles, with\n\"coasting\" or \"idling\" the next 8.5 miles, then \"regular work\" for 88\nmiles, which would use significantly less coal and water than \"hard\nwork\". For the sake of this calculation however, we will use a worst\ncase scenario of \"hard work\" for the full 104 miles:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Coal: 104 miles\nx 277.5 pounds of coal per mile = 28,860\npounds of coal or 14½ tons; (rounding up - call it 15 tons)
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Water: 104 miles ÷ 31 miles per tender of water meant an L1\nwould have to fill up about 3.3 times; (again rounding up - call it 4\ntimes)
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n So Port Jervis was easily with the capability of an L1 with a\nfull tender of coal, but the locomotive would have had to stop 4 times\nto fill up the tender with water. This is not an\nunusual amount for the type of tender over that distance.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Additionally, it should be understood most\ntowns along that segment of the Erie Railroads' Delaware Division\nhad either a standpipe or\nwater tower, so a trip with \"only\" a 8,500 gallon water capacity and 16 tons of coal, was\nnot detrimental to the locomotive\noperation or a significantly delaying factor; if it was even required.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The\ndistance to the next terminal west, would be Binghamton, which was 22\nmiles, short enough without having to stop for water or coal.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Therefore as you can now understand, a large capacity tender\n(such as those employeed for long hauls)\nwas not necessary to the daily operation of the L1. As the\nL1's (and Triplexes) never ventured far from either of its home\nterminal of Susquehanna, it therefore could\nbe fueled twice and watered several times a shift if necessary.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n For comparison,\nthe Matt H. Shay \"Triplexes\" (Erie Class P-1) - for all their size -\nalso only carried 16,000 pounds of\ncoal (same as the Erie L1's), and only 1,500 gallons more water (10,000\ngallons vs. 8,500).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Again, it needs to be reiterated: the\nErie L1's were not cross country / long distance locomotives; like\nChallengers, Big Boys, Alleghenys, Chesapeakes, Yellowstones or any\nother large\narticulated locomotives with a long haul tender. Those carried a lot of\nfuel and water to cover large distances without stopping frequently.\nThat was not the case for the L1, which was almost never more than 17\nmiles\nfrom its \"home\".
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Hauling a locomotive tender that was larger than\nneeded and further than it needed to go,\nwas inefficient to say the least.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Chapter 13:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n1=3 or 1=2 or 3=9 or 3=6
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n No,\nit isn't Enron math.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

13.1 - Why Erie Ordered the L1's
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The main purpose\nfor the design and construction of the L1 Mallets was to reduce the\nneed for\nmultiple pusher\nlocomotives per train and with that, a reduction of locomotives; and\ncommensurate, a\nreduction in manpower; as each pusher locomotive required an engineer and a\nfireman.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Three\npushers equaled six men, not including the men on\nthe head end locomotive(s) which\ncould be two or even four men if the train was double headed. In short,\na\nsingle train could have ten crewman not including\nthe\nconductor, brakemen or flagmen (of which were assigned to pusher\noperations). Thirteen men to move one train. That is quite the crowd.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The average freight train climbing\nGulf Summit and of that era could be comprised of 50 to 70 cars, and\nranged between 3,000 to 3,500 tons.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Prior to the arrival of the L1's in 1907;\nthe locomotives primarily assigned to pusher service over Gulf\nService were the S1 class 2-10-0 \"Decapods\" in 1891 and the H10 Class 2-8-0\n\"Consolidations\" in 1900.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Here\nwe see three locomotives (which appear to be H10 class 2-8-0\nConsolidations),\npushing a loaded hopper train eastbound;
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEach H10 weighed 313,400 lbs. total loaded and\ndeveloped 37,500 lbs of tractive effort each
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nso three H10's would\ntotal 940,200 lbs in weight and 122,500 lbs in tractive effort.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n So, depending on the\ntonnage of each train and the\ntractive effort of the lead locomotive(s), as well as the tractive\neffort\nof the pusher locomotives available; each train would require at least\none, and up to three pushers. Engineer and fireman times three\nlocomotives equals six men.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The reason so many locomotives were needed, was to develop\nthe necessary tractive effort required to\nstart and maintain movement of a train. The tractive effort\nrequired consists of the consideration of numerous factors,\nbut for most applications only four factors need to be considered.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

A\nforce of 2 to 5 pounds per ton of train weight is required to move on\nstraight level track. At very slow yard speeds only 2 to 3 pounds is\nneeded while increasing to about 5 pounds at higher speeds. This force\nis required to overcome bearing friction, rail deflection, minor flange\ncontact, etc.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPrior to the development and widespread\ninstallation of roller bearings; the initial starting\nrequirements were\nmuch higher when cars had friction bearings as they did during the era\nof the operation of the L1. (Today, with all roller bearing journals\nthis is not much of a consideration).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAt speeds above 30 to 40\nmiles per hour, air resistance becomes a factor, but this not a factor\nwith Gulf Summit operations at train speeds were under 30 mph for\nfreight trains.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nThe\nsecond factor to consider is track curvature. Cars in a curve require a\ngood deal of tractive effort because the wheels are mounted on solid\naxles. Wheels must slip and slide through the curve because of the\ndifference in radius of the inside and outside rails. However minimal\nthe curve, this slippage will be encountered. Wheel flange contact\nwith the inside of the railhead adds additional friction.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFor\nthe cars in the curve, the tractive effort required is 0.8 pounds per\nton per degree of curvature, where curvature is defined as the number\nof degrees the track curves per 100 feet.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The\npercent of grade is perhaps the most important factor governing\ntractive effort. For every ton of train weight in a grade, 20 pounds of\ntractive effort is needed for each 1% of slope. (One percent of a ton\nor 2000 pounds equals 20 pounds). A 1% grade is defined as a vertical\nincrease of one foot for each 100 feet of horizontal distance. A 1%\ngrade is considered steep; a 2% grade is unusually steep.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn reference to operations on Gulf Summit, we are dealing with a 1.36%\ngrade (unadjusted - not factoring in the curvature).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The\nfinal factor and one frequently overlooked is the tractive effort\nrequired for acceleration of the train. It takes about 10 pounds per\nton to accelerate to a speed of 6 miles per hour in one minute or 12\nmiles per hour in two minutes, a reasonable rate for a heavy train.\nIncreasing this tractive effort increases the acceleration rate\nproportionately.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n So, in having to push trains over Gulf Summit,\nmultiple locomotives were required.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In some cases two locomotives were double\nheaded on the lead end, and two pushers placed on the rear of the\ntrain. This equalized the forces between pushing and pulling. Too much\nforce on the pulling end would break coupler knuckles or drawbars; and\ntoo much force on the pushing end could twist a car, break a frame or\njust simply buckle the train into a derailment.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n While it\nis thought that any heavy freight service locomotive would have been\nsuitable for assisting trains up Gulf Summit, only a few such classes\nwere\nactually suitable and therefore actually designated and assigned in\nSusquehanna for regular pusher service. These were: \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\"H\nclass Consolidations (2-8-0),
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"S/J class\"\nDecapods (2-10-0) [formerly 'S' Class, reclassed to \"J Class\" when\nconverted to single\nexpansion cylinders in 1907],
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"R class\" Santa Fe's (2-10-2) after 1915, or:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"S class\" Berkshires a/k/a \"3300's\" (2-8-4) after 1927
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

13.2 - Comparison of Erie Freight Locomotive\nClasses
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n A\ncomparison of freight locomotive\nclasses that operated during the life span of the L1 are listed below.\nLight duty locomotive classes are omitted. The experimental M\nClass (even though short lived) and P Class Triplexes are included as\nboth were intended for the same service duty as the L1. Also included\nis the K1 class passenger locomotive as due to its weight, was\nprohibited from operating in conjunction with a Mallet over Lanesboro\nand Starrucca Viaducts as proscribed in the rule books.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

class	wheel\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\narrangement	loco\ntype name	commonly assigned\nservice duties	years classes \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n entered service	maximum \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ntractive effort*	maximum \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ndriver wheelbase*	weight\nof locomotive \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(not including loaded tender)	total\nweight locomotive & tender (loaded)
C1 - C3a	0-8-0	Eight Coupled	switching, shifting	1905 - 1930	51,042	15'	201,000 - 237,000\npounds	364,000 -\n400,000
H10 - H27	2-8-0	Consolidation	medium duty slow\nfreight	1900 - 1906	45,711	17'	187,000 - 213,300\npounds \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nH27 - 260,100	313,400 -\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nH27 - 430,200
J1 (former S\nclass) - J2	2-10-0	Decapod	heavy slow freight,\npushing	1891 - 1918	51,490	18' 10\"	193,000 - 197,900	290,650 -\n344,600
K1	4-6-2	Pacific	heavy passenger	1905	30,248	13'	230,500	393,300
L1 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nL1 rebuilt	0-8-8-0 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2-8-8-2	Angus	pushing	1907 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n1921	94,070	14'\n3\" (each set)	410,000 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n441,660	577,700 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n609,360
M1	2-6-8-0	hybrid	experimental	1911	62,082	17' (rear\n8 coupled set)	208,000 (reverted\nto 0-8-0 1916)	348,050
N1 - N3a	2-8-2	Mikado	heavy\nfast freight / dual	1911 - 1926	62,949	16' 8\"	320,000 - 346,050	508,900 - 519,780
P1 Type\n1 / Type 2	2-8-8-8-2	Triplex	pushing / mid train\nhelper	1914 - 1916	176,256	16' 6\"	853,050 / 860,350	1,169,750 / 1,177,050
R1 - R3	2-10-2	Santa Fe	heavy fast freight	1915 - 1919	82,982	22' 6\"	380,000 - 429,300	629,100 - 586,100
S1 - S4	2-8-4	Berkshire	heavy fast dual	1927 - 1929	78,904	18' 3\"	443,000 - 468,000	753,000 - 846,600
*\nfigures listed are for the largest locomotive of that class, as\ndifferent groups of locomotives for that class would vary in\nspecification. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAs locomotives developed, they mostly grew in\ncapability so highest known number for a locomotive class is listed for\nbaseline comparison during the life span of and against the L1. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDual service = freight & passenger service \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAll tractive effort figures except for L1 obtained from\nsteamlocomotive.com

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The main\nissue that was encountered using 2-10-0 or 2-10-2 wheel arrangement\nlocomotives on the Erie's Gulf Summit, was their long driver wheelbase: up to 22 feet\n6 inches on\nthe 2-10-2's.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nWhen taking into\nconsideration the plethora of curves on the Gulf\nSummit run\nbetween Susquehanna and Deposit, these rigid wheelbases were the upper\nlimits\nof suitability for the trackage curvatures. These locomotives had the\ntractive effort, but not so\nmuch the agility or flexibility to negotiate the curves with minimal\nresistance. Their rigid wheelbase would also cause wear on the inside\nface of the rail head quicker than those of shorter wheelbase.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n In\nshort, a\nminimum of eight men for one train, and this does not yet include the\nconductor of the train, brakemen which were also\nassigned to the trains or the switchmen to operated the switches at\nSusquehanna and Gulf Summit.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n When freight traffic was heavy with several trains\npresent and waiting for \"a push over the hill\", the pool\nof\nlocomotives could be depleted rather quickly.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Reducing the amount of locomotives needed to push a train,\nalso reduced\nthe time involved in servicing and maintenance of each of those\nlocomotives both daily as well as the monthly shop servicing as\nrequired.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

13.3 - Potential\nDrawbacks
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n However, this replacing of three locomotives with a\nsingle locomotive was not without issue either. With reduced numbers of\nlocomotives assigned, when one out of the two\nlocomotives suffered a mechanical failure, the train\ntonnage could\nnot be averaged out among the three (or more) remaining locomotives as\nit used to be.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This is why Erie ordered three L1's: two for service, one as standby.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This is a similar dilemma in regards to modern\nday freight railroad operations and a result of the horsepower race of\ndiesel\nlocomotives; the\nhigher the horsepower of the single locomotive, reduced the need for\nmultiple\nlocomotives of lower horsepower.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n In other words: four locomotives of 2500 horsepower equals\n10,000 horsepower. If one locomotive failed, you were reduced to 7,500\nhorsepower. But chances are the locomotives were not being operated at\ntheir maximum ratings, so there was even a little leeway in asking them\nto do\na little more.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n But as 4000, 4400 and 6000 horsepower\nlocomotives were developed, less locomotives were assigned to the\ntrain, with most of the time only two locomotives totaling 8000, 8800\nto 12,000\nhorsepower were needed to be assigned. But, when one of those two units\nfailed, the train lost half\ninstead of a quarter of its horsepower.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This is where locomotive\nreliability factors into the equation. And this applied to\nsteam locomotives as\nwell.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Enter the L1 Articulated Mallet. Each L1 replaced three H10\nConsolidations (six crewmen) or two S1 Decapods (four crewman). It was\neasy on the curves - and easy on the eyes ;)
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

13.4 - The L1 versus the P1 Triplex
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n For comparison, the L1's were built in 1907 and had been\noperating reliably as built for seven years, when the first P1 Triplex;\n#2603 (quickly renumbered to 5014), and better known as the\n\"Matt H. Shay\" arrived on scene in 1914.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The\ninitial P1 Triplex was designed by George R. Henderson, consulting\nengineer at Baldwin Locomotive Works. Built with Schmidt firetube\nsuperheaters, with\n53 elements and 1,584 square feet of heating surface; of which this was\nthe largest superheater incorporated into any locomotive at that time.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n A Street mechanical stoker eliminated hand shoveling. The\nfeedwater\npumps as first installed, were powered off the crossheads behind the\ncylinders, but these turned out to be woefully insufficient. They were\nsubsequently replaced with steam powered reciprocating feedwater pumps\nthose of larger volume and on the boilers right side. Also, there was\nto be no intercepting valve like on the L1's; so the Triplex was\n\"compound only.\" Also, it was not built with a Wootten firebox, but a Gaines firebox with combustion chamber and\nwere fired with bituminous coal.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The Triplex as designed by Henderson was to be dual service: that is, it could be assigned to either\nas a leading locomotive (pulling) or as a pusher. As lead locomotive, it was so intended to\nsingularly haul a freight train consisting of 640 fifty ton freight\ncars, equaling a train 5 miles long.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Before being released from Baldwin Locomotive Works, the Matt H. Shay was taken on a trial run as a lead locomotive on the Philadelphia & Reading Chester Branch.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n It was then demonstrated on the Baltimore & Ohio, and again\nthe locomotive by itself; hauled a loaded coal train of 55 cars\nequaling 4,012 tons; departed from Baltimore, Maryland at 6:10 am and\narriving at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at 4:30 pm. This equates to 10\nhours and 20 minutes to travel 90 miles, or an average of 8.5 miles per\nhour.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Allegedly; it is on this run that a low bridge ripped off the steam dome off the locomotive. I can find\nno reference to this incident, but this might account for the trip taking 10 hours; however this is not confirmed.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n It was finally delivered to the Erie RR at Susquehanna, PA and\nentered into revenue service as intended as a pusher on Erie's Gulf Summit between Susquehanna and Deposit.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Here it was determined the 90 square foot grate area of the\nfirebox was insufficient, the locomotive sent back to Baldwin for\nmodifications and the grate area enlarged to 121.5 square feet by\nremoving a portion of the brick arch and shortening the combustion\nchamber. This enlarged\ngrate area would be built from the start for the two subsequent Triplexes\n(5015 & 5016).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n A tonnage test was performed by the Erie with a 130,000\npound capacity dynamometer car between Binghamton and Susquehanna. The\ntrain consisted of 250 loaded cars; was 1.6 miles in length and\n17,912 tons. The test used pushing engines (unspecified which) which\nwere used for\nstarting to avoid pulled draft gear / broken couplers. The Triplex\nachieved a top speed of 14 miles per hour and \"maxed out\" the\ndynamometer car recording device; but as feared, the train parted at a\nweak spot.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Despite this; the Erie was\nsatisfied with the pushing performance of the Triplex, and ordered two\nmore (#5015 and #5016) which were delivered in 1916.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Upon delivery of the second and third locomotives, Erie even tried using them as\na mid-train helper, but this was time consuming process. It is\nrecorded, that all too often; that only one P1 was\nin\nworking order most of the time; and due to their size, Erie's\nSusquehanna Shop could not service or repair them. The Triplexes were\nrequired to be sent to either the Lehigh Valley Railroad's Sayre Shops (65\nmiles away) or\nErie's Dunmore Shop (50 miles away) for major repairs. While these are\nrelatively close, this was still farther away than its home shop of\nSusquehanna.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n It is stated in Erie Power, that the summation of the P1\namongst\nthose men that operated them was thus: \"too many legs, not enough\nboiler\". Furthermore, some men believed if the feedwater heaters worked\nas intended, the outcome would have been a better steaming locomotive.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Despite\nbeing built later than the L1's, and with all the appliances modern to\nthat\nperiod, it is documented that all three P1 class were out of service by\n1927, and were scrapped on the following dates: 5014 in October 1929;\n5016 in March 1930, and 5015 in February 1933.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The P1 Triplexes for all their ballyhoo; only operated\nthirteen and eleven years respectively. And this was only after the\nprototype returned to Baldwin for modifications and the subsequent two\nincorporated the changed specifications.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Yes, the Triplexes were more powerful in\nregards to tractive effort to the L1: 94,070 vs. 160,000 ft lbs. for\nthe P1; but their design flaws and feedwater issues ultimately hindered\ntheir\nperformance as designed.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Something else I can't\nhelp but wonder that might not have helped the P1's: we know from\nhistory they were originally planned to be used as pulling engines; and\nthey were equipped with 63\" drivers. Larger driver diameters almost\nalways equates to higher speed operation. The L1's were equipped with\n51\" drivers - a foot shorter. We know the L1's did not move fast, and\nthey weren't designed to. But it begs the question, had the P1's\nincorporated a slightly smaller diameter driver, would they have\nperformed any better?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Nevertheless, the L1's were\nsatisfactory from the start, and\naccording to all documentation they served without any\nmodifications to their original design. Even after rebuilt with\n\"modern\" appliances in 1921, to which they served another 9 years; for a total life span of twenty-three years. \nAgain, all documentation to this day reflects reliable\noperation of the L1's over their lifespan.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Thus, the L1's actually outlived\nthe more powerful and more \"advanced\" P1 Triplexes by three years.\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n And, I can't help but wonder if\nperhaps some railfans might be confusing the issues of the P1 Triplexes for\nthe L1's?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n ..
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Chapter 14:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"They Were Unsuccessful. (Unspecified reason)\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

This one again? They were not unsuccessful. Not in the least. Let us add up the numbers.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

14.1 - Starting from the first Compound\nMallets Built
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \nBaltimore & Ohio RR #2400 \"Old Maud\",\nan 0-6-6-0; was the first compound Mallet to be built in the\nUnited States, and proved to be successful. Built\nin May 1904 (ALCo c/n 27478), 20\" x 32\" rear and 32\" x 32\" front\ncylinders, with 56\" drivers; she operated as built until 1926, at which\ntime she was rebuilt to simple expansion (20\" x 32\" cylinders all\naround). This earned her 12 more years of service, before she was\nscrapped January 1938. One locomotive built; 22 years until rebuilding,\n12 years more service after rebuilding, total: 33.5 years of service.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n She proved that the concept of Articulated\nCompound\nMallets had a place in American railroading.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n The following five compound\nMallets that were built, were in 2-6-6-2 wheel arrangement built by\nBaldwin Locomotive Works for the Great Northern\nRailway, #1800 #1801, #1802, #1803, #1804. Baldwin\nconstruction\nnumbers 28601 (#1800), 28641 (#1801) built in July 1906; 28739 (#1802),\n28854 (#1803) in August 1906; and 28933 (#1804) in September 1906.\nThese were built with 33 x 32\" front cylinders and 21½\" x 33 rear\ncylinders and 55\" drivers. They would all be rebuilt after 19 years to\n2-8-2\nwheel arrangement 11/1925 - 6/1926.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n These were the first locomotives built with this wheel\narrangement,\nwhich combined the power and adhesion of the 0-6-6-0 (that ran\nsuccessfully on the\nB&O) with both lead and trailing trucks for more flexible\noperation\nand to be easier on trackage. These five locomotives were assigned as\nhelper locomotives in the Cascade Mountains.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n These broke the ice, as the Erie L1's were the\nnext three Compound Mallets to be constructed.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n But we still have not come to any reasonable conclusion why\nthe Erie L1 Mallets were considered \"unsuccessful\".
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

14.2 - Subsequent Compound Mallet orders
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Furthermore, if the Erie L1 design was \"not\nsuccessful\" (and no one\nhas quite yet said specifically or conclusively stated what was wrong\nwith the L1\ndesign...), then why did American Locomotive see an ever increasing\namount of orders\nfor articulated Compound Mallets, built on the same principal design,\nbeginning a year after the three L1's were\nbuilt in July 1907?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

railroad	quantity	wh. arr.	c/n	date built	rebuilt	retired / scrapped
Denver, North Western\n& Pacific	one	0-6-6-0	45604	10/1908	rebuilt as a 2-6-6-0	1949
Denver, Rio Grande\n& Western	two	0-6-6-0	46560, 61	10/1909	rebuilt to 2-6-6-0	12/1947
New York Central	one	2-6-6-2	46714	12/1909		1932
Delaware &\nHudson	six	0-8-8-0	46916 - 21	4/1910	rebuilt 1930's	scrapped 1952
West Side Belt	two	0-6-6-0	47113, 14	5/1910	to Pittsburgh &\nWest Virginia,\nthen the Delaware & Hudson	scrapped 1935
Norfolk &\nWestern	five	0-8-8-0	47172 - 176	5/1910
Chicago & Alton	three	2-6-6-2	47539, 40, 41	4/1910	to Chesapeake\n& Ohio
Chesapeake &\nOhio	one	2-6-6-2	48061	7/1910	(ordered to specs\nabove)	scrapped 12/1930
Denver, North Western\n& Pacific	one	0-6-6-0	48151	7/1910	to add to their first order of 10/1908
Denver, North Western\n& Pacific	six	0-6-6-0	48230 - 35	7/1910	supplement to\nabove order;\nwent to DRG&W	scrapped 1949
Boston & Maine	five	2-6-6-2	48648 - 51	11/1910		scrapped 1929
St Louis & San\nFrancisco	two	2-8-8-2	48652, 53	10/1910
St Louis & San\nFrancisco	two	2-8-8-2	48734, 35	11/1910
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n and if those aren't enough, hold on to your\nsocks: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Chicago, Minneapolis\n& St. Paul	twenty-four	2-6-6-2	48838 - 62	12/1910	rebuilt 1929 - 1931	1950, 1951 and 1952.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n This\n\"short list\" above excludes those Mallets built for both export, and\ndomestic narrow\ngauge operations - I restricted the list to standard gauge domestic\noperations.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Furthermore, this list only pertains to what\nAmerican Locomotive Company built\nin the 2-3 years after the L1's were built. I have not even begun to\nlist what\nBaldwin or Lima built; and I have excluded simple\nexpansion articulated locomotives (not that many were constructed that\nearly).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n So, if the design of the Compound Mallet was \"unsuccessful\";\nthen why did so many railroads order this type of\nlocomotive, and why did these locomotives live to see the 1930's,\n1940's and 1950's?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Because they were\nsuccessful.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Notice some railroads only ordered one or two Compound\nMallets. Some ordered five\nor six. Did these limited order quantities constitute an unsuccessful\ndesign? No.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Here is another example of a one unit order, but a non-Mallet\nexample:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The \"Reuben Wells\" / Pennsylvania Railroad #35, was an\n0-10-0T\nbuilt by the Jeffersonville, Madison and Indianapolis Railroad shops\nfor their 5.89% grade\nof Madison Hill, Indiana. The\nlocomotive is named after its designer, engineer Reuben Wells.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Weighing 50 tons, and at 35 feet long, when built\nit was the most powerful locomotive in the world at the time.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n This was a 1.3-mile long stretch of track,\nthat is known for having the steepest regular incline in the United\nStates; which operated a conventional reciprocating rod adhesion\nlocomotive (not cog or cable locomotives, and not geared drive like\nShay or Heisler, etc.)
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Only one locomotive was built.\nYes, it was weird. It was unconventional. It operated for over 30\nyears. It was\nsuccessful.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n It's job, ironically; was exactly the same as the\nErie L1's: it was a pusher locomotive.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n A successful\ndesign is not proportionate to the quantity of\nlocomotives ordered. If a railroad orders one, it *might* be to see if\nthat design is suitable for their needs. When that railroad orders more\nof the same type with no modifications, the first was apparently\nsuitable. When a railroad\norders three or five or twenty-four, that is because they have passed\nthe\ntesting stage and they order what they need.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n But an order of only one locomotive or\ntwo or three does not equate to an\nunsuccessful design.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The\nsupposedly \"small\" tenders carried the accepted amount of coal and\nwater, and used them in 10:1 proportion to other locomotives of those\ntype and service assignment.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n So the tenders weren't \"too small to be\nuseful\".
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n And we can see some were scrapped in 1929 (at\n19 years old), and others made it to the 1950's.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n So\nlongevity / reliability of the L1's at 14 years of service before\nrebuild, and then 9 additional years after rebuild to retirement is not\nthe reason either.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Erie opted instead for a\ndedicated locomotive design for helper / pushing service, for the\ndedicated area of Gulf Summit.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n I\ncan keep on going if you need me to, but I think I have made my point:\nthat the Erie L1's were in fact successful, reliable, had just the\nright size of tender, and did what they designed to do, over the course\nof the normal average lifetime of a locomotive assigned to severe duty\nservice.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n So, if after reading any one or all of the preceding\nchapters; and the light bulb goes on\nover your head\nand you say, \"Now I understand!\"; you have earned my respect and a warm\nhearty welcome to the club of informed knowledge.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n And, now there is one less mis-informed person out\nthere thinking the Erie L1 0-8-8-0's used two fireman or the locomotive\nwere unsuccessful.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n That wasn't such a long walk, was it?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Chapter 15:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPlacement of the Caboose
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 15.1 - Before or After the Pusher Locomotive???
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Despite the revelations\nand the vast amount of information that these rule books contain, I can\nfind nothing in either about restrictions regarding the placement of a\ncaboose between the pusher locomotives and the train.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n This is a pertinent question, and it is often debated in\nrailfan\ngroups. It is stated by Westing in Staufer's \"Erie Power\" on\npage\n180:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\"The\nhelpers are NOT PUSHING ON THE CABOOSE - and reasons are obvious. Not\nall cabin cars (Pennsy term) are build to withstand the unbelievable\nthrusts with the push-pull effect of engine on each end of the train.\nthe two gargantuan Berks are leaning into the train to the\ntune of\n150,000 lbs. - tractive force delivered by over 7000 cylinder\nhorsepower.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The following is the accompanying image to that caption, with\nwhat\nappears to be a steel caboose behind the two locomotives:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
p. 180: two S Class\n\"Berkshire\"\n2-8-4 pushing, with what appears to be a steel caboose behind the\nlocomotives.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The Berk's entered service in 1927; so this\nwould be\ntowards the very end of L1 service and well into steel caboose era.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n If the caboose is steel construction, why is\nit still placed behind the locomotive?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Granted:\neach 2-8-4 weighed more than an L1 (443,000 vs. 410,000 lbs), and\nalmost as much tractive effort (82,500 vs 94,070 lbs).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In this photo\nyou are looking at 165,000 pounds of tractive effort pushing on that\ntrain.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Yet in direct\ncontradiction, we see in\nthe very same book as well as postcards of the era; many images of a\ncaboose (whether they\nbe wood or steel construction)\nbetween the pusher locomotive and train, or a caboose between the two\npushers on the end of the train, sometimes with a second caboose behind\nthe second pusher: p.\n147, 159, 160;\nand 180.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Furthermore, a caboose (regardless of construction) in front\nof\nthe pusher may be unoccupied,\nbut that caboose could just as easily be crushed or derailed with the\nforces of a pusher engine behind it, as an occupied caboose can be.\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Aside of the human safety factor which I\ncompletely understand and accept; I have difficulty believing\nthat\nwould be the railroad's sole concern. A caboose may not have been the\nmost technologically advanced or expensive piece of equipment\nfound on a railroad, and it still has a financial value in case of\ndamage or loss.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Not to mention the delays to that and subsequent train\nmovements\nand the labor in having to remove the wreckage. Especially so if such\nan occurrence was to take place while traversing over Starrucca\nViaduct?\nIt is 110 feet to he bottom and would make for a mess!
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n So why leave the caboose in front of the pusher\nengine, irregardless?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Without knowing the construction of the\nparticular models of caboose in the images or locating the legislation\nin black and white; I regret to say; I just do not\nknow at this time. If you do, please feel free to contribute at bedt14@aol.com
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$	$\"\"$
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Here\nwe see three locomotives (which appear to be H10 class 2-8-0\nConsolidations),\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npushing against what appears to be a 4 wheel bobber caboose partially\nobscured by the tree. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEach H10 weighed 313,400 lbs. total loaded and\ndeveloped 37,500 lbs of tractive effort each. Ergo, three H10's\nwould\ntotal 940,200 lbs in weight and 122,500 lbs in tractive effort, and\nmore than a single L1. And all of this against a wood bobber caboose? \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMatter\nof fact, this a more risky proposition than the single L1: as when the\nL1 engineer shut the throttle, it stopped pushing. With three\nindividual locomotives under control from three crews, they didn't\nnecessarily all stop pushing at the same instant. So, for a brief\nwindow of a few seconds, one or two of the locomotives could still be\npushing and adding force behind the caboose. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n While\nnot a true \"photograph\", most postcards originated from a\nbasic black and white image. Here we have what an L1 pushing against\nwhat appears to be a wood caboose. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n p. 147: What appears to be a steel caboose\nbetween train and N Class \"Mikado\" #3038, \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n as well as a wood caboose trailing the\nlocomotive, and in almost the same exact location as the image on p.\n180. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n p. 159: Two R Class \"Texas\"\n2-10-2's pushing loaded coal train. First pusher locomotive &\ntender pushing on\ncaboose (appears to be steel) - second locomotive & tender\ntrailing what appears to be a wood caboose. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
.
$\"\"$	\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n p. 160: one R Class \"Texas\"\n2-10-2 and tender with steel caboose; one N Class \"Mikado\" and tender\nwith steel caboose trailing . \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n So for the time being, I have nothing concrete in the way of\nErie\nRailroad rules pertaining to placement or position of a caboose,\nwhether it be wood or steel; and whether between a pusher\nand its train or behind the pusher.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

15.2 - A\nState Regulation?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n On the state level, I did locate the following information on\nthe\nweb. It is from the Pennsylvania Utilities Commission, as adopted 1946\nwhich unfortunately is significantly after the usage era of the L1:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n § 33.53. Pusher\nengines.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n All\ncommon carrier railroads operating in this Commonwealth shall\npromulgate or modify existing operating rules and procedures for the\ngovernment of their respective employes so as to require that the\noperation of a pusher engine or engines behind an occupied cabin or\ncaboose car, in train, shall be used subject to the following\nconditions:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   (1) If the horsepower to be used\nby a pusher engine or engines behind a cabin or caboose exceeds 3,500,\nthe train crew shall, before such a move is made, vacate the cabin car\nand occupy the pusher engine or a cabin car or caboose behind the\npusher engine or engines, and the train shall be brought to a stop\nbefore the pusher engine or engines are detached.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n(2) The practice of ‘‘cutting off on the fly’’ pusher engines\nbehind occupied cabin cars shall be limited to those instances in which\nthe horsepower used by the pusher engine does not exceed 3,500.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSource:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   The provisions of this § 33.53 were\nformerly designated Rule 18 by the Commission.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Unfortunately, this does not shed light on earlier steam\noperations but does shows there were rules for the occupancy of a\ncaboose when placed in front of a pusher locomotive(s).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n What we do know from reading the steam era rulebooks; is\n\"cutting\noff on the fly\" was prohibited. Trains must come to a stop, with the\nhoses for the air brakes disconnected by hand. So obviously, rules\nchanged between steam and diesel era.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n In conclusion; for the era of operations for the L1's\n(1907-1930)\nand whether caboose placement was determined by said caboose\nconstruction, the tractive effort of pusher(s) locomotive(s) and / or\nthe tonnage of the train being pushed; remains to be re-discovered in\nofficial Federal, State or Railroad issued document.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Chapter\n16:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCamelbacks\nBanned?? Not.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

The Much Maligned and Misunderstood Mother\nHubbard

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n It has all too often been stated that the Erie L1 Camelbacks\nwere rebuilt because\ncamelback style locomotives were banned by the (take your pick):

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Interstate\nCommerce Commission,
Federal\nGovernment, or the
Union\n- Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

16.1 - Not True

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Quite frankly, it is also often stated that all\nCamelbacks were \"outlawed\" or \"banned\". However, that is not the\ncase.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Despite being a successful design,\nthere were in fact downsides to the camelback style\nlocomotive.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\nWith the engineers controls and\ncab being relocated to the middle of the boiler to accommodate the wide\nWootten firebox, this had the result of separating the\nengineer\nfrom the fireman at the rear. It is known that speaking tubes (like\nthose on ships) were installed for communication.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Even when mechanical stokers became reliable and more\navailable,\nthe fireman was still separated from the engineer on the other side of\nthe\nboiler. This prevented regular communication (verbal or visual) between\nthe engineer\nand the fireman,\nwhich was inconvenient to say the least.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Another well known disadvantage about crews operating\nCamelback\nlocomotives, was\nthat the engineer was subjected to the heat of the boiler in the small\ncab in\nsummer (no matter how well insulated the boiler jacket was), and the\nfireman\nwas subjected to cold temperatures and wind in the winter under the\nsimple overhang at the rear of the boiler.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n But even this was a bit of hyperbole: the fireman on conventional rear\ncab locomotives were still\nexposed to weather shoveling coal. He might have had a seat in a rear\ncab locomotive in which to rest, but he still had to get up and break\nthe coal up when frozen, rake it down to the deck of the tender, rake\nthe fire, shake the grates, climb up to take open the hatch and take on\nwater; among other physical duties. An engineer still had to get up,\nand climb down to top off oil cup on the journal bearings.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Granted;\non a rear cab locomotive, there might have been a canvas curtain to\ndrawn across the back of the cab in the winter when there finally was\ntime to sit down.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

16.2: Broken Rods / Cab Sideswipe\nIncidents

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n But lack of creature comforts were but a minor inconvenience\nin\nrailroading; when compared\nto potential injury or death. The railroads, like many industrial jobs; saw it fair share of hazards.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Singled out amongst them are: the \"broken rod\" accidents on Camelbacks.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n There obviously had\nbeen at least one instance where\na main rod broke\nand as this\nrod\nbegan flailing about - it literally sideswiped the cab off that\nside of\nthe locomotive, and if happened on the engineers side, it more often\nthan not took the engineer with it.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Despite these rod breakages being far and few between; these rod failures on\ncamelback locomotives were very dramatic; made for good copy; and\nno doubt helped fuel the misguided outrage against camelback\nlocomotives.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n As we can see by the caption for the photo at right, (from \"Train Wrecks\", by\nRobert C. Reed; Bonanza Books, 1968) of which\ncontinues to be shared across the web in numerous railfan groups,\nsocial media forums and blogs; we clearly see but one source of the\nmisconception of the Camelbacks being \"banned\" (of which they were not, and we will get to.)

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

16.3: Then Where are the\nInvestigation Reports?

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n I would expect if these broken rod accidents were so prevalent\nand so many crewmen maimed or injured, there would be plenty of\ninformation in the

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

US Department of Transportation's \"ROSAP\"\n(Repository and Open Science Access Portal)
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNational Transportation\nLibrary;
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBureau of Transportation Statistics - Investigations of Railroad\nAccidents, 1911-1993.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

I have poured over these records several times; and have\nyet to\nfind a single report that specifies a casualty from the side / main rod\nbreaking on a camelback and injuring or killing the engineer.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n I've entered every combination of search terms I can think\nof for this image: \"broken\nrod\", \"main rod\", \"side rod\", \"cab\", \"Camelback\", \"broken journal\", \"swipe\",\n\"Wootten\", \"503\"; \"Delaware & Hudson\" \"Mother Hubbard\"\n\"deckless\"\n\"double cab\".
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n I have found one investigation\nreport due to the result of a broken rod into engineers cab or one that\nspecifies the casualty\nfrom side / main rod breaking. Ironicallyit was on a rear mounted cab locomotive!
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n The incident in question took place at 8:29 pm on July 20, 1951 near\nDelair, NJ on the Pennsylvania - Reading Seashore Lines. A\nReading 4-6-2 \"Pacific\" #130 (class G1-sa - which is of rear cab design\nwith a Wootten firebox) traveling at approximately 50 mph. The main rod\nbroke out at the crosshead wrist pin and the front end of the rod\ndropped to the track; was then thrown upward and back and struck the\nboiler, tearing large holes in the outside and inside throat sheets. The fireman was killed instantly, the engineer fatally injured and passing the following day. (Report 3410)
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Other than that, I find no reports of injuries or fatalities as a\nresult of a broken rod on a camelback style locomotive. If you can locate one, I respectfully request you to please forward it to me\nat bedt14@aol.com\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n As for the photo above right; I have found what I believe to\nbe\nthe accident report for the locomotive in the image: Delaware & Hudson #503;\nand\nthis accident was caused by failure to obey orders causing a collision, NOT a rod failure / sideswipe:\n Investigation #3020:\nDelaware and Hudson Railroad Corporation; The Glen, NY - August 26, 1946

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

. These rod swipes was not the only type of accident that could\nincur to a\ncrewman operating a camelback. There was an incident on the Lehigh\nValley Railroad in Elmira, NY on February 14, 1897 in which the\nengineer, one William Heckman; who leaned way too far out of the cab\nwindow,\nthereby striking his head on a trackside water crane (standpipe), and subsequently\nkilled. \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Yet, the locomotive continued along on its route with his body slumped out of\nthe cab window, until\nthe fireman realized the engineer was not slowing down or stopping as\nscheduled, and thus make his way to the cab via the sideboard to stop\nthe locomotive.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

16.4 - All Locomotives\nHad Accidents
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Needless to say, as dramatic (yet apparently far and few between)\n\"cab\nsideswipe\" accidents occurred on camelbacks, the investigation records for\nrailroad casualties show broken main rods occurred on conventional rear cab locomotives as well.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n By comparison, there are many\nother types of accidents directly related to mechanical failure that\nconventional rear cab locomotives\nsuffered from, that were just\nas dramatic and fatal: crown sheet failures resulting in firebox and\nboiler explosions was but one (and the most prevalent), as well as steam\npipe ruptures. These types of accidents injured or killed\nmany more crewmen than the supposed \"cab sideswipe\" incidents on\ncamelbacks.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n And, there were plenty of other types of accidents as well taking the lives of crew: head on\ncollisions, rear end collisions, bridge collapses,\nopen drawbridge accidents, excessive speed on curves.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

A really great resource on the specifics of fatalities\nand injuries incurred by railroad employees is the:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

US Department of Transportation's \"ROSAP\"\n(Repository and Open Science Access Portal) National Transportation\nLibrary;
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBureau of Transportation Statistics - Investigations of Railroad\nAccidents, 1911-1993.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Despite\nmany attempts and proposals to outlaw them:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

No federal\nlegislation was ever enacted or ratified that outright banned camelback\nstyle locomotives. Period.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Even I have to admit, I was guilty of this false belief for\nmany years.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n That is\nuntil being contacted by Dan Cupper, deputy director of the Railway\n& Locomotive Historical Society. Mr. Cupper graciously\nforwarded me\na back issue of Railroad History, Issue #219 - Fall Winter 2018.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

16.5 - Ames Research

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n In this issue, there is a twenty-three page feature article\nwritten by Gregory P. Ames; with no less than 75 separate\ncitations and references to proposed Federal and\nState Legislative Acts against\ncamelback locomotives, but of which none\nwere never enacted on a Federal\nlevel by the Interstate Commerce Commission, or any other\nfederal agency.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Only two provinces in Canada: Saskatchewan in 1906\nand\nAlberta in 1907;\nactually passed legislation prohibiting new\ncamelbacks from being\nconstructed - but not banning or prohibiting the operation of those\nalready in service. Furthermore, a codicil in those regulations\nenacted in those two Canadian\nprovinces; for those camelback locomotives in service, allowed for a\nthird\ncrewman in the opposite side of the engineer in case of emergency.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n In the United States, Indiana began trying to enact\nlegislation\nbanning camelbacks in 1905; and when this first began, the Erie\nRailroad in response voluntarily swapped out camelback style\nlocomotives for\nconventional cab locomotives, or converted those being rebuilt; so\nwhen legislation finally was enacted in 1913, the issued was pretty\nmuch already resolved. Arkansas' prohibition on camelbacks became\neffective in 1918.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n New Jersey, enacted legislation regulating (but not\nprohibiting) the\nuse of Camelbacks: \"Engineers and firemen - makes it illegal to run\nwhat is known as the camelback locomotive on any railroad without an\nengineer and two firemen. First offense, $100 fine and six months in\ncounty jail; for second or other offenses, $1,000 fine and county jail\nimprisonment not exceeding two years - Assembly Bill 354-307, 792, 794,\n811, 954.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n To\nparaphrase the article of Mr.\nAmes' research, he spent years in attempting to locate the\n(or any)\nactual Federal \"law\". In that time, he contacted and and received the\nassistance of the following:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

George\nDrury; Kalmbach Librarian and author
James\nL. Holton; Reading Company historian
David\nP. Morgan; editor, Trains Magazine
John\nH. White, Jr.; curator, Smithsonian Institution
and\nvarious staff at the archives of Interstate Commerce Commission.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In addition to those mentioned above, archivists\nof the Library of Congress;\nand various State Libraries looked. In short - anything\n-\nthat was actually enacted to federally or on the state level to\nprohibit the construction or use of camelback\nlocomotives.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n But to date, none have been found other than what has been\nspecified above. Yes, there are a lot of newspaper articles, activists\nand the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers union documents calling for\ntheir prohibition. More than one newspaper called them\n\"freaks.\"

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

As you can see, it appears\nonly the camelback style of locomotive bore intense scrutiny - because\nit stood out from the norm. But nothing actually\nwas enacted on the federal level.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n If you are a fan\nof camelback locomotives, and / or wish to read the Ames' research\nabout the\nactual lack of ICC outlaw of camelback for yourself; I highly recommend\nin obtaining a copy.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Back issues are\navailable for $7.50 for members and $15.00 for non-members
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nof the Railway\n& Locomotive Historical\nSociety, and you want Issue 219 -\nFall / Winter 2018.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n While the rod failure / cab swipe accidents were dramatic,\nthey appear at worst, very far and few between. Sort of like commercial aircraft\naccidents - it is the dramatic ones that make the news, but millions of\nmiles are flown without injury or failure; that is, until an accident\noccurs.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Again, the uniqueness and visual oddity of the camelback made it\nstand out. Subsequently,\nthe blame was laid (often erroneously) at the style of locomotive,\nthanks to often misguided media frenzy.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

In similarity: the media\nfrenzy of today regarding accidents with self-driving automobiles. Of\nwhich and upon subsequent investigation, 98% are attributed to human /\noperators\nerror. But yet the style of car itself is blamed and not the person who\nset it on automatic and decided to take a nap.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \"If it bleeds - it leads.\" (And you thought this\nwas recent problem with todays media?)

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n When specifically referencing to the Erie 0-8-8-0's, of which\nnever operated over 30 mph; they\nwere\nnot subject to the high speed stresses incurred by fast passenger\ncamelback\nlocomotives, and therefore never had a rod failure / cab swipe incident\nduring their career.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Eventually, ways were devised to mount\nconventional locomotive cabs to the\nrear\nof the oversized firebox (very well illustrated by the photo of\nthe\n2600 after its rebuilding by Baldwin Locomotive Works), thereby\neliminating the need for anthracite\nburning locomotives with camelback cabs. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n But I digress; back to the supposed \"outlawing of camelbacks\".

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n It has also been stated from time to time, an ICC ban on\ncamelbacks was enacted in\n1918 as well but even here arises a conflict: in 1918 the\nrailroad\nwere under the war time administration of the US Railway\nAdministration! But again as we see, camelbacks were still being built\nafter that\ndate as well.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

16.6: If Camelbacks Were \"Banned\", Then How Come...

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Builders records and references reflect that new camelback\nlocomotives were built right\nup through 1927: Lehigh & New England Railroad had three 0-8-0\ncamelbacks built by Baldwin Locomotive Works and delivered\nin September 1927, the same year this alleged \"ICC camelback ban\" was\nsupposedly enacted.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Irregardless of this, there were 154 camelbacks still in\nservice in 1930; and\n39 still operating in 1941; with the last camelback in revenue\npassenger service\noperating up until 1954 on the Central Railroad of New Jersey.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n There is\neven one camelback locomotive that its operation surpasses those, and\nyou might have heard of\nit; Colorado Fuel & Iron 4 (ex-Reading 1187) which retired from\nthat assignment in 1962, went to the Strasburg RR (tourist\nrailroad) and ran\nfor 5 more years in passenger tourist service. Not a bad service life for a\nlocomotive that was\nsupposed to have been banned thirty some odd years prior.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

So\nwhatever law that supposedly enacted (if said law was actually enacted);\ndid not effect those camelback locomotives already built and operating.\n Add\nthis to the advent of\ndiesel-electric locomotives,\nwhich eventually did away with steam locomotive power altogether.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Referencing those reports and Ames' research; should prove\nthat camelback type\nlocomotives were no more inherently dangerous than any other types of\nlocomotive designs.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

But since the cab\nsideswipe accidents were restricted to only camelback locomotives; and since that type\nof locomotive\nwas an\neasy, visually identifiable target; (and unusual to say the least); it\nleaves not much room for doubt, it was singled out.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

16.7: The Real Demise of\nthe Camelback Locomotive

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Then what caused the camelback's demise? A number of\nfactors:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n 1)\nThe rising cost of anthracite and return to bituminous coal, which\neliminated the need for a Wootten firebox.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n 2) Locomotive designers / mechanical\nengineers found a way to mount a cab on the rear of a Wootten firebox\nin those cases where it was necessary, and

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n 3) The advent and widespread acceptance of the\ndiesel-electric\nlocomotive, which pretty much doomed steam power entirely.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n It's called evolution.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n If one does their homework, when the first diesel-electric\nlocomotives rolled out in the early 1930's they were the \"cats meow\"\nfor switching and yard work: one man operation; no coal to shovel or\nashes to dump. But they had small, noisy cabs and not quite yet\nsuited for long distance passenger trains. That changed in the late\n1940's and early 1950's.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Later diesel locomotives saw the installation of\ntoilets and water coolers. Now refrigerators, air\nconditioners and soundproofed shock-isolated cabs have found their way\ninto locomotive design. Not a single one of these appliances is due to\nsafety. But they are for crew comfort. And camelbacks were no doubt\nthin on crew\ncomfort.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n Much like the Lithium Ion battery fires of eBikes,\neScooters and electric cars that are common today, and that all the\nhoopla and outrage that is carried in the media. It is only a matter of\ntime until that issue is eliminated to a technological advancement.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n It was only 120 years ago that \"safety advocates\" railed\nagainst\nthe explosive hazards of gasoline powered cars; and how household alternating current\nelectricity was an electrocution hazard.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Chapter 17:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA Comparison to PRR's Allegheny Summit Pusher Operation?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n A skewed comparison.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 17.1: Altoona - Gallitzin / Cresson - Johnstown,\nPA
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n One is left to wonder if some railfans attempt to compare the\nnot-as-widely-known Erie pusher operations over Gulf Summit to the much\nmore observable,\npublicized and known Pennsylvania RR helper operations over the\nAllegheny Summit.\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n While similar in premise, i.e.: helping a train\nover a steep natural topographical obstacle, there are significant\ndifferences.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The PRR operation would have locomotives\nassist westbound trains up the grade from Altoona, around\nthe majestic Horseshoe Curve and through the Gallitzin Tunnels to then\nbe cutoff at Cresson - 2.8 miles southwest of Gallitzin, and this is\nthe famous \"East Slope\" - and this was the steeper of the two grades. From here, the\nlocomotives would then be ran\n\"light\" (without a\ntrain) back downgrade and east to\nAltoona.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Likewise, eastbound trains would have\nhelpers added at Johnstown for the not as steep or curvaceous climb to\nCresson, (known as the \"West Slope\") to be cut off at Gallitzin, and\nran\nlight back to Johnstown. Cresson, which was near the summit, was and\nremains the location of helper locomotive servicing facility.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The following table shows the ruling grades for both the Erie section of track\nas well as the Pennsylvania section of track, over the distances shown\nbetween each respective summit to the\neast and west starting points for that ascension.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Also shown in this table are the sharpest curve radii\nwitnessed on\nthe track maps. One significant difference I can observe between the\nErie trackage and the PRR trackage, is that the Erie trackage has way\nmore reversing or \"S\" curves than the PRR trackage does; i.e. on the\nErie trackage, there is a segment of track reverses from 5° 7' to\n5° 1' in the opposite\ndirection\nand back to 4 degrees 43 minutes and all in less than a mile. On the\nPRR, there\nis a compound curve (same direction) 9 degree 25 minute\ncurve with 9 degree (this is Horseshoe Curve), but there is tangent\ntrack both before and after as well as before and after a lot of the\ncurves..
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Gulf Summit (Erie RR)		Allegheny Summit\n(Pennsylvania RR)
east\n▲	elevation	change	ruling grade	tightest curvature	east\n▲	elevation	change	ruling grade	tightest curvature
Deposit	990'				Altoona	1178'
(8.5\nmiles)		385'	1.08	5°\n30'	(12\nmiles)		1017'	2.10	9°\n25'
Gulf\nSummit	1375'				Gallitzin	2195'
(8.5\nmiles)		430'	1.36	6°	(25\nmiles)		1007'	1.50	7°\n24'
Susquehanna	945'				Johnstown	1188'
west ▼					west ▼
$\"\"$		$\"\"$
Distances and\nelevations are calculated from track charts of the respective railroads.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n As we can see; there are significant differences between the\nErie RR\noperation and Pennsylvania RR operation. Not only is the\nclimb\nto the summit of longer distance for the Pennsylvania RR; but the\ncurves are much more spaced out and with fewer reversing / 'S' curves.\nThis allows for\nhigher track speeds and lengths for trains for the Pennsylvania\noperation, and the use of multiple long wheelbase locomotives. It could\nuse three 2-10-4 Texas types coupled to the back of the train, and not\nworry about rail or flange wear as the curves were much shallower.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Also in regard to the PRR trackage, the distances covered\nbetween\nAltoona and Cresson and Cresson and Johnstown are of greater\ndistance, than that of the Erie between Susquehanna and Deposit. This\nadded distance absolutely necessitated carrying more fuel and water,\nand\ntherefore the PRR used locomotives with larger\ntenders.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The PRR utilized four tracks; two in each\ndirection.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In comparison:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

Erie\nchose Susquehanna\nat the\nbottom of the Gulf Summit to service the locomotives, whereas the\nPennsylvania chose to service near the top, at Cresson.
Erie\nchose locomotives specifically built\nfor and dedicated to pushing over Gulf Summit. PRR chose fleets of\nredundant freight service locomotives.
The\ntrackage where the L1's operated was only double track; one in each\ndirection.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n So in short, while there may be physical similarities to a\ntype of operation,\ni.e.: pushing locomotives over Gulf Summit vis-à-vis helpers over\nAllegheny Summit; there is no direct comparison between the accepted\npractices\nof those two railroads, and their operational preference were in fact\nin contradiction to one another.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

$\"\"$

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

January 1, 1907 Agreement - Effective April\n15, 1910; Supplemental December 1, 1910

\n Imagine if you will, my surprise when looking for rules or\nregulations on the placement of a caboose in conjunction with pusher\nlocomotives; I happen across an arbitration filing for locomotive\nengineers for the Erie Railroad.

\n Further imagine my increased delight to see that the\nengineers of\nthe L1's had their own specific pay rate; to the tune of $6.00 per day.\nAllowing\nfor 22 work days per month, that comes to $132 per month.

It should\nbe noted, that these Angus drivers were paid a flat rate for\nthe day (equivalent to 60 cents an hour), and\nreceived pro-rated overtime pay after 12 hours of service,to be reduced\nto 10 hours of service in December 1910. This in\ncomparison to other engineers who were putting in 12-16\nhour days and getting paid 3.9 to 4.2 cents per mile.

\n The average work day for a L1 engineer was 10-12 hours. But\nan L1 locomotive engineer\nwas not moving for all of the those 10-12 hours, so paying him by the\nmile was not equitable.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Which\nis why passenger engineers were paid\nless per mile, as they accrued more mileage per shift. A passenger\nengineer would have to travel 154 miles to equal the flat rate daily\npay of an Angus engineer.

\n Whereas freight\nengineers were paid more per mile as they had\nto wait for orders, signals, taking the siding to get out of the way of\npassenger trains, stopping for coaling and watering. Averaging\n30\nmiles per hour on the Erie, multiplied by 8 hours equals 240 miles. 240\nmiles traveled multiplied by 4.2 cents per mile = $10.08. To\nequal the rate for Angus engineer, a freight engineer would have to\ntravel 133 miles.

\n Yard engineers making 40½ cents per hour, would have to work\nalmost 15 hours to equal the 12 hour pay of an Angus engineer.

But for\nAngus engineers; and at that point in time, $6.00\nper day is not something to sneeze at either. Adjusting\nfor inflation at the time of writing this in February 2022; that\nequates to $169 per day, $3,718 per month, or $44,616 per year.

\n Not bad considering one had set work shift hours, spent some\nof\nthat time waiting for the freight train that needed help to arrive;\nnever ventured far from home, and\ngot to go home nights. And you were in charge of the largest\nlocomotive\nin world.

George W. Ball, son of\nCharles Ball, a mason and contractor of Honesdale, Pa., was born in\nthat city April 23, 1853.

He\nwas an industrious student in the public schools until he was 18 years\nof age, when, having acquired a good education, he cast about for means\nto earn a livelihood. The first opening he found was in the capacity of\nan oiler on the Gravity road for the Delaware & Hudson Coal\nCompany, and he accepted the same, serving them faithfully for one\nyear, when he resigned to take a position as brakeman on the\nErie.

For\nsix years he ran between Honesdale and Port Jervis and then was\nadvanced to fireman. Eight years in this capacity fitted him to become\nan engineer, and in December, 1886, he was promoted to that responsible\nposition. For nine years he ran an engine in the freight department on\nthe Delaware Division, his work demonstrating his entire fitness for\nthe place and winning him the approval of his superiors.

In\n1895 he was given a pusher, which he runs between Susquehanna and Gulf\nSummit, and he is better pleased with this run than with regular road\nwork.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn September 9, 1874, Mr. Ball was united in marriage to\nMiss Ella Eggleston, daughter of Ensign Eggleston, proprietor of a\nlivery barn in Honesdale. Nine children have been born to them, two of\nwhom, Russell and Ruth, died when quite young. Grace, aged 24, is\nmarried; Charles, 22, is a telegraph operator; Lulu, 20, and Mary, 19,\nboth accomplished young ladies, reside at home; James, aged 17, is an\napprentice in the Erie machine shop; Frank, ll, is attending school,\nand Harold Ray, 6, is the baby of the family. Mrs. Ball is a member of\nthe Ladies' Auxiliary Lodge, B. of L. E., and a fine, motherly lady,\nwho takes great pride in her interesting family. Mr. Ball is a very\npopular man, both among his fellow workmen and acquaintances generally.\nHe is a member of Starrucca Division of 137, B. of L.E.; Susquehanna\nLodge No. 246, Order of Red Men, and Canewacta Lodge No. 360,\nF.&A.M.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nExcerpted from: \"American Locomotive\nEngineers, Erie Railway Edition,\" H.R. Romans Editor; Crawford-Adsit\nCompany Publishers, Chicago, IL 1899.

George\nBall, of Engine 2600 fame, absolutely refused to believe the new 5014\nhad anything on the \"Big Ange\", until one day he was assigned to the\nnew machine. Now he is willing to trade even.

Mr. George W. Ball, engineer, is back on the\n\"Matt Shay\" after several months' illness.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFrom\nthe Susquehanna Transcript the death of George W. Ball is learned. It\nstated that he died in St. Augustine, FL, where he went in search of\nrenewed health. He came to Susquehanna 25 years ago and was employed on\nthe Honesdale Branch. He had been formerly employed as engineer in the\npusher service out of Susquehanna, running on the Delaware Division for\na number of years.

Way back when I was 12\nor 13, the\nfamily and I made one of our annual jaunts to Strasburg, PA. I went to\nthe National Toy Train Museum there and much to my shock,\nthere was a brass model of\nan Erie L1 in HO Scale on display.

\n Despite my asking in my local hobby shop, I was never able to\nascertain who manufactured it or where to purchase one (not that I\nfigured I could afford one anyhow!)
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Lapse forward\n30 years, the advent of the internet and advancements in model making\nand tooling (and cheaper Asian labor forces!) saw new L1 models being\nreleased in limited runs and the advertising to see they sold well.

\n There are now quite a few\ncommercially produced\nscale models of this class of locomotive in both HO and O (2 and 3\nrail)\nScale, and in different configurations: as built 1907, and post-1915\n(electric head light middle of smokebox, longer firemans canopy)

\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n (And if anyone out there has a non-operating, damaged, or\nburned\nout HO and / or O scale model they are willing to sell, please\nemail me.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAll I desire are models for static display.)\n

$\"\"$
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFront Cover & Inside of MTH Electric Trains for Erie 0-8-8-0
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nItem #20-3118-1

But alas, all of these\ncommercial releases are cost prohibitive\nfor a casual modeler like myself to own especially as a teen. The brass\nmodels then ran in excess\nof $700, and the O scale ready to run now sell in excess of $1400\nretail.

$\"\"$
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nYes,\nit's photoshopped!
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHow else would I have been able to get an Erie L1 on\nStarrucca Viaduct for the first time in almost 100 years?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMy scratchbuilt HO scale model superimposed on a photo I took of the\nreal Starrucca Viaduct in 2012.

I am not the\nfirst to scratchbuild an Erie L1; as evidenced by an article by Bill\nSchopp in the February 1955\nissue if Railroad\nModel Craftsman shows:

My scratchbuilding the\nErie L1 would be\nmy third attempt at\nscratchbuilding any locomotive in any scale. My first\n\"scratchbuilding\" attempt (re: cobbing) being a non-prototype RS2 short\nhood\nshop switcher on a B chassis;\nmy second attempt being a 0-6-0T BEDT #16 in HO scale (requiring a\nscratchbuilt\nsaddletank) which came out rather well; and I already had modified\nready-to-run locomotives into\neither\nBEDT #14 and #15 or converted a rear cab PRR locomotive to a\nCamelback\n4-4-2 Atlantic.

While I am particularly\ncritical of my\nown creations - I have no patience painting, but will spend hours\ncustom\nfabricating or modifying frames;, I am quite proud of this attempt.\n

The locomotive started\nas an undecorated\nMantua HO scale 2-6-6-2 logging loco (catalog #334) and the tender is\nfrom\nthe Mantua 4-4-2 #460 \"Lindbergh Special\" (catalog #460) or PRR #7002\n(catalog\n#336) locomotives (as well as used by other locomotives in the\ncatalog).\nThis tender closely conforms to the silhouette of the tenders used with\nthe\nL1's.

I purchased\nsuper-detailing parts (valves,\nboiler plugs, handrail standoffs from various vendors in Walthers\nCatalog\nand through local fellow modeler Frank Bell as well as Mantua. Frank\nwas\nalso generous enough to lend me his copy of Al Staufer's \"Erie Power\",\nand\nsomewhere along the line I had located and acquired HO scale drawings\nof\nthe Erie L1 class in one of the railroad modeler magazines. At the\ntime,\nI did not know they were from the February 1955 issue\nof Railroad Model\nCraftsman (Carstens Publishing)... Now I do!\n

The cab is an \"as\nmolded\" from Mantua,\nas are the domes and front headlight (which I know is incorrect). Front\ncylinders\nare Mantua castings from the 2-6-6-2T Booth Kelly logger, (catalog\n#326)\nwhile rear cylinders were original to this model. Hoses and\npiping are\ncustom bent brass rod and various diameter solder. The live steam\ncrossover\nis large diameter solder with heat shrink tubing. The valve in front of\nthe\ncab is a custom hand filed piece of solder. The reversing bell crank is\nstyrene\nand bronze phosphor wire, as are the handrails. The firebox is from the\nshell\nof a Mantua camelback locomotive (although I can't recall which one\nthough,\neither a 4-6-2 or 2-8-2). The boiler in front of the cab is from the\nsame\nMantua kit. The section of boiler between the firebox and cab is heated\nand\nbent styrene sheet, as are the running boards.

The frames are Mantua\nzamac castings for\nthe 2-6-6-2 locomotive (three axles per frame), which as it turned out\ndriver\ndiameter and axle spacing was close enough to satisfy my needs and I\nthink\nboth were only off by a few scale inches). As I required a\nfour axle\nper frame arrangement for my 0-8-8-0, I purchased four frames (two\nfront,\ntwo rear) from Mantua and proceeded cut the first two of the\nthree axles\noff the rear frames and the last two of the three axles on the\nfront\nframes, making a total of four two axle half frames. Then placing them\nin\na jig, I scored the parts with guide lines for alignment,\nmeasuring\naxle spacing, and proceeded to file the mating surfaces with\na jewelers\nfile. I bored holes lengthwise on the cut ends of the four pieces, and\nusing\nsolid brass rod as alignment pins and a dot of two part epoxy on the\nends\nof pins, I proceeded to mate the two halves together for each frame and\nclamped\nfor an hour. Also, the bottom frame covers (which hold the axles in\nplace)\nwere made using the same technique (two each cut in halves), only they\nare\nnot joined and are four pieces, each held in place by the original\nscrew\nat each end of the frame.

Once the frame pins\ncured, I assembled\nthe drive wheels with connecting rods (but not main rods) and checked\nfor\nalignment and binding movement. Fortunately, the design of the frame\nhas\nbrass 'u' shaped axle bearing sleeves that are the full width of the\nframe,\nso I only had to file to \"tweak\" alignment on one bearing sleeve. Once\nI\nwas satisfied with the axle alignments, I assembled the sub-chassis and\nmotor\ndrive, lubricated all axle bearing surfaces with graphite and sewing\nmachine\noil lubricant of my own concoction, and ran the mechanism for\ntwo hours\nin a vise to break in the mechanisms, rods, pistons and other\nreciprocating\nparts.

While this was going on,\nI finished\nsuper-detailing the body and began painting. The smokebox is FloQuil\nflat\nblack with the rest of the body being FloQuil semigloss black, applied\nwith\na sable brush. Like I said, I am not patient when it comes to painting.\nWhen the MTH O Scale models came out, they had Russian Iron sheet metal\nfrom the smokebox back. I really don't know if this was prototypical. I\ncan't see Erie dressing up a mundane pusher locomotive like some crack\npassenger\nlocomotive. Even if they did, it could not have stayed clean and shiny\nfor long. My\npersonal philosophy has always been that freight and industrial engines\nwere\nfor the most part grimy and dented and a shiny, perfect paint job just\ndoesn't\ncapture the \"grit and use\" of a freight engine.

While I used the cast\nzamac boiler weights\nfrom the original model, I added a substantial amount of lead weight to\nfill\nin the remainder of the open space within the body shell. I then test\nassembled\nthe body and chassis for fit, and tweaked accordingly.

Upon completion and my\nsatisfaction of\nfit, I took the locomotive to the Catskill Mountain Model Railroaders\nclub\n(then located in Kelly Corners, NY in the Hubble Brothers building), I\ntest\nran the locomotive on an actual layout with various radius curves and\ngrades..\nAfter some minor tweaking of the articulating frames, I operated the\nlocomotive\nat various speeds, loads and direction for several hours. It ran\nflawlessly.

The next operating day\nof the Catskill\nModel Railroaders Club, I unveiled #2601 in front of the other members.\nFrank\nBell, (who supplied some of the parts and Erie fan) was so totally\ntaken\naback by the locomotive, he immediately offered me a substantial amount\nof\nmoney for it. As much as I liked Frank, I just couldn't bear to part\nwith\n\"my 2601\". We held a little contest on the layout, pitting #2601\nagainst\nthe other locos. For starters, 2601 out-pulled every other single\nlocomotive\nin presence. Then we did a \"load test\".

Other members tried\npulling the same train\nwith one, or in some cases two or three locomotives, and failed. In one\ncase,\nanother member had two diesel locomotives with six powered axles\nattempting\nto pull the 49 car train, but stalled just past the double 's'\nturn\n(point of maximum resistance both on grade and lateral). I ran 2601 up\nbehind\nthe train, and shoved, \"pushing\" the train just like the prototype\nwould in 1907\n(albeit this with steam locomotives on the head end)!

I never got around to\ninstalling DCC into\nthe locomotive, or finishing the superdetailing, so for the most part,\n2601\nnow sits on a piece of panel track in my china cabinet on display.\nEvery\nso often I take it out, put in locomotive cradle and run it to keep the\nmechanism\nin working order. Someday, I hope to take a trip over to Starrucca\nViaduct\nand take better images with Starrucca as a back drop. (You'd think I\nwould\nhave already done so, as Starrucca is only about an hour and half away\nfrom\nme!)\n

If any interested\nreaders would like to submit images\nof their L1 models, please feel free to submit them to me. I would be\nhonored\nto include them here.

30.2: An\nErie L1 built from Lego!
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n It was inevitable. In March 2024, I made acquaintances with\nAdam Hofmann on Facebook, who was looking for erecting drawings for a\nDelaware & Hudson Camelback. I gave him a lead, and in\nconversation\nhe mentioned he executed a kitbash of an Erie L1 in N scale, so I\ninvited him to send a picture for inclusion here.

26 February 2026:	2602 Harold Vollrath print added	Memorabilia & Photographs
20 November 2024:	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \"Real Facts - Not Railfan Fiction\" Chapters added \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\"They\nwere so big, the cabs hit each other killing crews\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n and other fallacies and myths \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
12 November 2024:	Firemans Canopy / Shelter profile changed ca.\n1915	Modifications\n& Differences \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
31\nOctober 2024:	Mallet Compounding and\nArticulated chapters, w/ drawings added	What\nis Compounding? \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Why the need for\nArticulation?
25 October 2024:	2600\nChristening at ALCo print added	Memorabilia\n& Photographs
16 August 2024:	2600\nChristening at ALCo postcard added	Memorabilia\n& Photographs

Prologue:\nAn understanding of what we are talking about:
Specifications of the L1 Class	Preface	Who's who	Why The Cab In The Middle? \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The\nWootten Firebox \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
What is Compounding? \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n If\nonce is good, twice is better.	Why the need for Articulation? \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \"It\ndon't mean thing, if you don't have that swing - doo wah, doo wah, doo wah!	Pushers and Helpers	History of the L1
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Real Facts - not Railfan Fiction: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"It wasn't\nthe biggest - the Big Boy\nwas!\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nNot in 1907.	\"They\nwere so big - the cabs struck each other killing engineers and fireman.\"	\"They weren't\nreliable and didn't last long.\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Reliability\n& Longevity: 23 years at 1,700 miles per month\nin 8.5 mile increments!	\"They only\nbuilt three - \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n because it wasn't successful.\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nNo, because three were only what Erie needed.
\"They Used Two Fireman.\"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nNO! One\nFireman and why there are dual firebox doors	\"That\nSmall Tender\n- \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n it couldn't have been that useful.\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nSmall because they only had to go so far. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	1=2 or 1=3 or 3=6 or 3=9 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n No, it isn't Enron math	\"They were unsuccessful.\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This one again? \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNot in the least: Let's add up the numbers..
Placement of\nthe Caboose \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nBefore or after the pusher locomotive?	\"Camelbacks Were Banned \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nin the U.S.\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nNo they weren't. More bad myth.	Gulf\nSummit vs. Allegheny\nDivide: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \na skewed comparison
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Technical\n Information \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Erie RR Track Chart - 1929 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDelaware Division - Susquehanna to Deposit	Technical Journals &\nPublications \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nRailroad Gazette - Nov 2, 1906 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Railroad Gazette - Aug 16, 1907 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLoco Fireman & Engineman's Journal - Oct 1907 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Engineering News - October 3,\n1907 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLocomotive Magazine (UK) - Sept 14, 1907 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Paper given to ASME\nby C. J. Mellin - Dec, 1908	The Erie Test - 1907 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Dynamometer car -\nErie Railroad	The\nCornell U Thesis - 1908 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n C. R. Cullen / S. D. Gridley - Cornell University
\n Erie\nRR Rule Books & Special Instructions \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Delaware Division - July 1, 1914 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDelaware Division - November 1, 1921	The Baldwin Rebuild - 1921	L1 Mishaps	L1\nEngineers Pay Rate - 1910 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n $6.00 per day
George W.\nBall, loco engineer \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Seniority holder for Pusher Operations \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\non Gulf Summit	E.\nT. Stotesbury \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n (partner\nwith J. P. Morgan) \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n Trustee,\nOwner of #2600, #2601, #2602	Modifications\n& Differences \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n over the years
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Miscellany \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Memorabilia & Photographs	Scale Modeling	Bibliography	The Author
Guestbook

road:	Erie	cylinders,\nlow pressure (front):	39\" bore x 28\" stroke (simple)
Erie\nlocomotive\nclass:	L1	cylinders,\nhigh pressure (rear):	25\" bore x 28\" stroke\n(Mellin compound)
builder:	American Locomotive Co (Schenectady, NY)	valve\ntype, high pressure:	piston \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
builder\nclass:	0880 C410	valve\ntype, low pressure:	Richardson balanced slide
date\nbuilt:	July 1907	valve\ngear:	Walschaerts
number\nin class:	three	boiler\ndiameter :	84\"
Erie\nroad numbers:	2600, 2601, 2602	number\nof tubes:	404
construction\nnumbers:	42269, 42270, 42271	tube\ndiameter:	2.25\"
wheel\narrangement:	0-8-8-0 (articulated, all flanged - no blind drivers)	tube\nlength:	21'
driver\ndiameter:	51\"	steam\npressure:	215 p.s.i.
total\nlocomotive wheelbase:	39' 2\"	grate\narea:	100 sq. ft.
engine\nwheelbase (individual):	14' 3\"	firebox\narea:	343.2 sq ft
total wheelbase\nlocomotive & tender:	70' 5\"	evaporative\nheating surface (total):	5313.7 sq. ft. (5666 sq. ft. after rebuilding)
total\nlength, locomotive & tender:	84' 9¾\" (coupler face to face)	superheating\nsurface:	(1170\nsq. ft after rebuilding)
maximum width:	12' 7\" (cab walls)	total\nheating surface:	6,108 sq. ft
minimum curve radius:	16 degrees	tractive\nforce:	94,070 lbs. @ 90% cutoff; 89,000lbs. @ 85%\ncutoff
locomotive\nweight (on drivers):	410,000 lbs.	axle\nloading:	54,100 lbs.
locomotive\nweight (total):	410,000 lbs. (441,660 lbs. after rebuilding)	factor\nof adhesion:	4.32
tender\nweight (loaded):	167,700 lbs.	indicated\nhorsepower @ 5.0-6.5 mph:	800 - 1141
total\nweight locomotive & tender:	577,700 lbs. (609,360 lbs. after rebuilding)	delivered\nhorsepower @ 5.0-6.5 mph:	584 - 999
tender\ncapacity (water):	8,500 gallons	date\nrebuilt:	1921
tender\ncapacity (coal):	16 tons	rebuilder:	Baldwin Locomotive Works (Eddystone, PA)
fuel:	soft (bituminous) or hard coal (culm\nanthracite)		to 2-8-8-2, cab moved\nto rear, installation\nof: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nElasco feedwater heaters, \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSchmidt superheater \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nRagonnet Type B Power Reverse Gear \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nStandard \"Dupont\" automatic stokers \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSecurity Sectional Brick Arch


all\nscrapped: December 1930

Railroad Gazette -\nNovember 2, 1906 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLocomotive Order Announcement	Railroad Gazette -\nAugust 16, 1907 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDelivery of Order	Locomotive Firemans\n& Engineman's Journal - 1907
Locomotive Magazine\n(UK) - September 14, 1907	Engineering News -\nOctober 3, 1907	American Locomotive\nCo., Articulated Compound Locomotives \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPaper before the American Society of Mechanical Engineers \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n by\n Carl\nJ. Mellin, consulting engineer, ALCo \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNew York City, December 1908

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n unknown publisher, unknown date \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n M. F. Kotowski - 1986 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nAZO Real Photo Post Card \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ndivided back \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npostally unused \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection	$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Locomotive\nPublishing Ltd., 3, Amen Corner, London, E.C., Real Photo Post Card \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nnote this card has person posing by tender steps \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(believed to be E. T. Stotesbury, trustee - see large photo in\nStotesbury chapter) \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nundivided back \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npostally unused \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection
.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Burton, Pub'r, Lanesboro, PA \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ndivided back \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npostally unused \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n C. D. Burton, Lanesboro, PA \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ndivided back \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npostmarked Callicoon, NY - August 26, 1912 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
.
$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n pub.\nby Albany News Company \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ndivided back \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npostally unused \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection	$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nHugh C.\nLeighton, Portland, ME #27053 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMade in Germany \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ndivided back \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npostally unused \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection
.
$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nThe Valentine & Sons Publishing Co, Ltd.\nNew York \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nprinted in Great Britain \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ndivided back \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npostmarked Matamoras, PA - August 19, 1910 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection	$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nLeighton & Valentine Co, N. Y. City. #204840 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPrinting in United States \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ndivided back \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npostally unused \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection
.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n no publisher info \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ndivided back \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npostally unused \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n AZO \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nrppc - divided back \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npostmarked Union Grove, NY - October 15, 1907 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
.
$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Published\nby J. J. Cunningham, Schenectady, NY \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nundivided back \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\naddressed but postally unused \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection	$\"\"$ \n Published\nby Schenectady Souvenir Postcard, Schenectady, NY \ndivided back RPPC \npostally unused \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection
.
$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Herald Post Cards, Hallstead, PA \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ndivided back \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npostally unused \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection	$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nBaker Brothers Elmira, N.Y. #2123 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ndivided back - printed in Germany \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npostally unused \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n No. 2600 Art Tone Series by C. D. Burton,\nLanesboro, PA \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ndivided back - printed in Germany \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npostmarked Susquehanna, PA - July 21, 1910 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nHerald Post Cards, Hallstead, PA \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ndivided back \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\npostally unused \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n Note similarity to Vollrath print below. Appears to have been taken same day. \n\n
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n .
$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Christening\nof #2600 - July 1907 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAmerican Locomotive Company, Schenectady, NY \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAll I can say about this image is \"wow.\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOne of the highest resolution digital prints I have ever encountered\n(or purchased), and historically significant. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn\nthis image we have easily identifiable persons of both the Erie\nRailroad and American Locomotive Co, christening Locomotive #2600: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Angus Sinclair \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Bent\nover, breaking a bottle of champagne on the top of the cylinder (note\nfoil wrapped neck of bottle in hand). Sinclair was a Erie\nRailroad special\ninstructor, locomotive engineering, and publisher of \"Railway &\nLocomotive Engineering\" technical journal. Sinclair's\nother \"contribution\" to the Erie L1, was that he is believed to have\nstated before the L1's were completed, that the L1 would \"dry up the\ncountry's canals and make water transportation obsolete\". While\nthis was clearly hyperbole, it is understood that the Erie RR saw fit\nto honor this statement by assigning Sinclairs' name to the class of\nlocomotive: \"Angus\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Carl J. Mellin \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Supervising\nengineer for American Locomotive Company when the Erie L1's were\ndesigned and built, and he developed and patented the specific compound\ncylinder system used on the Erie L1 design. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Edward T. Stotesbury \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Owner\nand trustee of this locomotive at the time it was constructed.\nStotesbury was a partner at J. P. Morgan and railroad investor. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Fredrick D. Underwood \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n President, Erie Railroad (with rolled\numbrella) \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n T. Rumney \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Mechanical Superintendent, American\nLocomotive (formerly Master Mechanic, Erie RR) \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n I would also like to identify\nother gentlemen in the image, so if you can furnish identification,\nplease contact me at bedt14@aol.com \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI even located the following description accompanying the image: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n CEREMONY\nOF CHRISTENING THE ANGUS ARTICULATED MALLET COMPOUND FOR THE ERIE. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nT. Rumney, Mechanical Superintendent. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n American\nLocomotive Company, Builders. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n When\nthe party of newspaper men had satisfied their curiosity and loaded\ntheir note books with particulars about the engine, \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nsome one proposed that the largest member of the railroad motive power\nfamily should be christened. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Angus\nSinclair was chosen to do the christening. A variety of names was\nsuggested, but none of them was considered satisfactory \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ntill Harry Vought exclaimed: What's the matter with Angus? All agreed\nthat Angus was a good locomotive name, \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nand that was bestowed upon the engine, in our official records as the\nAngus Type Articulated Compounds. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThis is but a faint recognition of the obligations the railroad\ncompanies are under to you for things too numerous to mention. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nnot to be reused or reproduced without consent. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n added 25 October 2024
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Starrucca Viaduct - unknown date \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This\nimage is a first generation high resolution scan of Everett DeGolyer's\noriginal negative. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ncrop and zoom below. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSouthern Methodist University - DeGolyer Library \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nnot to be reused or reproduced without SMU consent. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n added 28 February 2022 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNote\nthe marker lamp to right of tender light and on tender tank. The\nplacement of a red flag or red marker light was specified to be placed \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\non the rear of tender when locomotive was pushing. This was so ordered in the rule books.\nLocomotive is definitely pushing. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
	. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#2601 - Port Jervis, June 1911 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n authors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n . $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n #2601 - builders photo? \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n E. S. Evans, Jr. collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n added 31 October\n2024 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n enlargement of cab writing: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2602 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nANGUS SINCLAIR TYPE \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nARTICULATED COMPOUND
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
$\"\"$ \n\n #2602 - Susquehanna, PA- date? \n\n Note similarity to \nHerald Post Card, Hallstead, PA shown above. Appears to have been taken same day. \n\ndarkroom print from negative collection of Harold K. Vollrath
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#2602 - unknown location (believed to be Gulf Summit, NY) - 1915 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n unknown\nphotographer \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \"American Locomotives\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nby E. P. Alexander, (Bonanza Books, 1950) \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n #2602 -\nunknown location (believed to be Gulf Summit, NY) - 1915 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n unknown\nphotographer \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nstamp on back of photo: C. T. Andrews, 4231 S. W. 38th St. W.\nHollywood, Fla. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nthis\nfirst generation darkroom print is identical to the image in\nAlexander's book, therefore it appears to have been commercially\nproduced.
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#2602 - unknown date - Gulf Summit, PA - unknown photographer \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n from the 1979 Erie Railfan Calendar \n\n\n\n\nreprint from image below \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n added 2021
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n#2602 - unknown date - Gulf Summit, PA - unknown photographer \n\n\n\n\n Appears to have been taken same day as image below. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n added 2021
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
$\"\"$
#2602 - unknown date -\nGulf Summit, PA - unknown photographer \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This\nparticular image is quite an exciting addition to my collection. Just\nwhen you think all that is already out there is all that exists,\nsomething new turns up. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIt is a dark room print from a glass plate negative and this particular\nimage has been unknown until now, \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nas I never seen it published in any historical accounts, industrial\njournals or railfan books or websites. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe back of the image is marked: New Jersey Industrial Photographers -\nP. O. Box 64, Carlstadt, NY 07072 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n authors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n added 27 April\n2023
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#2601 - unknown date (assumed to be 1921) - Baldwin Locomotive\nCo, Eddystone, PA \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNote that the main rods are removed and the head & backup\nlights have already been changed from kerosene to electric and\nrepositioned; \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n firemans\ncanopy extended. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nunknown photographer \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n added 31 August\n2014\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#2602 - unknown date (assumed to be 1921) - Baldwin Locomotive Co,\nEddystone, PA \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Note that the main rods are removed and\nthe head\nand backup lights have already been changed from kerosene to electric\nand\nrepositioned. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n firemans canopy extended. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n unknown\nphotographer \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nauthors collection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n added 31 August\n2014\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAmerican Locomotive Works \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n erecting drawing \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nunknown provenance \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n unknown publication \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIf any reader knows what publication this is from, please let me know\nat bedt14@aol.com\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
$\"\"$
American Locomotive\nBuilders Card for 0880 C410 Type - Erie L1 class \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nof particular note is the listing under \"fuel\": soft coal. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks to the Cullen / Gridley Thesis of 1908, we can now confirm that\nbituminous coal was used in the Erie L1's. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n image from internet \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n added 01 January 2022\n
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n $\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n from The National Geographic Magazine \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOctober 1909 - Vol... XX, No. 10 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ncourtesy of J. Wanzyck \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n added 13 January 2013\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
$\"\"$
This painting sold at\na recent auction (NOT eBay) and as my luck would have it, a year before\n\nI located it. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIt\nwas painted by John Wallace Elder, a professional artist who\nlived\nfrom 1872 through 1954, and created many detailed paintings of\nlocomotives. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe drawing\nis dedicated to the memory of James Millholland (1812–1875).\nMillholland was an American railway master mechanic who is particularly\nwell known for his invention of many railway mechanisms. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMillholland's\ninventions and contributions include the cast-iron crank axle, wooden\nspring, plate girder bridge, poppet throttle, anthracite firebox, water\ngrate, drop frame, \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nand steel tires. He was also an early user and advocate of the\nsuperheater, the feedwater heater, and the injector. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSeveral of his innovations were adopted as standard practice by the\nrailroad industry. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDimensions of the painting are 20 1/2\" tall x 56 1/2\" wide. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEstimated sale price: $1,500 to $2,500. Closing price: $1,400 plus\nbuyers premium of 26%, and shipping. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAs\nI stated, I found this item after the auction took place and closed;\nbut I would have loved to at least partaken in the quest to own it\npersonally. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThat being said, I respectfully request that the\nfortunate person who does now own it would be kind enough to furnish\nbetter images of it, for inclusion here. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIt would be most sincerely appreciated, and if you so wish to be\nrecognized - your name listed here as well. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nimage from internet \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n added 01 January 2022\n
. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
$\"\"$ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n This ladies and gentlemen, is the real deal. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSent to me by a fan of this website and of whom owns this astounding\nartifact. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThis image was offered to be shared\nhere, but the owner wishes to remain anonymous and I will\nhonor his wish; \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\non the proviso that if and when the time comes, and this thing of\nbeauty needs a new home; \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nthat I be thought of. The line forms behind me! \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n added\n11 January 2022

$\"\"$	$\"\"$
Edward T. Stotesbury \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(standing by tender steps)	American Locomotive Company 42269 builders\nplate \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nE. T. Stotesbury \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTrustee, Owner Plate

distributor	manufacturer	item number	scale	material	issue era	prices seen	notes
NJ Custom Brass	Daiyoung	ST 222 / ST 227	HO	brass	ca. 1970's?	$1750 - 2095
Overland	Ajin Precision	OMI 1548.1	HO	brass	1993	$3500 - 3900	post 1915 headlights,\nfiremans canopy

Sunset\n/ 3rd Rail\nModels	(Korea)	\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n	O\n(2 rail)	brass	5/2001
Sunset / 3rd Rail\nModels	(Korea)		O (3 rail)	brass	2001	$899-1600	only 170 issued

MTH\n- (Russian Iron)\n#2600	(China)	20-3852-1	O\n(3 rail)	die\ncast	2023	$1600	locomotive\nonly
MTH - (Russian Iron)\n#2601	(China)	20-3118-1	O (3 rail)	die cast	2005	$1300	locomotive only
MTH\n- (Black)\n #2601	(China)	20-3853-1	O\n(3 rail)	die\ncast	2023	$1600	locomotive\nonly
MTH - (Russian Iron)\n#2602	(China)	20-3441-1	O (3 rail)	die cast	2005	$1399	locomotive, 5 hoppers\n& caboose set
MTH\n- (Russian Iron)\n#2602	(China)	20-3854-1	O\n(3 rail)	die\ncast	\n2023	$1600	locomotive\nonly
MTH - (Black)\n #2601	(China)	20-3442-1	O (3 rail)	die cast	2005, 2023	$1399	locomotive, 5 hoppers\n& caboose set

Albrecht, Harry\nP. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \"Camelback\nLocomotives\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Steam\nLocomotives of Yesteryear \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Harry Albrecht Publishers - February 1971		Railroad\nGazette \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n November 2, 1906 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAugust 16, 1907
Ames,\nGregory P. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \"Mother\nHubbards' Bone of Contention\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Railroad\nHistory #219 - Fall Winter 2018 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Railway & Locomotive Historical\nSociety; 2018		The Railway\nEngineer \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n February 1907
Best, George M.;\nArmstrong, G. W.; Edson, William D. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAll Time Erie Locomotive roster\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Railroad History #131\n- Autumn 1974, p. 22-113 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(Railway & Locomotive Historical Society; 1974)		The Locomotive \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n September 14, 1907
Bogen,\nJules, I. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The Anthracite Railroads - a study in American\nEnterprise \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Ronald Press; 1927 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n		Locomotive\nFiremen and Enginemen Journal \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n October 1907
Charles R. Cullen\n& Sidney D. Gridley \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Test of Mallet Articulated Compound Locomotive on Erie\nRailroad \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Cornell University (Senior\nThesis); 1908 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n		American\nEngineering & Railroad Journal \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n June 1908
Harding, J. W. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Firing of Locomotives, Hand Firing, Oil Burning, Type\nC-2 Boosters \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n International Textbook Co.;\n1912, 1920, 1935 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n		Brother of Locomotive\nFiremans & Enginemens Magazine \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Study\nCourse: Combustion; July 1911 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nhard coal: p.21
Hungerford, Edward \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Men of Erie \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Random House; 1946 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n		Railway\n& Locomotive Engineering \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n XXXVIII #1 - January 1925 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nculm: p.79; Wootten: p.146
Johnson, Ralph P., M\n.E. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The Steam Locomotive - Its Theory, Operation and\nEconomics \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Simmons-Boardman; 1942, 1944,\n1981 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n		Steam Boiler\nEngineering \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n A Treatise on Steam Boilers\nand the Design and Operation of Boiler Plants \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFebruary 16, 1929
Le Massena, Robert A. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Erie's\nMonstrous Mallets \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Railroad Magazine - June 1970;\np. 30-34 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(Popular Publications)		Erie Railroad\n(corporate documents as follows) \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Office of Division Engineer;\nTrack Chart for Eastern District - Delaware Division; 1929 / updated\n1933 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSpecial Instructions, Delaware Division; July 1, 1914 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSpecial Instructions, Delaware Division; November 1, 1921
Mellin, Carl J. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Articulated Compound Locomotives \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n paper read before American\nSociety of Mechanical Engineers \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAmerican Locomotive Company - December 1908 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(reprinted by Periscope Film; 2006)
Reed,\nBrian \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Camels & Camelbacks; Loco Profile 9 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Loco Profile Publications;\nMears Caldwell Hacker - March 1971		SteamLocomotive.com \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n in depth locomotive specifications
Sinclair, Angus \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Development of the Locomotive Engine \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Angus Sinclair Publishing;\n1907 / reprint M.I.T. Press \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n		Wikipedia\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n for selected biographical information \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Schopp, Bill \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Erie\nCamelback Articulated \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Railroad\nModel Craftsman \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Volume\n23, No. 9, \nFebruary 1955) \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n (Carstens\nPublishing)		Google\nMaps \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n for general cartography
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Swingle, Calvin F. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Modern Locomotive Engineering \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Frederick J. Drake &\nCo Publishers; 1908 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Westing,\nFrederick \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nErie Power \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Erie Mallets, p.\n198-215 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Alvin Staufer Publishing; 1970
White,\nJohn H. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n James\nMillholland and Early Railroad Engineering \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n United\nStates National Museum Bulletin 252; \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Museum of History & Technology; Paper 69 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(Smithsonian Press, Washington DC; 1967)