Railfan.net Home Railfan Photos ABPR Archives Staff Safari Photos Railfan Links

Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please Sign In or Register. Mar 24th, 2017, 11:53pm
Categories •  FastIndex •  LongIndex •  Help •  Search •  Members  •  Sign In •  Register


Engine Discussion: #26
   Railfan.net Web Forums
   Tourist Railroads and Museums
   Steamtown
(Moderators: NKP759fan, strasburg90)
   Engine Discussion: #26
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  ...  15 (last) ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint
   Author  Topic: Engine Discussion: #26  (Read 15234 times)
GWR90
Historian
Posts: 352
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #40 on: Sep 24th, 2005, 1:43am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Well i have to say one thing 26 could have been done 2yrs ago. But the poor people in the shop are over burdened. 3254 as been nothing but problems this summer. Another thing thats killing 2317 is that it has what is called a lateral movement trailing truck, it doesnt piviot thats killing the #3 drive wheel. Also there is a chip out of the flange on the #3 drive wheel now that in my opinion is a little scary! I hope the 3254 behaves itself so 26 can get finished its such a simple little engine. Aslo I heard that when the 2317 comes in for its big inspection they are going to completely gut the entire boiler every thing is coming out! I just hope that Steamtown makes the right decision and keeps the 2317 in service it is the back bone of Steamtown!

Logged

Some technical facts about GWR 2-10-0 #90
Built: June 1924
Builder: Baldwin Locomotive Works
Builders #: 57812
Class: 2-10-0 Light Decapod
Driver Diameter: 56 inches
Weight w/tender: 186 tons
Fuel: Coal 15 tons
Water: 9,000 Gallons
Sold to the SRR for over $35,000.00 in 1967
dh7312
Railfan
Posts: 188
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #41 on: Sep 24th, 2005, 6:06pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

hey lets hope all goes well with the 3254 this fall so we can see more progreess on the 3713 and 26. also i hope if they tear down the 2317 that all is well so its not stuck in the shop for many years cause that would really suck cause u are right the 2317 is the backbone of steamtown !  

Logged

Jerry
S.S.T.S. 6464
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 984
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #42 on: Sep 24th, 2005, 6:33pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I think they will probably wait to do big time work on #2317 until either #26 or #3713 is done, or both, most likely until #3713 is done, I doubt they will make a situation of only one operable steamer, and the #3254 at that, with her recent mishaps, which I believe will be put behind her. I think once the #3713 starts poundin up and down the main, if the #26 is not yet finished, #3713 will do the excursion work and #3254 will do the little yard stuff, and work will begin on #2317, and I think it is going to be major, maybe a 2 year or so project.

Logged

West Chester Railroad www.westchesterrr.net
-The Route of the Flying Turkeys!
I lay my head on the railroad tracks, to wait for the double E,
the railroad don't run no more. Poor Poor pitiful me! -Warren Zevon
dh7312
Railfan
Posts: 188
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #43 on: Sep 24th, 2005, 6:44pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

2 yrs sounds about right for that theres not that much really wrong with the 2317 but it will be nice when the 3254 2317 3713 and 26 are all runnig then what will they do lol  

Logged

Jerry
S.S.T.S. 6464
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 984
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #44 on: Sep 24th, 2005, 7:00pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

IMO #2317 will get some well deserved shop time and rest, she has been a workhorse and if we want her to continue to do so, some rest and preventative stuff would be a godsend. I think after #3713 and #26 are done, and #2317 has her work done, somewhere in between the passenger cars will be rehabbed, and then they will move on to the next project, either IC #790, NKP #759, or NHTR #43. #43 IMO should be next so they have a Vulcan loco operating up there close to where it was built. It would be ideal to have her shuffle about with a coal hopper or two and a caboose. Imagine this: #2317 and #3713 alternating on the big time excursions and an occasional double-header, #3254 doing photo frieghts, yard stuff, and excursions, #26 pulling the yard shuttles again and maybe the caboose thing, and #43 doing the caboose thing and some yard shuttles, it would be great if every locomotive had an immediate alternate for the job they perform, for example if #26 has some issues, #43 can be called in to do her tasks, or if #3254 has some bugs either #3713, #26, or #2317 can be pulled in and so on. I'm almost leaning towards not being pessimistic  

Logged

West Chester Railroad www.westchesterrr.net
-The Route of the Flying Turkeys!
I lay my head on the railroad tracks, to wait for the double E,
the railroad don't run no more. Poor Poor pitiful me! -Warren Zevon
dh7312
Railfan
Posts: 188
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #45 on: Nov 2nd, 2005, 6:19am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

well how are things going with this little cutey will we see her this comming year?

Logged

Jerry
NKP759fan
Moderator
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 1712
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #46 on: Nov 2nd, 2005, 7:36am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Sep 24th, 2005, 7:00pm, leol39 wrote:       (Click here for original message)
IMO #2317 will get some well deserved shop time and rest, she has been a workhorse and if we want her to continue to do so, some rest and preventative stuff would be a godsend. I think after #3713 and #26 are done, and #2317 has her work done, somewhere in between the passenger cars will be rehabbed, and then they will move on to the next project, either IC #790, NKP #759, or NHTR #43. #43 IMO should be next so they have a Vulcan loco operating up there close to where it was built. It would be ideal to have her shuffle about with a coal hopper or two and a caboose. Imagine this: #2317 and #3713 alternating on the big time excursions and an occasional double-header, #3254 doing photo frieghts, yard stuff, and excursions, #26 pulling the yard shuttles again and maybe the caboose thing, and #43 doing the caboose thing and some yard shuttles, it would be great if every locomotive had an immediate alternate for the job they perform, for example if #26 has some issues, #43 can be called in to do her tasks, or if #3254 has some bugs either #3713, #26, or #2317 can be pulled in and so on. I'm almost leaning towards not being pessimistic  

 
 Leo, great idea. I love it. Just imagine all those steamers in the yard. The 43 would be an easy engine to run, one person should be enough to run it. But the 2317 should get a rest, the old girl is starting to get tired. The 3254 is just dying to run more. But those engines were never meant to run back in forth in the yard, thats 26's job. I just can't wait till the 26 and 3713 are done, I would also say that the passenger coaches would be priorite after the 3713 and 26 are done.


Logged

Nickel Plate Road "Berkshire" #759
Built: August 1944
Builder: Lima Locomotives Works
Driver diameter: 69 inches
Boiler Pressure: 245
Coal: 22 tons
Water: 22,000 gallons
Retired: 1958
Used on the famous High Iron Excursions
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/steamtown/shs2o.htm
adam17
Former Member
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #47 on: Nov 2nd, 2005, 9:32am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Do you think the #26 could make up to Moscow and back with like 3 cars?

Logged
S.S.T.S. 6464
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 984
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #48 on: Nov 2nd, 2005, 9:47am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I personally doubt her tender holds enough to make it that far. The DL might also not be too keen on the idea, she may be rough on track up through there.

Logged

West Chester Railroad www.westchesterrr.net
-The Route of the Flying Turkeys!
I lay my head on the railroad tracks, to wait for the double E,
the railroad don't run no more. Poor Poor pitiful me! -Warren Zevon
adam17
Former Member
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #49 on: Nov 2nd, 2005, 3:21pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Oh ok. Just wondering. Oh well.

Logged
3254Fan
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 377
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #50 on: Nov 2nd, 2005, 3:44pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

26 could certainly not make it to Moscow. When the engine was ran on the Carbondale line for the Santa trains, it nearly ran out of water several times. Plus it was pullin 4 cars at 10 miles an hour and a fireman told me that the draft was bad for the firebox and when the roundhouse crews shut the engine down, they found that 75% of the tubes were clogged with coal. Definitely not a good thing. Running to Moscow what be 10 times worse.

Logged

Moderates: East Broad Top
The_Former_Fireman
Railfan
Posts: 123
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
  26carb.jpg - 35176 Bytes
« Reply #51 on: Nov 2nd, 2005, 5:12pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Hello All
 
Long time listener, first time caller as they’d say.  I fired for several years at Steamtown (into 2001) after spending several years before that as a park ranger.  What 3254fan said is dead on.  When we ran the 26 to Carbondale with 4 cars (and a caboose) we found that while the engine had the “power” aka tractive effort to do the work, it lacked sufficient steaming capacity.  While the 26 is a husky little engine, it’s not superheated and has a relatively narrow firebox providing a limited heating surface.  In short, we could keep with fire hot as h… but as we ran we would be taking the steam out the boiler faster than the water could be heated to replace it.  We also hard a hard time keeping water going into the boiler.  When you put water into a boiler, you take the pressure down some.  Our rule was no more than a 5 psi drop per shot of water, and even that was a lot, we tried to stick to around 2 or 3 pounds for the sake of the equipment.  Back to the point, with the boiler sucking water (made worse by trying to run steam heat) we would up knocking the pressure down farther than we wanted to keep water at safe levels.  Several times we had to stop, build up pressure and build up the water.  The we had to stop to fill up the tender tank itself halfway to Carbondale.
 
Another “devil in the details” as 3254fan mentioned was the drafting problems.  With the relatively small drive wheels, no superheating, no arch brick and no combustion chamber, the engine had quite a draft.  We were literally piling coal into the rear of the firebox, then having the draft pull it forward against the tubes as we went along.  Attempts to pull the coal back off the tube sheet with a long fire rake were only semi-successful, since the fire was white hot and we couldn’t exactly see what we were doing anyway.  I remember I got quite a “sunburn” having the fire doors open while raking back the coals that cold December day.  Believe it or not we were still able to depart Carbondale headed south and arrive at each town with Santa on time!
 
This (1998?) was first time, and only time we tried running the 26 to Carbondale with a heavy train by itself.  The year before the 26 and train were pulled North to Carbondale by a diesel.  A few years previous to that the 26 had gone up the Carbondale line for a special event which included the opening of the reproductions train stations in Olyphant and Carbondale, but this was with 2 lighter DL&W MU electric trailer cars, not 4 heavy steam cars and a caboose.  The time I was fireing was the first real large-scale use of the 26 solo on the Carbondale line and was a weekend of trial by fire, as it were.  There were, if I remember correctly, actually 3 days of trips with the engine laying over in South Scranton each night that year.
 
The Tuesday after the Carbondale runs the 26 went down for a boiler wash and well over half the tubes were blocked with coal, which further severely hinders steaming capability.  The following year the consist was towed to Carbondale with a diesel  and then ran under its own power through the towns back to Scranton stopping along the way with Santa, much, much easier.
 
As an aside, speaking of the pulling power the 26 did have.  We used to, quite often shuffle the excursion consist from one track to another.  After each weekend the consist (up to 10 cars during busier times) would be cut on the main, so the toilet truck could come and dump the restrooms Monday morning.  After this was done we would come over with the 26 and hustle the cars up past the mall and back over to what’s known as the depot runaround track.  That was some of the loudest “stalk talk” I’ve ever heard, the 26 pulling almost a dozen passenger cars half a mile up grade.  Nothing we could keep up for a long distance, but boy those few minutes each Monday were a blast.
 
As far as the 26 going to Moscow, I believe you could take a passenger car or two or a freight car up the hill and back, you’d be hurting for water though, I’m not sure you’d make it as far as Moscow before you ran out.  If you had a square tender, maybe…
 
The 26 did go up the Pocono line as far as Myrtle Street for a commercial in 1999 if I’m not mistaken, with 2 cars, and they had the same hard time keeping water in the boiler that I described above.
 
Hope you enjoyed my ramblings, or at least found them useful.  
 
Dave Crosby
 
PS Below is a shot I took of the 26 on the Carbondale job in 1998


http://Forums.Railfan.net/Images/Steamtown/26carb.jpg
Click Image to Resize

Logged
The_Former_Fireman
Railfan
Posts: 123
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
  26night.jpg - 34406 Bytes
« Reply #52 on: Nov 2nd, 2005, 5:14pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Another Shot of the 26, laying over in South Scranton between Carbondale trips, when I babysat it all night, in 1999.
 
Dave Crosby


http://Forums.Railfan.net/Images/Steamtown/26night.jpg
Click Image to Resize

Logged
adam17
Former Member
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #53 on: Nov 2nd, 2005, 5:58pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

You fired? Wow! That's kool!. Anyway, do they still do the Santa Runs down there? 3254 could handle the job, couldn't she?

Logged
565fan
Historian
Posts: 1023
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #54 on: Nov 2nd, 2005, 10:53pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Great googly-moogly!  The Former Fireman makes an appearance on Railfan.Net!  The world must be collapsing on itself, since I thought you would never be drawn in by railfanny chat!  Good photos, though.


Logged

www.project3713.com

adam17
Former Member
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #55 on: Nov 2nd, 2005, 11:33pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

LOL!

Logged
NKP759fan
Moderator
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 1712
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #56 on: Nov 3rd, 2005, 7:24am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Hey guys,
 The 26 was never meant for the mainline because if it went faster then 30 or so the equalizer bar might break, an equalizer bar is used when there is no lead truck so al the weight up front is leaning on that bar. I have the movie "Stories from the Mines" and it shows the 26 with 2 passenger cars blasting out of the Nay Aug tunnel, and I mean blasting!! Nice pictures Dave. I especially like the shot of the 26 simmering out in the yard at night.


Logged

Nickel Plate Road "Berkshire" #759
Built: August 1944
Builder: Lima Locomotives Works
Driver diameter: 69 inches
Boiler Pressure: 245
Coal: 22 tons
Water: 22,000 gallons
Retired: 1958
Used on the famous High Iron Excursions
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/steamtown/shs2o.htm
adam17
Former Member
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #57 on: Nov 3rd, 2005, 9:11am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify   Remove

Hope she's done soon!

Logged
BAFjd
Railfan
View Profile  

Posts: 112
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #58 on: Nov 3rd, 2005, 2:48pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

How long is the trip from Scranton to Carbondale and what type of grades are you encountering?  It seems strange that at low speeds that engine couldn't keep up steam.  Sounds like the engineer must have been running with the reverser in the hole and the throttle on the roof to be drafting that hard with 4 coaches to pull all the coal to the flue sheet.

Logged
The_Former_Fireman
Railfan
Posts: 123
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #59 on: Nov 3rd, 2005, 3:10pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Great Googly Moogly...  I like that one.  I figured since I know enough of the people who frequent here I might as well pop in and ramble a while like everyone's weird uncle who tells stories for hours on end.   Feel free to ask me whatever you like about my time on the steam engines, keep in mind that I do have a microchip implanted at the base of my brain that knocks me out if I get involved in "political" discussions about steamtown.
 
Back to the 26.  The grade to Carbondale isn't all that bad, certainly not as bad as the Lacakwanna line, but I suppose it was just enough to overtax the 26.  And yes, there were engineers who would run with the reverser pegged all the way back (the 17 mile uphill trip to Carbondale was run in reverse to boot), but that's another issue.
 
759 fan is correct, the 26, by all laws of god and man was never designed or intended to go more than 20 mph, let alone 30, there are times however that this did happen, making for quite a rough ride.  The specifics of how those 30+ mph rides took place are somewhat of a gaurded secret however.
 
Dave Crosby


Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  ...  15 (last) ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint

« Previous topic | Next topic »