Which RR used them? Which part part of a RR territory were you most likely to see them and what engines were paired with aux tenders?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Illinois Central: 2-10-2's, 4-8-2's; Norfolk & Western: 2-6-6-4's, 2-8-8-2's; Baltimore & Ohio, 2-8-2's (maybe the 2-8-8-0's, not sure) off the top of my head.
CB&Q 2-8-2 4960 used one in excursion service in the 60's.
Rusty
The Norfolk and Western. They were very common on the Y's and A's. Jawn Henry was supplied with one from Baldwin and later got a second. I have one photo of a Class E on a local passenger run carrying an Aux tender.
To the best of my knowledge the Js and Ks did not carry one. Obviously the 611 picked up one when it returned to excursion service.
Rusty referred to B&O mikados having aux tenders. B&O used "water bottles" which looked like tank cars w/o the large dome. I recall seeing them on the Baltimore division.
Colorado and Southern (CB&Q) used aux, tenders in the last days of steam.
Rio Grande used aux. tankcars for water.
Not to mention UP's current aux. tenders
Originally Posted by rheil:
Rusty referred to B&O mikados having aux tenders. B&O used "water bottles" which looked like tank cars w/o the large dome. I recall seeing them on the Baltimore division.
That way they matched the Vanderbuilt tenders...
The thing to remember is "back in the day," aux tenders, water bottles, canteens, whatever they were called, weren't all that common except for a few railroads.
For 21st Century mainline steam operations, regardless of locomotive, and aux tender is just about a requirement as watering operations are time consuming and have to be arranged well in advance.
Rusty
L&N Big Emma 2-8-4 Berkshires ran with A-tanks. The FWRHS's A-tank is one of them.
Originally Posted by Standard Gauge:
L&N Big Emma 2-8-4 Berkshires ran with A-tanks. The FWRHS's A-tank is one of them.
Actually the "A-Tank" used by the FWRRHS is made out of an L&N "Big Emma" tender. I don't think the L&N used "A-Tanks" with their "Big Emma" class locomotives, since the main tenders were plenty big enough.
Originally Posted by Rusty Traque:
Originally Posted by rheil:
Rusty referred to B&O mikados having aux tenders. B&O used "water bottles" which looked like tank cars w/o the large dome. I recall seeing them on the Baltimore division.
That way they matched the Vanderbuilt tenders...
The thing to remember is "back in the day," aux tenders, water bottles, canteens, whatever they were called, weren't all that common except for a few railroads.
For 21st Century mainline steam operations, regardless of locomotive, and aux tender is just about a requirement as watering operations are time consuming and have to be arranged well in advance.
Rusty
Even if it isn't prototypical, I'd love to have a round aux tender to match the Vanderbilt tender on the new Lionel SP 2-8-0s.
Originally Posted by Gilly@N&W:
To the best of my knowledge the Js and Ks did not carry one. Obviously the 611 picked up one when it returned to excursion service.
The Js did carry the water canteens, but only after being demoted to freight service at the end.
The following railroads used auxiliary water cars with steam locomotives: Canadian Pacific, Canadian National, Rio Grande, B&O, Burlington, Colorado & Southern, MoPac, L&N, N&W, IC, NYC (in Ontario only), PRR (after water facilities had been removed, confronting a traffic surge), SP, GN, NP.
Pardon the redundancy and a hat-tip to prior submitters; thought a summary might be useful. Done from memory, a few more may pop to mind. The Rio Grande went so far as to put headlights on the reassigned tank cars that functioned as aux water cars. They were assigned to locomotives in helper service on Soldier Summit, UT and would back down hill after completing the shove.
Also DM&IR.
Aux water cars were used behind a wide range of locomotives: 4-6-0's (NYC, CPR), 4-8-0's (GN, SP) all the way up to 2-8-8-2's (DMIR, DRGW).
Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Originally Posted by Standard Gauge:
L&N Big Emma 2-8-4 Berkshires ran with A-tanks. The FWRHS's A-tank is one of them.
Actually the "A-Tank" used by the FWRRHS is made out of an L&N "Big Emma" tender. I don't think the L&N used "A-Tanks" with their "Big Emma" class locomotives, since the main tenders were plenty big enough.
Thank you for the correction. I did some research, and yes, FWRRHS's A Tank is an ex-L&N Berk tender. However, I also read that the L&N did use A-tanks, but not with their Berks.
PRR Sandusky line, but this is a rare event, only ever seen a couple of photos. I'm guessing that this was initiated towards the very end in Nov. '57.
While the NKP 765 was as Steamtown over Labor Day, you could see the former High Iron Company 759 aux. tank, a former N&W Z-class tank, very visible.
What happened to the N&W one(s) that were still in Roanoke when the Class M 4-8-0's and the W Class 2-8-0 were saved (and scattered) about 10 years ago?
The Pennsylvania and New York Central used a water scoop feature on some of their tenders so the engine could get water on the go. There was a water trough placed between the rails and the fireman usually had to let the tender scoop down and pick it up before the end of the water trough or it would be damaged.
Auxiliary tenders were used from the late 1950's and on, because like others mentioned there was little or no water stops located along a track run. Some tenders could take around 400 to 1000 gallons(maybe more) of water at one stop.
Lee Fritz
Originally Posted by phillyreading:
The Pennsylvania and New York Central used a water scoop feature on some of their tenders so the engine could get water on the go. There was a water trough placed between the rails and the fireman usually had to let the tender scoop down and pick it up before the end of the water trough or it would be damaged.
Both the NYC and PRR water scooping philosophy was to scoop small amours of water from the track pans at speed, often enough that the tender was always about half full. The NYC eventually went much further with the designs of their tenders The huge PT style) and thus were able to scoop water at speeds over 70/75 MPH.
Auxiliary tenders were used from the late 1950's and on, because like others mentioned there was little or no water stops located along a track run. Some tenders could take around 400 to 1000 gallons(maybe more) of water at one stop.
The standard size of wayside water columns/spouts were capable of supply 3000 to 5000 gallons per minute (10" to 12" diameter supply pipes), thus during a 1 minute station stop, a passenger locomotive could take on a LOT of water. Freight trains, not being a as tight a time schedule, could fill the tender.
Lee Fritz
Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Originally Posted by phillyreading:
The Pennsylvania and New York Central used a water scoop feature on some of their tenders so the engine could get water on the go. There was a water trough placed between the rails and the fireman usually had to let the tender scoop down and pick it up before the end of the water trough or it would be damaged.
Both the NYC and PRR water scooping philosophy was to scoop small amours of water from the track pans at speed, often enough that the tender was always about half full. The NYC eventually went much further with the designs of their tenders The huge PT style) and thus were able to scoop water at speeds over 70/75 MPH.
Auxiliary tenders were used from the late 1950's and on, because like others mentioned there was little or no water stops located along a track run. Some tenders could take around 400 to 1000 gallons(maybe more) of water at one stop.
The standard size of wayside water columns/spouts were capable of supply 3000 to 5000 gallons per minute (10" to 12" diameter supply pipes), thus during a 1 minute station stop, a passenger locomotive could take on a LOT of water. Freight trains, not being a as tight a time schedule, could fill the tender.
Thanks, interesting. Approximately how many GPM does a fire hydrant put out? I'm sure it can vary based on location, but it always seems VERY slow to fill the tenders using hydrants.
Lee Fritz
Originally Posted by Standard Gauge:
Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Originally Posted by phillyreading:
The Pennsylvania and New York Central used a water scoop feature on some of their tenders so the engine could get water on the go. There was a water trough placed between the rails and the fireman usually had to let the tender scoop down and pick it up before the end of the water trough or it would be damaged.
Both the NYC and PRR water scooping philosophy was to scoop small amours of water from the track pans at speed, often enough that the tender was always about half full. The NYC eventually went much further with the designs of their tenders The huge PT style) and thus were able to scoop water at speeds over 70/75 MPH.
Auxiliary tenders were used from the late 1950's and on, because like others mentioned there was little or no water stops located along a track run. Some tenders could take around 400 to 1000 gallons(maybe more) of water at one stop.
The standard size of wayside water columns/spouts were capable of supply 3000 to 5000 gallons per minute (10" to 12" diameter supply pipes), thus during a 1 minute station stop, a passenger locomotive could take on a LOT of water. Freight trains, not being a as tight a time schedule, could fill the tender.
Thanks, interesting. Approximately how many GPM does a fire hydrant put out? I'm sure it can vary based on location, but it always seems VERY slow to fill the tenders using hydrants.
Lee Fritz
From experience, a REALLY good fire hydrant might provide 400 to 500 GPM, of course that would be unassisted by a pumper fire engine. We have had a few cases when the town really wanted to "put on a show", and hooked the "big hose" up to the hydrant, and then ran two 2 1/2" hoses to the fittings on the aux tender, and could then furnish 1500 to 1800 GPM, with the pumper "sucking" on the hydrant.
The "norm" from a fire hydrant, un assisted, has been about 300 GPM, through a 2 1/2" fire hose. That is why main line steam operations, over the las 30+ years tend to use auxiliary water tenders. That way, spending two or more hours re filling the tender/tenders, is accomplished AFTER arrival at the overnight stay point of the trip. That way the locomotive gets completely serviced, refueled, and re-watered, prior to the crew going to the motel.
The MoPac's were tank cars with a bit of extra plumbing.
Several pics in Colias' MoPac Power.
Originally Posted by mark s:
The following railroads used auxiliary water cars with steam locomotives: Canadian Pacific, Canadian National, Rio Grande, B&O, Burlington, Colorado & Southern, MoPac, L&N, N&W, IC, NYC (in Ontario only), PRR (after water facilities had been removed, confronting a traffic surge), SP, GN, NP.
Pardon the redundancy and a hat-tip to prior submitters; thought a summary might be useful. Done from memory, a few more may pop to mind. The Rio Grande went so far as to put headlights on the reassigned tank cars that functioned as aux water cars. They were assigned to locomotives in helper service on Soldier Summit, UT and would back down hill after completing the shove.
Yes, MoPac auxiliary water cars were tank cars. They were visible on Mikes being used on MoPac's coal line to Bush-Hurst, IL, as pictured by Phil Hastings in David P. Morgan's "The Mohawk that Refused to Abdicate".
This prompter reminded that the Chicago Great Western also used tank cars for auxilary water cars. Most all tank car water cars had different style platforms and safety hand railing, as opposed to a conventional tank car.
Originally Posted by NKP779:
What happened to the N&W one(s) that were still in Roanoke when the Class M 4-8-0's and the W Class 2-8-0 were saved (and scattered) about 10 years ago?
Great question. I have asked the same question before, along with pics too. No response on this forum, yet.
Originally Posted by rattler21:
Wasn't using the tender's water scoop called jerking? Hence the term Jerk Water Town as a town too small to have the train stop even if only for water.
John
Don't think so, as the term "Jerk Water Town" was in use long before NHC or PRR began scooping water from track pans.
Yes.......a fireman typically had to "jerk" the water spout down on a water tank, and take water fast, particularly on a passenger train. The phrase "jerk water town" seemed to apply to towns that had little reason to exist, except as a water stop on the railroad...ie, small, inconsequential. Always liked the expression! But it has faded away with the steam locomotive.
