Did steam engines ever use a second tender to allow longer range

A number of railroads did indeed use a "second tender" for additional water capacity. Most notably was the Norfolk and Western, followed by the Illinois Central, B&O, and some other eastern railroads. I'm not aware of any western railroads that used auxiliary water tenders, back in the steam era.

The second tender was called the “Auxiliary Tank” and carried only water. On the 765, we called it the “A-Tank.”

The typical steam locomotive carried more miles worth of coal than water. It was relatively easy to take water en route, so this made sense. However, a water stop could easily consume 30 minutes or more. Using an A-tank made the coal and water come out about even and eliminated a water stop.

@bigkid posted:

. I suspect if they did it was rare, because using a second tender raises questions about how it could be pulled (since tenders only have a coupler on one side, the drawbar connection is on the other), how to get water from the 2nd tender to the first (you could say couple the 2nd tender to the engine and put the first one behind it, but again how?). If the second tender had two couplers, it could be behind the first one, but then you would need a way to connect the 2nd tender to the engine or have a way to pump water from tender 2 to the first one...

Again guys this is just a question that popped into my head, my guess is likely no one ever did this.

The auxiliary tender is equipped with couplers on both ends.  Hoses connect the two tenders and, as water seeks its own level, the water level drops in both simultaneously.  No pumps involved.

It's no big deal replace the drawbar with a second draft gear and coupler, even IRM did it...

Note IRM's aux tender is lower than 1630's.  Either the crew fills 1630's tank to the level of the aux or the interconnecting hose valves are closed until the water level in 1630's tender drops.

Rusty

Thanks all, I learn something every day on here. What inspired this was reading the article about using water scoops and wondering if they used what I now know to be the auxiliary tender.

I wish I remembered the name of the video, but there is a DVD I have at home (I'm on lunch at the office now) that has lots of Norfolk and Western A class locomotives with auxiliary tenders in service in the 1950's.  Great viewing.  I'm sure the video is on YouTube also. 

The B&O Q4b (2-8-2) sometimes used an aux water tender, sometimes referred to as a "water bottle".

Odd that western roads may not have used second tenders, given some arid routes and long distances and trains and steep grades.  I can't recall any, but plenty of double/triple/XX helper trains . Anybody got a photo of that double tender coupling west of St.  Louis?

@colorado hirailer posted:

Odd that western roads may not have used second tenders, given some arid routes and long distances and trains and steep grades.  I can't recall any, but plenty of double/triple/XX helper trains . Anybody got a photo of that double tender coupling west of St.  Louis?

A pair of Colorado & Southern 2-10-2's with aux tenders.

Rusty

In the Far West the water tanks were about 10 miles apart.

The water would be pumped by a windmill if need, or piped from a stream.

If no water was around or the well went dry, water could be brought in by water cars.

Water or lack of it could make or break a train route.

The T&P and MoPac turned tank cars into extra water cars for steam locomotives.

Several were 8000 gallon tank cars with the dome removed.

I have seen pictures and even a brass O scale model of one.

These railroads used auxiliary water cars with some of their steam locomotives:  Norfolk & Western, Illinois Central  (pardon my repeating some prior postings herein, but re-stated to provide a complete list), Baltimore & Ohio, Burlington, Colorado & Southern, Southern Pacific, Missouri Pacific, Kansas City Southern, Katy, Great Northern, Northern Pacific,  Canadian Pacific, Missabe Road, Rio Grande, Denver & Salt Lake,  Uintah RR, Louisville & Nashville, New York Central/Canada, and Texas & Pacific.  Probably a few more that don''t come immediately to mind.

The N&W's use of auxiliary water cars allowed it to run coal trains almost 10% heavier between Portsmouth and Columbus, OH (160 cars to 175). Their A Class 2-6-6-4's could run non-stop with the larger trains. This allowed the 2-6-6-4's to employ maximum horsepower at the peak of their power curve, rather then laboring to start a heavy train from a mid-way water stop (at the bottom of their power curve). This represented a substantial increase in ton miles/hour.

I think the LNER Flying Scotsman sometimes used doubl tenders too for its non-stop trips.

There was another reason not mentioned for the use of auxiliary water cars.  Tenders were limited in size, so that the engine with tender attached could fit on a turntable.  So railroads as previously mentioned built there tenders with more coal capacity then water capacity.  There was no practical way to get the coal from an auxiliary tender, water no problem.  Also when you see the PT tenders used by the NYC which had scoops, you will notice the wheel arrangement looks very odd.  This is so they could fit on the turntables.

@Texas Eagle 77 posted:

The T&P and MoPac turned tank cars into extra water cars for steam locomotives.

Several were 8000 gallon tank cars with the dome removed.

I have seen pictures and even a brass O scale model of one.

Believe the Canadian Pacific also used 8000 gallon tank cars in "water service".

I've been wondering this also.

I knew about the auxiliary tenders, but what about just another regular tender hooked up.

Reason I'm wondering is I have a spare USRA style tender with no engine to put it behind.

I've seen 1 photo of an engine with 2 regular tenders, but it appeared the 2nd tender was simply in tow.

The Virginian was an early user of aux water tenders due in part to the relatively short length of their turntables.  Note the tiny tenders on the monster VGN Class AE 2-10-10-2s -- that was by design, so they could turn the beasts using their existing infrastructure.  All of these "tanks" were made in VGN's Princeton WV shops rebuilt from retired engines' tenders.

Virginian rostered two types of aux water tanks -- the 13,000 gallon class AE and the 14,860 gallon class AD.  Not sure if those class designations meant they were originally supposed to be matched with the accompanying locos of the same designation (VGN AE was the 2-10-10-2 and AD was 2-8-8-2).

Just have a look at the Big Boy next time it comes to town.  ;-)

Mitch

The Missabe Road used converted tank cars as second tenders on their 2-8-8-2s in the 1950s. IIRC when DMIR predecessor Duluth Missabe & Northern bought the engines, they ordered them with fairly small tenders so they could fit on the road's existing turntables.

I recall reading somewhere that in the 1950s a number of railroads converted regular tenders to water-only auxilliary tenders, because it allowed them to remove some water tanks since the engines could go farther with the second tenders...and they had extra tenders from scrapped old steam engines they could use.

I probably should have elaborated a little more on the turntable length issue.  When the railroads went to the "final generation" of steam locomotives the people in charge realized that the days were numbered, as Diesel-Electric was already "proving itself".  They realized there was no good reason to invest in infrastructure that would soon be obsolete.  So not only were the turntables and roundhouses not replaced with newer larger ones, but the Maintenance/Replacement of Water towers was also not carried out.  The same actually took place with some of the Maintenance Facilities.

A lot cheaper to use a left over tender, or obsolete tank car to supply the needed water for the mighty dinosaurs of the rail.  I wish I had been born 25 years earlier, they are Magnificent Machines.

The guys in charge of the railroads knew what they were doing.  What they didn't take in to account was the speed of change due to Commercial Air Travel and the Interstate Highway System.  They wanted to react to this, but their "hands were tied" by Federal Regulation and Policies.  Somewhere I have a VHS copy of a film put out by the AAR in believe about 1952 explaining the dilemma.  There are a number of AAR films on YouTube, think I know what I will be doing tonight. - Jim