How common were auxilary tenders in revenue service?

Mike:

There was a thread on auxiliary tenders last year.  I have pasted in the link below.

Curt

The A-Tank Thread

Just thinking logically, though a railroad has ample water stops to fit the needs of operating trains, a stop for water is still a loss of time. An auxiliary water tender allows for fewer stops, therefore shorter delivery times. Therefore greater revenue per hour.

TM Terry posted:

Just thinking logically, though a railroad has ample water stops to fit the needs of operating trains, a stop for water is still a loss of time. An auxiliary water tender allows for fewer stops, therefore shorter delivery times. Therefore greater revenue per hour.

However, the other side of the coin is, when they do finally have to stop for water, it takes twice as much time to take all that water, with an additional move to spot the extra water tender. Thus, not much would have been gained, especially accounting for all the extra moves in and around the engine terminals (would a large locomotive with an auxiliary water tender even fit on the turntable?).

Hot Water posted:

TM Terry posted:

Just thinking logically, though a railroad has ample water stops to fit the needs of operating trains, a stop for water is still a loss of time. An auxiliary water tender allows for fewer stops, therefore shorter delivery times. Therefore greater revenue per hour.

However, the other side of the coin is, when they do finally have to stop for water, it takes twice as much time to take all that water, with an additional move to spot the extra water tender. Thus, not much would have been gained, especially accounting for all the extra moves in and around the engine terminals (would a large locomotive with an auxiliary water tender even fit on the turntable?).

Also, an A tank reduced the number of revenue cars in a train.

Okay, my ignorance begs the question: Typically, how far will a tender full of water get a steam locomotive?

If it happens to be more than halfway to the train’s next destination, it’s a no brainer, assumimg the tender and auxiliary tender have about the same volume of water capacity.

juniata guy posted:

Mike:

There was a thread on auxiliary tenders last year.  I have pasted in the link below.

Curt

https://ogrforum.com/...iliary-water-tenders

Thanks, Curt. Lot of info there.

The Milwaukee Road used canteen cars as well. The Museum in North Freedom at one time owned two real ones. They now have one, and they too used it for trips on the C&NW mainline when their 1385 was on loan to the C&NW

TM Terry posted:

Okay, my ignorance begs the question: Typically, how far will a tender full of water get a steam locomotive?

If it happens to be more than halfway to the train’s next destination, it’s a no brainer, assumimg the tender and auxiliary tender have about the same volume of water capacity.

Depends on a lot of factors,  such as terrain, speed, tonnage,  curvature, and tender capacity.  Ballpark,  100 gallons of water consumed per mile for a modern steam locomotive. 

Standard Gauge posted:

TM Terry posted:

Okay, my ignorance begs the question: Typically, how far will a tender full of water get a steam locomotive?

If it happens to be more than halfway to the train’s next destination, it’s a no brainer, assumimg the tender and auxiliary tender have about the same volume of water capacity.

Depends on a lot of factors,  such as terrain, speed, tonnage,  curvature, and tender capacity.  Ballpark,  100 gallons of water consumed per mile for a modern steam locomotive. 

Did a little research and found that the N&W J-class tender had a water capacity of 22,000 gallons of water. Considering Standard Gauge’s 100 miles/gallon, the J’s tender accommodates a distance of 220 miles. That seems fairly substantial. 

Considering an auxiliary tender could double that distance, more options for viability of their use could be considered if the economical opportunity presented itself.

Standard Gauge posted:

TM Terry posted:

Okay, my ignorance begs the question: Typically, how far will a tender full of water get a steam locomotive?

If it happens to be more than halfway to the train’s next destination, it’s a no brainer, assumimg the tender and auxiliary tender have about the same volume of water capacity.

Depends on a lot of factors,  such as terrain, speed, tonnage,  curvature, and tender capacity.  Ballpark,  100 gallons of water consumed per mile for a modern steam locomotive. 

Such a question is similar to "How high is up?".

A "ballpark" of 100 gallons of water usage per mile, would have to be at the locomotives optimum efficiency speed, such as about 55 MPH with a modern 4-8-4 pulling a passenger train. On the other hand, drag a big modern 4-8-4, like SP 4449 or UP 844, down to 15 or 20 MPH on a heavy grade, and the water and fuel oil consumption will skyrocket to 1000 gallons of water and 30 gallons of oil, per mile!  

TM Terry posted:

Standard Gauge posted:

TM Terry posted:

Okay, my ignorance begs the question: Typically, how far will a tender full of water get a steam locomotive?

If it happens to be more than halfway to the train’s next destination, it’s a no brainer, assumimg the tender and auxiliary tender have about the same volume of water capacity.

Depends on a lot of factors,  such as terrain, speed, tonnage,  curvature, and tender capacity.  Ballpark,  100 gallons of water consumed per mile for a modern steam locomotive. 

Did a little research and found that the N&W J-class tender had a water capacity of 22,000 gallons of water. Considering Standard Gauge’s 100 miles/gallon, the J’s tender accommodates a distance of 220 miles. That seems fairly substantial. 

Considering an auxiliary tender could double that distance, more options for viability of their use could be considered if the economical opportunity presented itself.

In the modern excursion era, auxiliary water tenders are a MUST, because there are no longer any high volume water standpipes for filling tenders. Remember that back in the steam days, it was VERY common for any passenger train to have the locomotive spotted at a water standpipe during a slightly longer station stop (loading/unloading mail & baggage in addition to lots of passengers). The only supply of water for main line excursion steam locomotives today are fire hydrants, which generally can only supply 300 gallons per minute through a 2 1/2" fire hose. Thus, auxiliary water tenders are pretty much mandatory!  

TM Terry posted:

Just thinking logically, though a railroad has ample water stops to fit the needs of operating trains, a stop for water is still a loss of time. An auxiliary water tender allows for fewer stops, therefore shorter delivery times. Therefore greater revenue per hour.

In the case of the N&W, before the use of the "canteens", a westbound coal train had to stop at Pritchard, WV. Thus the train train had to start again and it could only get up so fast before the climb up and over the Ohio River bridge. This limited the amount of tonnage that the train could haul over the bridge. With the use of the canteen and not having to stop and start again, the trains momentum could be conserved and more tonnage taken over the bridge.

"Hot Water" posted:
However, the other side of the coin is, when they do finally have to stop for water, it takes twice as much time to take all that water, with an additional move to spot the extra water tender. Thus, not much would have been gained, especially accounting for all the extra moves in and around the engine terminals (would a large locomotive with an auxiliary water tender even fit on the turntable?).

The use of the canteen could take a train from one terminal to the other. If the locos were changed out, this doesn't matter. If indeed a stop needed to be made, a second spotting of canteen would not need to be made because a full tank probably would not be needed to make the terminal and some of the water in the tender would be going through the hoses back to the canteen.
Yes, the canteens needed to be cut off as they would not fit along with the engine & tender.

I've heard from some of the old times that they would sometimes  cut the engines  from the train to spot for water on a heavy down hill grade with full tonnage.    (just in case they  over shot the water spout)   We can't back up, what now??

Interesting point about the water and back hoses.

Adding an A-Tank makes the coal and water come out even.

That’s why we use them in excursion service.

From memory dept:      when Norfolk & Western added the canteen cars to the A's (2-6-6-4's) hauling coal trains between Portsmouth and Columbus, OH, they went from 160 loaded cars to 175. That's a 10% increase.....resulting from employing the high end of the steam locomotive's power curve on the entire run, by not making an intermediate water stop.    10% = +$ !

Although I'm sure it was done before, it seems like auxiliary tenders didn't become a 'thing' until after WW2, probably trying to extend the distance a steam engine could travel between water stops so it could better compete with diesels. Frank King's books on the DM&IR show photos of Missabe 2-8-8-2s on mainline ore trains around the Korean War era using auxiliary tenders made from steel tank cars, don't believe there's any pics of it happening earlier on the railroad.

The Uintah Railway began using a flat car with usually two cylindrical wooden tanks for additional water.

By 1916 they began building dedicated Water Cars at their Atchee shops, where by 1928 they had built seven Water Cars.

In 1940 D&RGW bought six of the seven that remained.

Hot Water posted:

TM Terry posted:

Just thinking logically, though a railroad has ample water stops to fit the needs of operating trains, a stop for water is still a loss of time. An auxiliary water tender allows for fewer stops, therefore shorter delivery times. Therefore greater revenue per hour.

However, the other side of the coin is, when they do finally have to stop for water, it takes twice as much time to take all that water, with an additional move to spot the extra water tender. Thus, not much would have been gained, especially accounting for all the extra moves in and around the engine terminals (would a large locomotive with an auxiliary water tender even fit on the turntable?).

I've always thought auxiliary water cars made a lot of sense.  If having one prevented you from needingto stop a heavy train on a steep grade, it could eliminate the need for a helper and the associated crew and locomotive costs.  Also, I don't know why you couldn't have multiple water columns spaced to line up with the tank hatches on both the tender and the aux water car in territory where they were regularly used.

Scott Griggs

Louisville, KY

sgriggs posted:

Hot Water posted:

TM Terry posted:

Just thinking logically, though a railroad has ample water stops to fit the needs of operating trains, a stop for water is still a loss of time. An auxiliary water tender allows for fewer stops, therefore shorter delivery times. Therefore greater revenue per hour.

However, the other side of the coin is, when they do finally have to stop for water, it takes twice as much time to take all that water, with an additional move to spot the extra water tender. Thus, not much would have been gained, especially accounting for all the extra moves in and around the engine terminals (would a large locomotive with an auxiliary water tender even fit on the turntable?).

I've always thought auxiliary water cars made a lot of sense.  If having one prevented you from needingto stop a heavy train on a steep grade, it could eliminate the need for a helper and the associated crew and locomotive costs.  Also, I don't know why you couldn't have multiple water columns spaced to line up with the tank hatches on both the tender and the aux water car in territory where they were regularly used.

How far apart would the "multiple water columns" be spaced? Take the N&W Canteen water tenders as an example, which were not generally turned at each terminal, since they had connections on both ends, thus sometimes the water access hatch was closer to the main tender, and sometimes it was further away from the hatch on the main tender. Probably a difference of at least ten feet.

 

Scott Griggs

Louisville, KY

The New York Central solved the extra water problem as they filled their tenders on the fly with a scoop underneath that was lowered into a water trough between the tracks. I don't know how they achieved a full tender fill but it apparently worked.

Dennis LaGrua posted:

The New York Central solved the extra water problem as they filled their tenders on the fly with a scoop underneath that was lowered into a water trough between the tracks. I don't know how they achieved a full tender fill but it apparently worked.

The main idea was NOT to "fill" the tender, but scoop water often enough at speed, so as to frequently add, say 5000 or 8000 or so, gallons of water ever time. Although the PRR and B&O used track pans for water scooping, the NYC really perfected the process and tender designs so as to scoop water at speeds to 90 MPH.

Hot Water posted:

sgriggs posted:

I've always thought auxiliary water cars made a lot of sense.  If having one prevented you from needingto stop a heavy train on a steep grade, it could eliminate the need for a helper and the associated crew and locomotive costs.  Also, I don't know why you couldn't have multiple water columns spaced to line up with the tank hatches on both the tender and the aux water car in territory where they were regularly used.

How far apart would the "multiple water columns" be spaced? Take the N&W Canteen water tenders as an example, which were not generally turned at each terminal, since they had connections on both ends, thus sometimes the water access hatch was closer to the main tender, and sometimes it was further away from the hatch on the main tender. Probably a difference of at least ten feet.

 

Scott Griggs

Louisville, KY

 

I see your point that the N&W canteen aux water cars only had water hatches at one end.  However, if the spotting during water stops was a big enough problem, what would have prevented them from putting a hatch at both ends, thereby eliminating the sensitivity of coupling direction and standardizing the hatch-to-hatch distance of the tender and canteen?  N&W was never shy about tailoring their physical plant and rolling stock to their precise operational needs.  I suspect the tender tank and canteen water capacity was enough to get them over the parts of the railroad where they preferred not stop to take on water, and that was their objective.