LLKJR posted:Did the PRR K4’s have stokers?
Not when designed and built, but the Federal Gov (ICC in those days), eventually passed a law that any and all steam locomotives over a certain firebox grate area were REQUIRED to have stokers. Thus, the PRR finally had to install stokers on all the K4s locomotives.
I have to disagree with Jack on this. Very few K4s had stokers retrofitted. I would say 90% were hand fired to the end. Pennsy had in excess of 400 K4's, and as fugal as the Pennsy was, installing 400 stokers was not in the cards.
Chuck,
Where did you get this information? Hotwater is correct regarding the ICC regulation.
Chuck Sartor posted:I have to disagree with Jack on this. Very few K4s had stokers retrofitted. I would say 90% were hand fired to the end. Pennsy had in excess of 400 K4's, and as fugal as the Pennsy was, installing 400 stokers was not in the cards.
I have no idea where you obtained such "information" but you are totally wrong! All the various K4s locomotives that I "volunteered on" and learned/worked on at South Amboy, New Jersey, which were assigned to the New York and Long Branch commuter service (1956/1957), ALL were equipped with stokers. As the PRR rotated various K4s locomotives in and out of South Amboy, they ALL were equipped with stokers. Besides, the Federal ICC MANDATED that stokers be installed on such large steam locomotives.
OK, I knew I was going to be challenged on that statement. The way I understand it is the 1930 ICC order for installing stokers mandating the application of mechanical stokers. HT stokers ( some had duplex) were first installed in larger firebox engines like Mountains, Decks, and Santa Fe types, then K4's, and identical boilered L1 2-8-2's. In 1930 depression, money was tight, and would get stokers when shopped. For many, they were hand fired until the end. ( of their service life) Even though mandated, Pennsy couldn't cover all the engines at once, and many never got their turn. And of course, the ones without were usually the first retired. Maybe my guesstimate of only approx. 10% had stokers added is low, But I haven't read the whole fleet had them installed.
What is your source that the whole fleet had them?
By 1956 there were only around 70 K4s left of which 20 were in service and all based in NJ (Camden and South Amboy?). By that date, all would have had mechanical stokers. They only ran for another year after that anyway.
Chuck Sartor posted:OK, I knew I was going to be challenged on that statement. The way I understand it is the 1930 ICC order for installing stokers mandating the application of mechanical stokers. HT stokers ( some had duplex) were first installed in larger firebox engines like Mountains, Decks, and Santa Fe types, then K4's, and identical boilered L1 2-8-2's. In 1930 depression, money was tight,
It didn't matter whether money was tight or not, it was the LAW, and every railroad had to comply.
and would get stokers when shopped. For many, they were hand fired until the end.
Not K4s locomotives!
( of their service life) Even though mandated, Pennsy couldn't cover all the engines at once, and many never got their turn.
Please provide documentation of that.
And of course, the ones without were usually the first retired. Maybe my guesstimate of only approx. 10% had stokers added is low, But I haven't read the whole fleet had them installed.
What have you been reading?
What is your source that the whole fleet had them?
Conversations with LOTS of the PRR "old heads", back in the mid 1950s! Many of which were still alive well into the 1970s.
My source was Pennsy Power and The many faces of the K4. (NJ international.)
It seems a few K4s made it to the end hand-fired, the exception rather than the rule:
Thanks to Lew's link, in my readings I interpreted more were hand bombed than what was. Mandated in 1930, and still some were running around in the 1950's without a stoker. You said they all had stokers. So does that make us both right, or both wrong?
Not that this as anything to do with this conversation Jack, But I'm working on one of your buddies MTH E8 set. The name escapes me at the moment, but he lives here in Denver, and was a Seimens salesman that sold equipment to EMD. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about. Joe?
He says that's you making the station announcement.
Hot Water posted:LLKJR posted:Did the PRR K4’s have stokers?
Not when designed and built, but the Federal Gov (ICC in those days), eventually passed a law that any and all steam locomotives over a certain firebox grate area were REQUIRED to have stokers. Thus, the PRR finally had to install stokers on all the K4s locomotives.
The ICC requirement for equipping steam locomotives with mechanical stokers was not based on the area of firebox grate (it sounds logical, but we're dealing with the ICC). The basis for whether a steam locomotive had to be equipped with a mechanical stokers was the weight on the drivers, which was stupid. The Pennsy class H8s/9s/10s 2-8-0's, E6s 4-4-2, and G5s 4-6-0 all had the same size firebox grate of ~54 sq. ft., yet only the 2-8-0's had to have mechanical stokers installed because they had the required weight on drivers. The other two wheel arrangements ran without mechanical stokers right to the end of steam.
Stuart
Regarding the Mallard's 126 mph speed record, I feel that it shouldn't be seen as official. First, the run was on a slight down grade, and second, the locomotive suffered mechanical damage after the run and needed major repairs afterwards.
Stuart
Stuart posted:Hot Water posted:LLKJR posted:Did the PRR K4’s have stokers?
Not when designed and built, but the Federal Gov (ICC in those days), eventually passed a law that any and all steam locomotives over a certain firebox grate area were REQUIRED to have stokers. Thus, the PRR finally had to install stokers on all the K4s locomotives.
The ICC requirement for equipping steam locomotives with mechanical stokers was not based on the area of firebox grate (it sounds logical, but we're dealing with the ICC). The basis for whether a steam locomotive had to be equipped with a mechanical stokers was the weight on the drivers, which was stupid. The Pennsy class H8s/9s/10s 2-8-0's, Eg2 4-4-2, and G5s 4-6-0 all had the same size firebox grate of ~54 sq. ft., yet only the 2-8-0's had to have mechanical stokers installed because they had the required weight on drivers. The other two wheel arrangements ran without mechanical stokers right to the end of steam.
Stuart
All other things being equal, weight on drivers implies how hard the engine is worked and thus how much steam is used. Hot Water could chime in...
According to this website a K4 on the Dyno at Altoona produced 3184HP for 60 minutes:
https://www.steamlocomotive.co...amp;railroad=prr#159
Here is an interesting nugget:
"at the most efficient steaming rate of 34,000 lb (15,422 kg)/hour, boiler efficiency was 76% and the engine burned fuel at the rate of 1.8 lb/ihp/hour (5,800 lb/hour)"
I haven't fired a locomotive but I have shoveled coal and 3 tons an hour for several hours is more than I can conceive of doing.
I wonder how many lives were greatly extended by the advent and use of the mechanical stoker....
My Dad got to watch a K4 on the Dyno. During that particular test they ran it at 60mph. Dad said it was pretty spectacular. BTW, regular Engine Crews were used for Dyno testing.
That dyno figure at Altoona would not have included the wind resistance or flange friction of the engine, nor the weight and friction and wind resistance of the tender, so something in the 2800-2900 drawbar HP range would be the result at the tender drawbar, and assuming that the engine had a mechanical stoker. So if the max drawbar HP peaked at 60 mph, the weight and increasing resistance of the trailing train would intersect with the declining drawbar pull curve, and this would be the terminal or balancing speed of the train with that locomotive.
It is significant that railroads' max speeds for light engines was low...usually 25-35 mph. There were at least two reasons for this limitation:
1) An engine with a train acts a lot like a kite with a tail in that the train makes the entire consist more stable, so higher speeds can be used.
2) A light engine is severely limited by the ability of its braking system to stop in a short distance. An engine with a trailing train can stop in a short distance, mainly due to the weight of the trailing cars and the much more numerous contact points of all of the wheels on the rail.
Any locomotive can reach high speeds if the train is light with fewer cars, subject to the mechanical design elements of the locomotive such as cylinder diameter and stroke, driver diameter, valve gear capability, and size and weight of the rods and pins.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
