Since our steam models are often prone to derail in reverse, I'm curious about the prototype for those occasions that steam power had to be operated in reverse especially for an over the road mainline movement, was it considered a safe and reliable option?
Thanks
Bob
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Since our steam models are often prone to derail in reverse, I'm curious about the prototype for those occasions that steam power had to be operated in reverse especially for an over the road mainline movement, was it considered a safe and reliable option?
Thanks
Bob
No, unless the locomotive was one of those "double ended" tank commuter locomotives, such as the NYC 4-6-4T locomotive. Many, if not all, railroads had definite speed restrictions for steam locomotives operating in reverse.
I never enjoyed operating 1630 in reverse pushing 4-8 coaches over the length of IRM's mainline. 10-15mph max. Fortunately, my trainmen were on the ball with the whip if they needed to dump the air.
Rusty
Hmmm, I never gave that too much thought. I'll have to check my timetable on that one. Seems like it wouldn't matter too much as there is not a lot of difference between a tender being in front of you or a longer boiler. But, it seems that I do remember some locos without a trailing truck were speed limited.
Steam was regularly run out of Roanoke tender first on turnaround jobs and Blue Ridge pushers would return to Boaz at a pretty good clip.
I do know that running with a cab ahead is still speed limited.
Hmmm, I never gave that too much thought. I'll have to check my timetable on that one. Seems like it wouldn't matter too much as there is not a lot of difference between a tender being in front of you or a longer boiler. But, it seems that I do remember some locos without a trailing truck were speed limited.
Remember that "training trucks" on steam locomotives were designed to support firebox weight and TRAIL, i.e. NOT act as "leading" trucks, with the appropriate suspension AND "guidance" mechanisms to "lead the engine" into curves.
So, if a railroad like the PRR had to run a local freight out and back with no way to turn the engine, it would have been better to use a Mikado (2-8-2) than a Consolidation (2-8-0)? Would it make any difference if the cars were in front of the engine (pushing) or behind it (pulling)?
Yep, N&W restricted backward movement with or without out cars to 30mph. An exception is when an S1 or S1a (0-8-0) yard engine is in service or in tow, speed is restricted to 25mph.
So, if a railroad like the PRR had to run a local freight out and back with no way to turn the engine, it would have been better to use a Mikado (2-8-2) than a Consolidation (2-8-0)?
Yes.
Would it make any difference if the cars were in front of the engine (pushing) or behind it (pulling)?
No, as it is all about the trailing truck trying to "lead into curves".
Interesting. I suspected there might be some concern for running in reverse but nothing like getting feedback from railroaders....and I appreciate it.
Thanks again
Bob
The Arcade & Attica runs their Consolidation forward going north, does a runaround, and pulls the consist south in reverse.
The Arcade & Attica runs their Consolidation forward going north, does a runaround, and pulls the consist south in reverse.
But, how fast do they operate? Also, someday they will have worn out the rear driver's tire due to sharp flange.
SLOW. The track was really bad, but has been improved in the past 10 years, the loco just went through a 6 year long overhaul.
The Berkshires and Texas types often had the drawbar attached to the booster style trailing truck. You can tell by the looks of the truck - it is huge and looks fabricated, although probably cast. Apparently putting a rearward load on that setup was asking for it.
A lot of tourist roads run steam in reverse, and the SP apparently ran the Monterey branch in reverse one way - they put a cow catcher on the tender. My favorite local museum ran a Harriman ten- wheeler in reverse, and added a pilot to the tender for the operation.
We won't operate NKP 765 faster than 25 mph in reverse.
Colorado & Southern Northern Division employee TT of 12-08-57 specifies "Speed of steam engines when running backward, either light or handling trains, must not exceed 20 MPH on Main Track, or 10 MPH on spurs, without instruction from proper authority". CB&Q Omaha Division employee TT of 09-30-51 specifies "Steam switch engines, not equipped with engine truck, moving over the road (outside of switching limits) must run forward when practicable and must not exceed 20 MPH".
Bob 2: The early Lima 2-10-4's and 2-8-4's with the drawbar attached directly to the trailing truck rather then the frame, tended to have their trailing trucks derail when making back-up moves, shoving cars, due to the yawing force exerted. Those trailing trucks disappeared on subsequent newly built locomotives, within a year or so, following 1925. But those built remained in service until their retirement.......IC 2-8-4's, B&A/B&M 2-8-4's, T&P 2-10-4's, CGW 2-10-4's. Guess engineers were instructed to use great care in reverse moves with these locomotives.
A bit of further reflection brought to mind that some Chicago & North Western 4-6-2's and Central RR of New Jersey camelback 4-6-0's had locomotive pilots affixed to the back of their tenders to, presumably , make backwards running feasible, on lines with no turning facilities. And these locomotives were in commuter service, so assume they ran at some facsimile of passenger train speed. A lot of ways to run a railroad!
This is an interesting topic. I recall when I was a kid seeing some locos run through Raton Pass in the 1950s and being told (by ATSF employees) that they did the entire 23+ mile trip from Raton to Trinidad backwards. Locos never went very fast there, even on the down slopes, I think because of the curves or whatever (and of course, going up, many trains went only 3 - 5 mph) so I doubt speed restrictions mattered there - probably any loco could go the speed limit.
Do all steam locos produce the same power in reverse as in forward? Coulde they pull as much backwards as forwards. I thought some could not.
We won't operate NKP 765 faster than 25 mph in reverse.
I thought you guys ran the 765 a little quicker in reverse during the New River Train trips after you turned the locomotive and tool car at Meadow Creek and backed all the way to Hinton.
That's a long stink'n way to back anything, much less a locomotive.
Actually the secret is Rear View Mirrors....
Did a bit of further research and the Lima trailing truck continued to be used on subsequent Texas & Pacific 2-10-4 orders (a total of five orders for 70 locomotives) through 1930 and the Chicago Great Western 2-10-4's, which were essentially coal burning copies of the T&P locomotives, were built in 1930. Wanted to put that up before I received a drubbing!
I ran a Porter Co locomotive in forward and reverse for tourist service. This engine started life as an 0-4-0 tank and was converted to a 2-4-0 and tender with the saddle tank removed. Without the luxury of a wye we ran backwards several miles on each trip. The conductor or brakeman on the rear had a horn, radio, and an emergency dump valve. We also set up an old headlight on the platform of the rear coach.
The biggest thing I noticed was that the rear driver flange took much more wear than the lead driver. It was to the point that we were thinking about replacing the rear tires even though the front tires had very little wear. The operation shut down and the engine disappeared into West Virginia somewhere before it ever happened. Unfortunately I've lost track of her.
The Boston & Albany and the Boston & Maine Berks were susceptible to derailing their trailing trucks just at crawl speeds in reverse. One reason of many why the B&M berks were not very successful on the B&M.
Another reason, perhaps, for the B&M 2-8-4's lack of success was their relatively low factor of adhesion: 3.58. I always assumed 4.0 was the norm. But, on the other hand, the T&P 2-10-4's and the CGW 2-10-4's factors of adhesion were 3.62 and 3.61, respectively, and they were successful locomotives. Perhaps someone might shed some light on that issue?
SLOW. The track was really bad, but has been improved in the past 10 years, the loco just went through a 6 year long overhaul.
I think the speed limit is 10 or 15MPH on that line.
North of Curriers station, where the excursion train stops and reverses, the speed limit is 5. One look at the track will tell you why.
I always thought it would be cool to have a wye there in Curriers so they could operate forward both ways. The wye in Arcade has been rebuilt.
We won't operate NKP 765 faster than 25 mph in reverse.
What about when she is being pulled backward (example, CVSRR Northbound trip)?
I ran a Porter Co locomotive in forward and reverse for tourist service. This engine started life as an 0-4-0 tank and was converted to a 2-4-0 and tender with the saddle tank removed. Without the luxury of a wye we ran backwards several miles on each trip. The conductor or brakeman on the rear had a horn, radio, and an emergency dump valve. We also set up an old headlight on the platform of the rear coach.
The biggest thing I noticed was that the rear driver flange took much more wear than the lead driver. It was to the point that we were thinking about replacing the rear tires even though the front tires had very little wear. The operation shut down and the engine disappeared into West Virginia somewhere before it ever happened. Unfortunately I've lost track of her.
#7 ended up on display in McDonough, GA (same town as the NS training center). I don't know the story of exactly HOW she got there, but here she is:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.n...cture.aspx?id=325921
I remember those slow backward marches quite well... 
We won't operate NKP 765 faster than 25 mph in reverse.
What about when she is being pulled backward (example, CVSRR Northbound trip)?
We won't operate NKP 765 faster than 25 mph in reverse.
Another reason, perhaps, for the B&M 2-8-4's lack of success was their relatively low factor of adhesion: 3.58. I always assumed 4.0 was the norm. But, on the other hand, the T&P 2-10-4's and the CGW 2-10-4's factors of adhesion were 3.62 and 3.61, respectively, and they were successful locomotives. Perhaps someone might shed some light on that issue?
They were prown to slipping so yes, why they were different in that regard to the B&A berks, no one has been able to tell me.
Another reason, perhaps, for the B&M 2-8-4's lack of success was their relatively low factor of adhesion: 3.58. I always assumed 4.0 was the norm. But, on the other hand, the T&P 2-10-4's and the CGW 2-10-4's factors of adhesion were 3.62 and 3.61, respectively, and they were successful locomotives. Perhaps someone might shed some light on that issue?
They were prone to slipping so yes, why they were different in that regard to the B&A berks, no one has been able to tell me.
I believe that because they were built with "limited cutoff" (about 50%) it was felt that they could "get away" with using a lower factor of adhesion.
Also some of the T&P 2-10-4's were rebuilt with conventional frames and Delta trailing trucks.
Stuart
That's a new one on me. Got a photo of the T&P 2-10-4 with such a truck?
Nine of the TP 2-10-4's were rebuilt after WW II with new cast steel frames with integral cylinders, roller bearings on all engine and tender axles, Laird roller bearing crossheads, either Baldwin disc or Boxpok drivers, and delta trailing trucks. This work started in 1947. Unfortunately, in July 1948, TP ordered 36 F7 A's and B's. The last revenue run of a TP 2-10-4 occured 08-12-51. Could not scrounge up a photograph of a rebuilt locomotive.
Apparently nine engines were rebuilt with cast bed frames, roller bearings, and disc drivers before the program was stopped because of the arrival of diesels.
I found two photos online of two rebuilt engines:
Stuart
The T&P and CGW 2-10-4's are/were very handsome, macho locomotives, worthy of a scale model. Hello.........hello..........Sunset 3rd rail..........hello....!! Division Point?? Key?? Excellent pictures, Stuart!
Boy, are we getting off topic. Was T&P 610, which pulled the AFT In Texas, an original or rebuilt engine?
What about the SP cab forwards, weren't they purposely run in reverse all the time?
What about the SP cab forwards, weren't they purposely run in reverse all the time?
They were designed to.
Rusty
Boy, are we getting off topic. Was T&P 610, which pulled the AFT In Texas, an original or rebuilt engine?
T&P #610 was an original engine.
Stuart
The W&A 4-4-0 "Texas" ran backwards at fairly hight speed for quite some distance during "The Great Locomotive Chase."
The W&A 4-4-0 "Texas" ran backwards at fairly hight speed for quite some distance during "The Great Locomotive Chase."
But, I'll bet they sure weren't concerned with flange wear on that rear drive wheel.
I suspect not.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
