Two Lionel standard 6 axle hudson tenders:
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
At least we get a choice.
Kinda goes with the thread asking if we are offended by the t word.
No, it’s is deserved and very true.
I can't decide if you mean the different gallons and tons markings, or that the top picture was taken with the uncoupling lever hand rail (might not technically be the right term here - sorry 
) out of position.
{edited to correct terminology for the uncoupling lever}
-Dave
Attachments
Images (1)
LOL! I didn't notice the cut bar either , but yeah I was talking about tht capacity markings.
@RickO posted:LOL! I didn't notice the handrail either , but yeah I was talking about tht capacity markings.
Also, there is probably marginally more dust shown on the top picture, so maybe it's been on the layout a little longer. 
(All in good fun regarding "noticing things", not seriously critiquing the dust! I've got more than my share so I should never throw stones in that glass house!! )
-Dave
You don't miss a thing do ya Dave!! LOL! Yes the cleaner tender is from a more recent aquisition.
Its really not as dirty as it looks . My 15 year old Panasonic Lumix digital camera still takes one **** of a photo
BTW I'm not gonna bother counting rivets...I'll just take your word for it!
@RickO posted:Two Lionel standard 6 axle hudson tenders:
The top photo shows the capacities for PT tender (like is standard on the Niagara locomotives).
The lower photo reflects the "as delivered" 12-wheel tender, which is correct for #5433, i.e. prior to to being up-graded with a PT tender.
Hey guys, nice discussion. The makers were paying attention to detail that I would have missed. BTY the lower "hand rail" is an attempt to create what we call where I come from the "cut lever" for uncoupling. Although on most models like the ones in the picture some of the connecting details to the coupler are missing due to the the big auto couplers on most O guage engines. Can't have it all !
I like the "scale" dust....some folks pay a lot of money to get that kind of weathering.
Thanks for sharing.
18,000 gallons of water weighs approx 87 tons and 14,000 weighs approx 67 tons if water weighs approx 9.71 lbs per gallon.
There are several weights for water listed out there, but all would overload the rated capacities with no thought given to the coal load.
I know nothing of which I speak, so just commenting on what I read.
@Dave45681 posted:I can't decide if you mean the different gallons and tons markings, or that the top picture was taken with the hand rail (might not technically be the right term here - sorry
-Dave
That's the uncoupling lever...
Rusty
@GVDobler posted:18,000 gallons of water weighs approx 87 tons and 14,000 weighs approx 67 tons if water weighs approx 9.71 lbs per gallon.
The weight per gallon of U.S. water is 8.34 pounds. You provided the weight of an "imperial gallon of water".
There are several weights for water listed out there,
Really? I have only seen one weight per gallon of water IN THE United States, i.e. 8.34 pounds.
but all would overload the rated capacities with no thought given to the coal load.
That is because you used the incorrect weight for a gallon of water in the U.S..
I know nothing of which I speak, so just commenting on what I read.
OK, we'll go with that.
@Dave45681 posted:I can't decide if you mean the different gallons and tons markings, or that the top picture was taken with the hand rail (might not technically be the right term here - sorry
-Dave
Often these handrails are not fixed and can be slid from side to side to center them.
@breezinup posted:Often these handrails are not fixed and can be slid from side to side to center them.
Except,,,,,,,,,,that is NOT a "handrail".
@Hot Water posted:
but all would overload the rated capacities with no thought given to the coal load.
That is because you used the incorrect weight for a gallon of water in the U.S..
There needs to mathematically be a lot more more to it than that, if the assumption that the weight of gallons of water specified needs to fit within the number of tons specified (it may not, I'm just doing the math here for the assumption everyone else is making ) The error of 9.71 instead of 8.35 alone does not work out to make the situation nice and clean and perfect.
Using a calculator for gallons to pounds shows 18,000 gallons is 150,217 pounds. Using the pounds to tons calculator (or just dividing by 2000 ) shows that is 75.1085 tons. That's a lot more than the 46 tons as printed on the tender (all top picture numbers, of course).
{EDIT} Doing a little digging, it seems the premise is invalid and it's a ratio of coal to water shown. This entry on a site I found claims that a common ratio was 14 tons of coal per 10,000 gallons of water. But it then says many NYC tenders had higher coal to water ratios since they picked up water while moving from track pans. So if we use the 18,000 gallons and multiply by 14 tons/10,000 gallons, we would have 25.2 tons. If we understand that the ratio is actually something higher than 14tons /10,000 gallons, the math is starting to make sense.
-Dave
@Dave45681 posted:There needs to mathematically be a lot more more to it than that, if the assumption that the weight of gallons of water specified needs to fit within the number of tons specified (it may not, I'm just doing the math here for the assumption everyone else is making
Using a calculator for gallons to pounds shows 18,000 gallons is 150,217 pounds. Using the pounds to tons calculator (or just dividing by 2000
Please note that that "46 tons" printed on the rear of the tender, (and any other tender of a coal burning steam locomotive) is for the COAL CAPACITY! It has NOTHING to do with the weight of the water.
-Dave
...or is the gallons figure for water capacity and the tonnage figure for coal capacity?
30 or 40 tons seems like a low figure for total capacity of a big tender!
But what do I know - just guessing!
Edit: Hey - I was right!!! - Hot Water just confirmed it!
Jim
Edited my post with the math (new last paragraph) while Jim and Hot Water were saying the same thing.
-Dave
@Hot Water posted:Except,,,,,,,,,,that is NOT a "handrail".
Gosh no - and I always heard it referred to as a "cut bar". (But then, if it's only a $1200 "toy", we shouldn't object even if you want to call it "that curly thingy". After all, nothing really matters.)
---------------
And, being a champion of "natural weathering" (my layout dust is just the beginning), if our model's materials and innards could take it, I would leave every loco and car I purchase outside in the weather for a year (while moving and/or rotating wheels every month) so they would look good when finally appearing on the layout. Of course, a cage would be used to keep the birds and squirrels from leaving most of their possible decorations on the piece....
According to the world atlas, I summit the following:
" The answer is simple; a gallon of water weighs about 8.3 pounds. The imperial gallon of water is defined as 10.02 pounds at its maximum density while the weight of US dry gallon of water is defined as 9.71 pounds. However, the answer comes with a caveat. The weight per gallon of water fluctuates with temperature."
I was using the US dry gallon weight. Seems odd they would list the coal capacity of the tender and ignore something as heavy as water. Not to be confused with "heavy" water.
PS: I'm used to airplanes and gross weight figures mean airplane, gas, people, bags etc., all lumped together.
@D500 posted:Gosh no - and I always heard it referred to as a "cut bar". (But then, if it's only a $1200 "toy", we shouldn't object even if you want to call it "that curly thingy". After all, nothing really matters.)
---------------
Correction made, Pete. Its is "somewhat" deceptive as the connecting details are missing as mentioned by Earl.
On a side note. The 5426 tender is from the legacy ESE with the standard tender offering a few years back. The 5433 is from well... you know. Its probably no surprise that the cut bar is correctly installed on it and it doesn't even move.
I had to bend the cut bar on the 5426 to get both ends to sit flush as well as reposition it, go figure.
Why blame Lionel when this post can’t even get it straight.
@romiller49 posted:Why blame Lionel when this post can’t even get it straight.
Get WHAT straight??????
Serif vs. sans serif?
Amazing. The ton rating only refers to the amount of coal a tender can carry. It has nothing to do with the weight of water.
Look at some real tenders and you will see.
The manufacturer put any rating on the tenders without regard to being prototypical.
@third rail posted:Amazing. The ton rating only refers to the amount of coal a tender can carry. It has nothing to do with the weight of water.
Right. For example, the fully loaded NYC PT design tender held over 121 tons of supplies, i.e. 18,000 gals of water plus 46 tons of coal. That doesn't include the empty weight of that massive tender, which when fully loaded weighed more than the 4-6-4 Hudson ahead of it. The point was, having to stop for fuel, i.e. coal only once (Cleveland, OH) between Harmon, NY and Chicago, since water could, and was, taken at track speed enroute from the between-the-rails track pans.
Look at some real tenders and you will see.
Right again.
The manufacturer put any rating on the tenders without regard to being prototypical.
At this point, are we even sure it's tons of coal and gallons of water?
Maybe it's tons of water and gallons of coal! 
Now it makes sense.
@Mixed Freight posted:At this point, are we even sure it's tons of coal and gallons of water?
Yes. Since coal is NOT measured by the gallon, and water is NOT measured by the ton!
Maybe it's tons of water and gallons of coal!
If you believe THAT, you have some serious issues.
18,000 has a comma. 14000 doesn’t. I just looked at my Know Thy Hudson’s book. Found both a 14 and 18 thousand. No comma in either.
@Hot Water posted:
In all defense of the math, and the mistake in Imperial Gallons, It does say Gallons on the tender'...
@Hot Water posted:@Mixed Freight Posted:
At this point, are we even sure it's tons of coal and gallons of water?
Yes. Since coal is NOT measured by the gallon, and water is NOT measured by the ton!
Maybe it's tons of water and gallons of coal!
If you believe THAT, you have some serious issues.
Naaaa, just fishin' for sucker-mouthed bait fish.
Apparently, I caught me one!!! 
I learned water weighed 8.34 pounds per gallon in my advanced high school industrial chemistry class way back in 1959. I also scored well on the Comprehensive Chemistry Regents Exam to get a diploma from Brooklyn Technical High School. Having been on renal hemodialysis for the last fifteen years, I have successfully calculated my fluid gain between treatments using the 8.34 pounds per gallon standard. Nuff said!
I still say there are two toy train tenders in the first picture and only one toy train tender in the second (or bottom) picture.
@RickO posted:Two Lionel standard 6 axle hudson tenders:
According to Wikipedia, 5433 only held 25 tons of coal.
@Mixed Freight posted:Naaaa, just fishin' for sucker-mouthed bait fish.
Apparently, I caught me one!!!
So,,,,,,,you are just interested in playing games, instead of trying to participate in a discussion and potentially learning something? Beautiful!
@third rail posted:According to Wikipedia, 5433 only held 25 tons of coal.
Wikipedia is wrong! Happens quite often there. May I suggest you get the book "Know thy Hudsons" for correct FACTS concerning New York Central Hudson type steam locomotives.
@Hot Water posted:So,,,,,,,you are just interested in playing games, instead of trying to participate in a discussion and potentially learning something? Beautiful!
A lot of folks work well AND play well with others. 
But some, not so much.
I don't know about you guys but 14,000 gals is way too many for me.
FWIW: I think it looks better without the comma...
Mark in Oregon
@penn station posted:I don't know about you guys but 14,000 gals is way too many for me.
Me too Cam,
Even at 2 gals a night, it will take over 19 years to get to them all. More if I rest on Sunday's and Holidays.
