Why so few Vanderbilt Tenders?

Did the eastern railroads switch over to oil. I don't  think the NYC or the Pennsy ever did. Coal country!!!

The New Haven had one. Going to the original question, it is very difficult to find one and they are expensive. I want one. I may make my own.

Lionel produced a Vandy Tender with one of their scale Hudson's in the late 1990s and they were roasted for it because it wasn't prototypical for a Hudson.  I've got one and I like it but they might be thinking once burned twice shy.

There are three Vanderbilt Tenders in the latest catalog on Lionel's USRA Pacific locomotives. Not sure on the prototypical realism but they are in there.

OKHIKER, et al, that’s no ones fault but Lionel. They should have done better research. Back then, we were getting into the age where modelers were, and are, wanting prototypically correct trains. I’d love to see and would probably buy, a GN S-2 , semi scale, if it had the correct vandy tender. Correct being 3 axle trucks and correct height. Lionel has used a K-line vandy tender on a couple of models but it sits way to high, IMO.

Steve

The Vanderbuilt tender wasn't exclusively for oil.  B&O and New Haven as mentioned above, along with the C&O and some UP locomotives had Vanderbuilts with coal bunkers.

Not all railroads converted any locomotives to oil.  Along with the Pennsy and NYC, N&W, IC and NKP come to mind.

Roads like the Santa Fe, the Burlington, Frisco and Canadian Pacific used rectangular tenders for both coal and oil burning locomotives.

I don't ever recall reading the advantages of a Vanderbuilt tender vs. a rectangular tender.  Esthetics? Functionality? Maintenance? Lower cost? Capacity?  I really don't know.

Rusty

Seaboard Air Line and Atlantic Coast Line had Vanderbilt tenders.  I'm pretty sure SAL had both coal and oil, not sure about ACL.  SAL also had a couple of different types of Vanderbilt and semi-Vanderbilt types.

I think a lot of folks forget that much maligned Hudson was trying to emulate the 763e which did come with such a tender before finally coming with a more correct tender later.

It is a hard line to walk between rivet counting and offering fun nostalgia for Lionel.

@OKHIKER posted:

Lionel produced a Vandy Tender with one of their scale Hudson's in the late 1990s and they were roasted for it because it wasn't prototypical for a Hudson.  I've got one and I like it but they might be thinking once burned twice shy.

@RideTheRails posted:

OKHIKER, et al, that’s no ones fault but Lionel. They should have done better research. Back then, we were getting into the age where modelers were, and are, wanting prototypically correct trains. I’d love to see and would probably buy, a GN S-2 , semi scale, if it had the correct vandy tender. Correct being 3 axle trucks and correct height. Lionel has used a K-line vandy tender on a couple of models but it sits way to high, IMO.

Steve

Read a little more on the history before jumping to conclusions fellas, ....the NYC did indeed experiment with Vandy tenders, although they didn’t go into production, nonetheless, they were testing the abilities of the Vandy’s ability to take water on the fly,....so did Lionel do a great injustice???........again, know facts before jumping to conclusions,....

Pat

Sunset Models / 3rd Rail has done a number of locomotives with vanderbilt tenders. For B&O fans they did the Q-4, T-3, and S-1. Westside did the Q-4 with a vanderbilt. Sunset also has done the correct C&O vanderbilts. Sunset / 3rd Rail has also done Great Northern vanderbilts. So did Weaver Models.

Sunset / 3rd Rail did the B&O T-3t vanderbilt tenders as extra sale items as well as doing the T-3t locomotive / tender.

Interesting relative read...

Vanderbilt Link

Seems to me Lionel was honoring the heritage of the tender design?   After all, if Great Grandpappy Vanderbilt was the founder of the NYC system, what better way for a toy train manufacturer to honor a significant design creator than marry it to the iconic engine of the same railroad!

Or not.

KD

BTW...MY favorite railroad...ATSF...was never enamored with Vanderbilt tenders.   And my only comment to that is "Phooey!! I wish they had used some!!"  I think they're far more interesting than the traditional humpty-box on wheels. 

I suspect that packaging electronics-sandwiches and Chubby-Buddy speakers in a toy train Vanderbilt tender is not nearly as easy as into a nice spacious hexahedron. 

@dkdkrd posted:

I suspect that packaging electronics-sandwiches and Chubby-Buddy speakers in a toy train Vanderbilt tender is not nearly as easy as into a nice spacious hexahedron.

That's correct, not nearly as much space.  I still managed to stuff a BPRC receiver, battery, on/off switch, and charging jack in the 2 tenders I built from scratch.  The design of a Vanderbilt tender makes it more difficult to get into the inside unless properly designed.  The 2 I have, the rear of the water tank pops off:

I'm sure the engineers that design our models could easily determine how it needs to be done.  With a rectangular tender we simply remove a couple of screws and pop the shell off.

@scale rail posted:

With so many railroads switching to oil in the 40's and 50's

Please name some/any of the "so many railroads" that switched to oil fuel in the 40's and 50's.

why aren't there more steam engine offered with Vanderbilt tenders? Would't be great for Lionel to offer coal or oil tenders with some of their steam engine?

Even if the prototype never had a Vanderbilt tender?

Don

By the way... The Illinois Railway Museum has three coal burning locomotives with Vanderbuit tenders: GTW 4-8-4 6325, UP 2-8-0 428 and Graysonia Nashville & Ashdown 2-6-0 26 and one oil burner with a Vanderbuilt, SP 2-10-2 975.

Seems coal Vanderbuilts win out...

Rusty

The venerable, though very unprototypical Lionel 400E, had a Vanderbilt oil tender.

I agree Vanderbilt tenders are hard to find and I have given up.  But Vanderbilt tenders are not that hard to make.  Here are the two I made using the front part of a Lionel junked coal tender, mailing tubes for the cylinder tank part and Pam or hair spray can bottoms for the rounded back end of the water tank.

Picture below shows hair spray can botton used for dished end of tender

Details and pictures on how I made the longer Vanderbilt tender is in the following OGR link

https://ogrforum.com/...28#99977313410511728

Charlie

Great Northern switched from a mix of coal and oil fuel to all oil about 1950.  Only 1 I can think of in that time period.  NYC had one division with oil burning steam locomotives:  the Adirondack Division, to Lake Placid - believe it ran through Federal Forest land.

@harmonyards posted:

Read a little more on the history before jumping to conclusions fellas, ....the NYC did indeed experiment with Vandy tenders, although they didn’t go into production, nonetheless, they were testing the abilities of the Vandy’s ability to take water on the fly,....so did Lionel do a great injustice???........again, know facts before jumping to conclusions,....

Pat

No one was jumping to any conclusions.  It was a simple statement that Lionel got roasted for producing the Vandy Tender with their 763 Hudson and they did.  That , my friend is a fact.

The other poster you referred to simply said that Lionel should have done more research on the Vandy Tender and he is probably correct because even by your own statement Lionel only experimented with the use of the Vandy Tender but they were never put into production.  There is certainly no evidence they were ever used on their passenger or freight lines.  They definitely were never paired with a Hudson.  The definitive work on the Hudsons, Thoroughbreads. by Alvin Staufer has many, many photos of Hudons and there isn't one Vandy Tender in any of them.  Perhaps you should read the posts more closely before you jump to conclusions.

The Vanderbilt tender was invented by Cornelius Vanderbilt III (US Patent # 681,760), which makes it especially strange that it was never used by the New York Central. 

Life is full of such ironies! :-)

(In Nashville, where Vanderbilt University (same Vanderbilts) is, there must be many fried chicken joints, as is true everywhere. Do any of them offer a Vanderbilt Tender Special?)

But, anyway - the NYC never used any Vanderbilt tenders (experimentation aside, and I have never heard of any - but I wasn't there).

This is ironic as the tender was indeed designed by a member of the same Vanderbilt (Dutch: Van Der Bilt) family that created the modern New York Central. Most Vanderbilts considered the RR a cash cow and were not railroaders as such. One of their descendants was Gloria Vanderbilt.

Oil/coal have nothing to do with it. The Vandy tender will hold less water per foot of length than a box tender, of course - the water tank is a cylinder, so less volume. But - it has an advantage in rigidity, integrity and it prevents the side to side sloshing of the water, so fewer baffles are required inside the tank as compared to a box tender. Extreme sloshing causes instability and can lead to a derailment.

There also were far fewer steamer using the Vanderbilt tender design than the box tender type, so any accurate modeling will always mean fewer Vandy models.

@OKHIKER posted:

Lionel produced a Vandy Tender with one of their scale Hudson's in the late 1990s and they were roasted for it because it wasn't prototypical for a Hudson.  I've got one and I like it but they might be thinking once burned twice shy.

Yet those engines sold like hot cakes.  I even had one.

Rusty:   Illinois Central had a handful of oil burning locomotives in Louisiana. Probably due to proximity to Texas oil fields. And IC was a major coal hauling/burning railroad.

@OKHIKER posted:

No one was jumping to any conclusions.  It was a simple statement that Lionel got roasted for producing the Vandy Tender with their 763 Hudson and they did.  That , my friend is a fact.

The other poster you referred to simply said that Lionel should have done more research on the Vandy Tender and he is probably correct because even by your own statement Lionel only experimented with the use of the Vandy Tender but they were never put into production.  There is certainly no evidence they were ever used on their passenger or freight lines.  They definitely were never paired with a Hudson.  The definitive work on the Hudsons, Thoroughbreads. by Alvin Staufer has many, many photos of Hudons and there isn't one Vandy Tender in any of them.  Perhaps you should read the posts more closely before you jump to conclusions.

We can go round and round if you’d like, ....y’all jumped to the conclusions that Lionel screwed up. Just because ONE BOOK shows no pics of a vandy tender doesn’t lock it into history, .....that’s sort of narrow mindedness ,....no??......the Central did indeed test Vandy tenders on a variety of motive power,.....and who roasted Lionel?....you??....you must’ve been the only one, cause they sold them in droves, and they continue to sell to this day,......

Pat

I believe Vanderbilt tenders were cheaper and quicker to build.  The Vanderbilt cylinders can be rolled and welded like a water tank.  Rectangle tenders require more cutting, forming and welding to make.  Welding is cheaper and faster than the older riveted tenders also.

Charlie

@harmonyards posted:

We can go round and round if you’d like, ....y’all jumped to the conclusions that Lionel screwed up. Just because ONE BOOK shows no pics of a vandy tender doesn’t lock it into history, .....that’s sort of narrow mindedness ,....no??......the Central did indeed test Vandy tenders on a variety of motive power,.....and who roasted Lionel?....you??....you must’ve been the only one, cause they sold them in droves, and they continue to sell to this day,......

Pat

As I stated it might do you well to read and interpret posts a bit more  closely before you jump to conclusions.  I never made the statement that I roasted Lionel for producing the 763 with a Vandy Tender in fact I said I own one and in fact I said like it. So  much for your claim that I said Lionel screwed up.   The people who criticized Lionel were prototypical collectors or purists who referenced the fact that the NYC never ran a Vandy Tender with a Hudson.  If you take the time to go back and review TM's video on Lionel Legends 2, the Hudson, produced in 2001, you will  hear the commentator state quite emphatically that no Hudson ever was paired with a Vandy Tender.  Additionally,  a Lionel designer is quoted as roundly criticizing  the move to produce that tender.  But perhaps suggesting that additional research might be necessary  would be to much to ask.  

Additionally, I never made the statement that the NYC never experimented with a Vandy Tender only that they never used them on regular passenger and freight service; in fact I gave you credit for the statement that they experimented with the Vandy.  As far as being narrow minded I will take the word of a Lionel designer and the works of an expert on the NYC like Alvin Staufer over that of a  poster on this forum.  Really, one should control one's self before they begin to criticize other people for jumping to conclusions or resort to name calling by referring to people as being narrow minded.

@OKHIKER posted:

As I stated it might do you well to read and interpret posts a bit more  closely before you jump to conclusions.  I never made the statement that I roasted Lionel for producing the 763 with a Vandy Tender in fact I said I own one and in fact I said like it. So  much for your claim that I said Lionel screwed up.   The people who criticized Lionel were prototypical collectors or purists who referenced the fact that the NYC never ran a Vandy Tender with a Hudson.  If you take the time to go back and review TM's video on Lionel Legends 2, the Hudson, produced in 2001, you will  hear the commentator state quite emphatically that no Hudson ever was paired with a Vandy Tender.  Additionally,  a Lionel designer is quoted as roundly criticizing  the move to produce that tender.  But perhaps suggesting that additional research might be necessary  would be to much to ask.  

Additionally, I never made the statement that the NYC never experimented with a Vandy Tender only that they never used them on regular passenger and freight service; in fact I gave you credit for the statement that they experimented with the Vandy.  As far as being narrow minded I will take the word of a Lionel designer and the works of an expert on the NYC like Alvin Staufer over that of a  poster on this forum.  Really, one should control one's self before they begin to criticize other people for jumping to conclusions or resort to name calling by referring to people as being narrow minded.

I hardly call one guy in a TM video a “roasting “ .........Alvin Stauffer is a well known NYC historian,..yes, .. ....HOWEVER, he’s not the only one, and they’re are a lot more books and historical information other than Stauffer’s .....if you’re going to cite ONE book, and ONE video, well,...that’s you’re prerogative,...but look at it from the outside looking in,....isn’t that view kinda “narrow”??......good luck to you OKHIKER, you can have the last word, .....it’s all yours,....

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

I hardly call one guy in a TM video a “roasting “ .........Alvin Stauffer is a well known NYC historian,..yes, .. ....HOWEVER, he’s not the only one, and they’re are a lot more books and historical information other than Stauffer’s .....if you’re going to cite ONE book, and ONE video, well,...that’s you’re prerogative,...but look at it from the outside looking in,....isn’t that view kinda “narrow”??......good luck to you OKHIKER, you can have the last word, .....it’s all yours,....

Pat

Certainly the words, opinions and photographs of professionals in the field amount to a great deal more than a sometimes poster on this forum.  Regardless of what you might believe I'm quite sure my statements in my last post are indeed the last word on this discussion.

Guys we are getting off subject here. My original question was " Would't it be great for Lionel to offer coal or oil tenders?" The Pacific Steam engine would be a good example. Pacific's ran with coal and oil depending on the road. I'm from the West coast so I always liked oil tenders more than coal. Don

Well... I've got me one of them there 763e(s) (6-18056 (1996)) with the Vandy which weighs a TON!  Also have the PT Tender for it... just in case someone uptight walks into the train room.

Pat!!!  When are you going to put that Pittman into my 763e?

@Dennis-LaRock posted:

Well... I've got me one of them there 763e(s) (6-18056 (1996) with the Vandy which weighs a TON!  Also have the PT Tender for it... just in case someone who is uptight walks into the train room.

Pat!!!  When are you going to put that Pittman into my 763e?

As a matter of fact I just happen to have one of them there PT Tenders as well and I run it at times with my 763 for precisely the same reason you do.

@Dennis-LaRock posted:

Well... I've got me one of them there 763e(s) (6-18056 (1996)) with the Vandy which weighs a TON!  Also have the PT Tender for it... just in case someone uptight walks into the train room.

Pat!!!  When are you going to put that Pittman into my 763e?

I’ve got 2 to finish up, and you can be next Dennis, .....and I will concede to the fact the 18056’s Vandy tender weighs a ton,.....in fact, I’m not sure which one weighs more, the locomotive or the tender,....😉

Pat

Thanks Pat!

Don, your original point is well-taken.  I picked up the the Lionel 18056 Hudson a few years ago due to its unique pairing of those neat, aerodynamic Scullin drivers with a Vandy tender.

Someone else above noted that 3rd rail, Weaver, and others have produced some Vandy tenders.  The Weaver CN K5a comes to mind -- a 4-6-4, no less.

Weaver also did a custom run of a B&O # 5501 4-8-2 in or about the year 2000.  I do not know the story behind that custom run, however - see photos below.

Right-of-Way Industries produced a B&O KK2 with Vandy tender - more pics below.

David98

Myself I've always been baffled by the lack of a Vanderbilt tender by Lionel in the postwar era. So many high end locomotives had them prewar it is odd one didn't sneak in later just for the heck of it.

https://ogrforum.com/...5#153322190445216715 b0

@scale rail posted:

Guys we are getting off subject here. My original question was " Would't it be great for Lionel to offer coal or oil tenders?" The Pacific Steam engine would be a good example. Pacific's ran with coal and oil depending on the road. I'm from the West coast so I always liked oil tenders more than coal. Don

Whether Lionel offers a coal or oil tender is a question that is very different from whether it offers a Vanderbilt tender... I've just finished researching the subject by looking through two reference books that I have with typical collections of steam locomotive photos'.

It is quite clear that the majority of Vanderbilt tenders were coal tenders.  Look at most B&O engines.  The Erie had them on their Pacifics.  CN was suing them on locomotives built as late as 1944.  All were coal.

Oil burners were not all using Vanderbilt's, I think not even a majority.  Look at Santa Fe and Frisco, both mainly oil burners in Texas and west.  All straight tenders.

SP's cab forwards all had straight tenders.

@scale rail posted:

With so many railroads switching to oil in the 40's and 50's why aren't there more steam engine offered with Vanderbilt tenders? Would't be great for Lionel to offer coal or oil tenders with some of their steam engine? Don

The only oil railroads were switching to in the 40's or 50's was oil for diesel locomotives.  Can you suggest what railroad might have switched to oil in steam locomotives after 1920.

The only way you can be sure that a tender is for oil is to look at the top of the fuel compartment for a flat top with filler caps.

@mlaughlinnyc posted:

SP's cab forwards all had straight tenders.

Not really.  SP's AC4,5 and 6's had what are called semi-Vanderbuit tenders.  Most AC1's had "whaleback" tenders.

Rusty

As additional information, as steam locomotives grew larger and larger, in the late 1930s thru the early/mid 1940s, the requirement for greater fuel and water supply became a VERY important design hurdle. Rectangular tenders were capable of carrying larger fuel (either coal or oil) and water quantities than cylindrical, i.e. Vanderbilt, tenders. Those large "square" tenders on the Southern Pacific GS and AC class locomotives carried 6000+ gallons of oil and 23,000+ gallons of water, and the Union Pacific pedestal/centipede tenders had at least 25,000 gallons of water.