Why was the firebox in the front and the smokestack in the rear on cab-forward locos

Hey David

 

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the Jawn Henery or the C&O M-1 steam turbine electrics.  As atypical as those locomotives were, and the Jawn Henery had a very atypical (and advanced) boiler and grate arrangement for a locomotive, their layout with respect to the cab and boilers were fairly standard.  Both types had an arrangement similar to the SP cab forwards with the cab immediately in front of the backhead and the stack to the rear.  The backhead was essentially the back wall of the cab and, although the fireman had some advanced tools to work with by comparison with other steam locomotives, he was still right where the action was. 

 

Moreover, what is particularly interesting, and dumbfounding at the same time, is that Hikel is a sponsor here and in the business, presumably, of selling train-related goods to folks. 

 

RAL

 

I am not a sponsor of this forum nor am I in the train business.  I am hobbyist like most of the folks here.

 

My brother Dave is in the train business.  If you read his posts or meet him in person I an certain you will find him to be a congenial person, highly knowledgeable in the areas in which he offers his services and quite willing to share his knowledge with others in the hobby.

 

I am sorry if you, Lee or others have found me to be overly direct in my last few posts.  I certainly do not think that Lee lacks the ability to rapidly assimilate technical information.  But in this case we have had several steam locomotive operators post good reasons that Lee's notion of remote control of the fireman's functions is at least impractical and undesirable.  Lee has persisted in saying that he knows it could have been done with 1940s technology.  If Lee still thinks that is the case I would enjoy hearing what he knows that makes his opinion diverge from the opinions of those with operational experience on 1940s reciprocating steam locomotives. 

 

If Lee does have some unique insights into boiler instrumentation and control circa 75 years ago we might all learn something.  That can even be one of the fun results of "interfacing" with virtual and even "live humans." 

 

It seems to me comparing a Nimitz Class carrier to a steam locomotive is apples and oranges.  Especially since the Nimitz class are nuclear powered.

In the late 1950s and into the early '80s, there were dozens of completely "remote controlled," reciprocating steam locos in the Jharkhad, Orissa, and other coal regions of India. For all I know in other coal areas aorund the world, too, but those are the only ones I've seen for myself.  They were small, narrow-gauge locos, but they were standard 0-6-0 and 0-8-0 tank type steamers, built in England in the period between the wars, retrofitted with oil burners after the war, and fitted for to "remote control" in the late 50s.

 

Lee

 

That sounds very interesting.  Do you have any links to share?

 

It appears that we have very different perspectives on engineering.

 

You seem to be focused on what is possible without much regard for construction cost or complexity that would lead to operational reliability problems and high maintenance costs.

 

From my point of view a high construction cost might be acceptable, but only if that lead to reduced O&M costs.

 

I have seen the fist view of engineering in action a few times.  It might have a short term advantage if one works for a firm that is payed based on a percentage of the cost of a project.  But it leads a lack of repeat sales of similar equipment to other customers and a lack repeat business with the original customer.

 

In the historic locomotive world the two GE steam turbine electrics might be viewed as engineering marvels of a sort.  They used the best electric generator, traction motor, steam turbine, boiler and control technology then available.  They were designed by one of the leading high tech manufacturing firms in the world at the time with fantastic capabilities in electrical engineering, materials science, instrumentation and control and system integration.  And yet the GE steam turbine electrics were real world failures. They ran a few months on the UP, sat idle for a few years and were leased out again for a few moths before they were scrapped and their copper and steel went to more beneficial uses.  While they are at least partially shrouded in the mists of time their complexity does appear to have been a significant contributing factor to their unsatisfactory performance.  It took GE a generation to begin to get into the mainline locomotive business in a sustainable way with multiple customers, sales of the same model to multiple customers and customers coming back again and again.

 

In contrast, GM was having great success in the same period with very expensive locomotives that were also complex in terms of new technology and parts count.  But they were engineered for reliability and relative simplicity for O&M forces.  GM followed up with excellent customer support and re-engineered their products based on customer feedback.  That approach delivered reduced O&M costs for their customers.  It also earned them 40 years or market dominance.

I've seen this in a number of engineers, who sometimes, it seems, can't see the forest for the trees (dad was an aerospace engineer at Rocketdyne).

 

Yes, many things are possible. It's possible to engineer a train with square wheels. But beyond that, one has to wonder why anyone would do it.

 

I keep pondering why an engineer might think it's a good idea to take dozens, if not scores, of controls that are, by necessity, located on the backhead or in the firebox, like water glasses or try-cocks, or the burner and atomizer, dampers, and any number of other accessories and gauges, and try and jigger some contols for them 50 feet away.

 

The cables, reach rods with universals for valves, bell cranks, tubes, sensor wires, conduits, etc. flowing from the backhead to the "cab" located in front of the smokebox would nearly hide the boiler from view! It would be staggeringly complicated.

 

I always thought quality engineering was supposed to simplify things.

 

Didn't we encounter some of that last May during 765 trip on the Horseshoe Curve trip???

My brain hurts when I think about what it might take to remotely control just a few valves that are attached to the backhead--the try cocks and water glasses. Using rods and linkages to physically turn the valve might be far too ponderous, to get the valve-turning motion from the cab to travel back along the boiler, and turn 180 degrees at the backhead to fit to the valve handle itself. I guess it might be easier to put an electro-mechanical fitting on each try cock, that would allow one to open the valve while in the cab, 50 feet away. Sort of like an automatic sprinkler valve control. Then you'd need to be able to see whether you're getting steam or water from the trycocks. Closed-circuit camera? Hopefully when you open the top try-cock, the steam won't fog up the camera.

 

So, we'd need three electro-mechanical "valve openers" Of course, you wouldn't be able to use them without the engine's generator in operation, so while steaming up, you'd have to trust the water glass. Again, routing the piping for a water glass from the backhead up to the "cab" would be ridiculously complicated, and might give false readings, with the water having to travel out and back that far. Again, a CCTV camera might give you a better indication. You'd also have to use three more of our hypothetical electro-mechanical valve-turners--one for the top of the glass, one for the bottom, and one for the drain. Times two, since you often have two water glasses. But now we're back to what to do about the electricity needed to operate our valve-openers and cameras.

 

I guess we could operate everything on battery power until we have enough steam to run the generator. We could also attach a charger to the generator, to keep our batteries charged. But if we don't run for a while, we run the risk of the batteries running down. And if you don't have spare batteries on hand, you may be SOL come time to fire up your engine, from 50 feet away from where you need to be to do it.

 

Ah-yup. It certainly is possible to run our engine from near the smokebox. And it's possible to use square wheels too.

Taken to the extreme, how would one even light the fire from the cab at the smokebox??

The same "person" that periodically sands the flues/tubes on an oil burner?

No..we can figure something out. We'll automate it. Rig up a storage bin and a funnel with a bunch of cables and levers. And an electric eye. It's possible. I'm sure of it.

 

Seriously--now I'm really thinking about this! I can think of no way to "remotely" light off. It simply has to be done with someone manually manipulating oil, atomizer and blower. To make a "robot" that can grab some waste, ignite it, and throw it in front of the burner in just the right place, without the atomizer blowing it out, and then opening the firing valve just right, would be pretty much impossible, as I see it. But I don't have an engineering degree. 

 

So...we'd bascially need a second set of controls at the backhead just to get the fire lit. Then, when steam is up, we'd have to disengage those controls in favor of the ones in the cab by the smokebox.

 

So, our poor fictional fireman will have to be at the backhead for a little bit of time, at least, to start the fire. But if it's raining or cold, I should hope he'd have some protection from the elements, like...(drumroll)...A CAB!! 

 

Lee may be a good mechanical engineer, but I can see that if we let him loose to design a firebox-to-the-rear cab forward, he will create the most complicated steam locomotive on the planet!

"The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to muck up the works."

-Montgomery Scott, Chief Engineer, U.S.S. Enterprise  NCC 1701-A

 

Rusty

Like this?

 

Casey

 

Thanks for the vintage ads.  Of course the Iron Fireman was so reliable we all have one today. 

 

For anyone interested in engineering I can't recommend this book highly enough.

 

 

It is a well told narrative of how engineering errors in the late 50s and early 60s lead to the loss of American lives in the mid to late 60s with frightening national security implications.  And it is also the story of how a small group of individuals brought fresh ideas to understanding engineering tradeoffs that lead to the design of the most important American tactical combat aircraft of the last 40 years, the F-15, F-16 and F-18 and A-10.

 

The ways of thinking about engineering used by John Boyd have applications in any design project.  They also help to understand why the F-35 is on its way to becoming the most expensive defense acquisition project ever and is producing  one (or three) of least capable combat aircraft designed in the last 50 years.

 

 

Clearly Yes?? Really? I don't think you've proved your point whatsoever. But you're an engineer (not steam, obviously). Please. Explain how you would build such an engine.

 

Your pride in your profession knows no bounds.

 

As a serious question, other than making things more complicated than they already are, what is the logistical reason for separating the firebox and controls?

Kevin

I don't think there is one. Lee can answer from the engineering POV.

One other non-engineering factor that I just considered:

 

The railroad union.

 

A remote-firebox locomotive would *require* some level of automation, which would eliminate the fireman's job.

 

As it was, the unions fought long and hard to force the railroads to keep firemen employed after diesel became inevitable by making the fireman's job a requirement on any locomotive 45 tons or heavier, including diesels.

 

That said, I can see no practical advantage to having the firebox at the far end of the locomotive, regardless of jobs or technical feasibility.

I always thought quality engineering was supposed to simplify things.

 

What I can never figure out is that when something is engineered that the one who has to use or buy the product is not brought onboard to see if the new idea would work.

 

I think this example has been spoken in this blog before:  new RR locomotive cab layouts.  Some have mentioned they are OK for a computer based office, but not great for being in control of a locomotive for hours on end.

 

When I was in the UP loco simulator, they layout for the desk, bell, horn, brakes, throtle, and reverser seemed to have a disconnect.  Par modern, part from the cab of the FT.  And I could not get my seat to be comfortable.  Yet this is stuff the engineer has to have his/her hands on in an instant!

 

F35:  Can the thing!  You can buy lots of F18 for the same price.  And come up with a Harrier-2 for a "jump jet" version.

 

Government Policy:  If it works, ban or junk it!