Why were Camalbacks banned?

The siderods could break loose and thrust right through the center-mounted cab making for a very bad day for the engineer.

Also, the fireman was out back on a cabless deck, exposed to the elements. Plus communication between the engineer and fireman was difficult to practically non-existant.

Rusty

When the ICC ruled about camelbacks, it was referring to new construction.
Existing camelbacks were 'granfathered' in with that rule change. However, some roads running camelbacks on inter-state runs rebuilt them with end cabs. The D&H and Lackawanna come to mind here.

The primary objection to the camelback was the inherent lack of communication between fireman and engineer because of its design which separated them. The fireman (besides tending the fire and all) was supposed to observe the left side of the loco, watch for and call out signals, grade crossings etc. for the engineer if they appeared on the fireman's side first. Ditto for he enginner to call out to the fireman so BOTH knew the situation of the road ahead.

Some odd things happened with camelback engines. On the Reading, an engineer once fell out of his perch on the cab window sill while running a passenger train. This sitting on the widnow sill practice was very common among camelback engineers and I've seen it done many times on the Reading, Jersey Central and the SIRT.

He wasn't missed until the train had run past two stops. The fireman was deeply occupied with problems from flue leaks and trying to keep up steam pressure, so he had not noticed. But the conductor did and pulled the emergency brake cord. The engineer was found a few miles back. He suffered a broken leg from his fall but was otherwise OK.

In another situation, an engineer died at the controls of his camelback. The train (a freight I think) continued until it stalled on a grade leading into a tunnel.

As for rods snapping, indeed that could happen but it was not all that common. If it did happen, it mainly was due to worn rod bushings and/or poor lubrication. With only some wood planks for the cab floor, there wasn't much protection of a broken rod end swung up and through the cab.

I'm not sure camelbacks could be run now, with all the safety conciousness adn liability concerns we have these days. It's quite a stretch even to allow steam to operate, given the innate hazzards of the backhead.

Separating the fireman and engineer as required with a camelback likely would not be permissable. Even if a third person was watching the left side, that boiler sits between each side of the operating cab, making contact with the enginner impossible. And the firing deck is separated from that cab by the length of the firebox and a narrow catwalk. Not the best situation if an emergency should arise.

Ed Bommer

Was the cab roof of a camelback right down against the top of the boiler? If there was some space between the top of the boiler and the cab roof, I wonder if some communication might have been available. I realize that a cab is a very noisy location but perhaps some sort of a rod or bell cord could be arranged to provide some pretty basic sort of communication between the fireman and the engineer. Just a thought, probably wasn't a very sociable location.

Paul Fischer

When a rod broke, it could wipe out the engineer.

Thanks for the replies.

As a matter of further curiosity, what perceived advantages were gained by the "camalback" design? They seem to have been popular vs standard engines on many roads. It seems people went to a lot of trouble to design an engine with lots of problems.

As for whether a camelback could steam in the 21st Century, you also have to consider where the 3 remaining locos are. 4-4-0 no 952 from the Lackawanna RR is at the Museum of Transport in St. Louis County, MO and is in decent shape, but the museum really has no mainline on which to run.
4-4-2 no.592 of the Central RR of New Jersey is at the B&O Railroad Museum in Baltimore, MD is in beautiful shape, and they have one mile of main track. They have two steam weekends (I believe) each year, but would have to justify a speedster like this running only a mile or so in their confines.
0-4-0 no. 4 of the Reading is at the Strasburg Rail Road in Strasburg, PA. I have heard stories of her on and off restoration. They have a decnt stretch of track, about 6 miles to run her on if she was operational. However, such a light locomotive is very limited in how many cars she can pull. Other than the oddity of cab position, what benefits would we get if any of these camelbacks were running?

quote:

Originally posted by joetrains:
As a matter of further curiosity, what perceived advantages were gained by the "camalback" design? They seem to have been popular vs standard engines on many roads. It seems people went to a lot of trouble to design an engine with lots of problems.

Camelbacks utilized very wide "Wooten" fireboxes that burned clean-burning anthracite coal. The fireboxes were so wide that they would have filled a standard cab, leaving no room for the crew, so the cab was moved forward to straddle the narrower boiler.

quote:

Originally posted by Tim O'Malley:
However, such a light locomotive is very limited in how many cars she can pull.

You'd be surprised.

Spent some time today standing beside and looking at 592. It is clearly a speedster... and can't image attempting to feed those two (yes two) fire box mauls on that open platform at speed. Two undocumented stories about 592:

1) It was briefly considered for B&O's steam program. A glance inside the smoke box apparently quickly showed that the front sheet is missing, according to someone who was there;

2) After the roundhouse roof collapse, it was discovered the turn table's main bearing was cracked. Since the roundhouse was originally built to repair cars (not locomotives), it isn't a very heavy duty table. 592 is clearly the heaviest engine in the house. The theory is it was cracked when 592 was moved in many years ago and that it is unlikely be removed again.

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by Tim O'Malley:
4-4-2 no.592 of the Central RR of New Jersey is at the B&O Railroad Museum in Baltimore, MD is in beautiful shape, and they have one mile of main track. They have two steam weekends (I believe) each year, but would have to justify a speedster like this running only a mile or so in their confines.

Aside from what SJC has said about the B&O museuns steam needs, beautiful shape cosmetically does not always equate to beautiful shape mechanically.

Rusty

Tim- Don't forget B&O 305 (Winan's Camel), one of the first camelbacks, at the B&O Railroad Museum:



Lee

quote:

Originally posted by Tim O'Malley:
As for whether a camelback could steam in the 21st Century, you also have to consider where the 3 remaining locos are. 4-4-0 no 952 from the Lackawanna RR is at the Museum of Transport in St. Louis County, MO and is in decent shape, but the museum really has no mainline on which to run.
4-4-2 no.592 of the Central RR of New Jersey is at the B&O Railroad Museum in Baltimore, MD is in beautiful shape, and they have one mile of main track. They have two steam weekends (I believe) each year, but would have to justify a speedster like this running only a mile or so in their confines.
0-4-0 no. 4 of the Reading is at the Strasburg Rail Road in Strasburg, PA. I have heard stories of her on and off restoration. They have a decnt stretch of track, about 6 miles to run her on if she was operational. However, such a light locomotive is very limited in how many cars she can pull. Other than the oddity of cab position, what benefits would we get if any of these camelbacks were running?

B&O 305 at the museum in Baltimore is named a "camel." This was because the engineer essentially sat on top of the boiler, as though riding on a camel.

The term "camel back" refers instead to the hump-like projection the cab makes when straddeling the middle of a boiler. Here, the engineer sits on one side of the loco. These locos were also known as "Mother Hubbard's" for some odd reason.

There is also a B&O Hayes 4-6-0 "camel" at the National Transportation Museum near St. Louis. It sits under cover on a dark back track, as the wood in it slowly rots away. This one I think was from the Purdue Uiversity collection along with a few other locos that were given to the museum.

Was the Pennsylvania's "Ruben Wells" also in the Purdue collection at one time?
I've seen photos of that muilt-drivered loco it on post cards and wonder what may have become of it.

Ed Bommer

Ed Bommer, the Reuben Wells is now on display at the Childrens Museum of Indianapolis, IN. You are correct that this unusual locomotive was part of the Purdue collection, being donated in 1905. Somewhere along the way, the Pennsylvania RR acquired it for their historical collection. This might have been when Purdue was divesting itself of their historic pieces. It is classified as an 0-10-0, but that is an oversimplification on the matter, since the water tanks ride alongside the boiler and the coal bunker is integrated into the frame. They wanted every bit of weight on the drivers for better adhesion.

The "Reuben Wells" was built for the Madison Incline, the steep grade up from the Ohio River at Madison, IN. In its last years of service, the Incline was handled by a pair of specially-equipped SD9's. The track is still in place, tho it hasn't been used for several years. The Indy Childrens Museum also has a huge O-Gauge layout that is worth a visit by itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Tim O'Malley:

Are the Winans and Hayes Camels wood burners or coal burners? The angle of the firebox backhead certainly is curious.

I can't answer that, Tim. I'll have to ask my friend, Chris who was engineer on the Mason this weekend.

Lee

I think the "Mother Hubbard" term had something to do with some 19th Century women's attire of the same name. Evidently someone saw a similarity between a woman in that clothing and the shape of the steamers with the cab straddling the boiler. Anyone else recall this??

The old B&O camels were built with the cab on top of the boiler primarily to give the engineer the best possible view of the track ahead. That was far more important than one might think, given the kind of rail and roadbed back then. Also no signals - yet.

Both the Winans and Hayes camels were built to burn coal but wood could be used as well. The Winans and similar 'company' locos (i.e., B&O built since Winans at his leased shop also built locomotives for other railroads), were primarily for freight. The later built Hayes camels outshopped at Mount Clare by the B&O generally hauled passenger trains.

B&O used coal for its locomotive fuel of choice quite early, especially since it also carried that commodity. Early tests of steam locomotives when being developed in the 1830s often required that they be able to 'consume their own smoke.' It was recognized even then, that smoke was essentially unburned fuel and wasteful. To get around this, early builders in performing these tests often fired their locos with coke instead of coal. Result: practically no smoke at all even under a heavy load. But coke is not cheap 'every day' fuel! Wood as locomotive fuel was used as the cheapest available alternative during the mad railroad building rage of the mid-to-late 19th century. Still, coal was more efficient as fuel.

There were two types of fireboxes on some Winans camels. One was the "medium furnace" and the other was the "long furnace". Both had that unusual sloped-top firebox, intended to draw flames forward toward the boiler flues. The "long furnace" locos had a second firing door. It was set on top of a chute that could feed coal to the foward part of the grate. The fireman would put several shovels of coal down that chute, then with a fire rake working through end fire box door, spread the coal over the fire bed.

Firing either of the camels was tricky, since the deck was attached to the tender like an extended porch. It was not attached to the locomotive. Of course the top speed of a freight train back then was only about 10 mph. (25-30 MPH for passenger trains). For freight, 10 mph was considered to be the the most efficient speed, in consumption of water and fuel per mile. It remained so even into the 'heavy drag freight' years of the 1920s.

Ed Bommer

You go, Ed! Ed is very knowledgeable on the B&O!

 

From what I read in the book "Twilight of the Camelbacks", when they CNJ decided to donate the 592 to the train museum, they gave it a cosmetic restoration, using bits and pieces from other Camelbacks. There is a picture of a cab on the ground with "For 592" written on it- it replaced the original cab.

 

I have also read that the 592 has no guts- literally. No sheets, no flues, no nothing on the inside. A photo also in the book shows her being towed to Baltimore, not arriving under her own power.

 

Camels refer to locos where the cab was atop the boiler. A Camelback is a loco whose cab straddles the boiler.

It may be interesting to note that some camelbacks used "speaking tubes". But as previously noted, the fireman did not have a good view ahead from the footplate. Which raises the question, did a camelback fireman spend much time in the left-hand "forward" cab, if he was caught up on tending the fire etc?

 

http://nyow.org/glory.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_tube

I was on a tour of the Strasburg Shops back in August, and the man giving the tour said that the #1187 would be restored if they had a roundhouse for more engine storage (which he made sound like it was a back burner project). Then #1187 would be restored, but not so much for use at Strasburg, but to be transported around the country, kinda like Thomas, or Flagg Coal Co. #75 and Lehigh Valley Coal Co #126.

 

 

Believe camelbacks had a wide firebox because antharacite, which they burned and which was mined in northeastern PA, burned "cooler" then bituminous. Proximity to anthracite production is why camelbacks were concentrated in the eastern PA and NJ areas. Lower temperature production required a larger grate area to produce equivalent power as a bituminous burning locomotive. Those camelbacks that remained in service, particularly on the CRRNJ, operated within NJ, so were beyond the Interstate Commerce Commission's reach! The CRRNJ camelbacks remained in service into 1954 - a wonderful anachronism, but railroads have had to be frugal. The above cited 0-4-0 camelback was at a coking plant in Birdsboro, PA, operated into the early 1960's and was the last camelback operated. A nifty little engine that was occaisionly visited by the Reading RR's 4-8-4 powered steam rambles. It also was a former Reading locomotive.

Bob: thank you for the refined perspective.   Point well taken!

Very nice discussion on a topic not very often brought up.

 

As a child I often heard any large wooden piece of furniture being referred to as "Old Mother Hubbard's cupboard." This from the old nursery rhyme. 

 

Old Mother Hubbard
Went to the cupboard,
To give the poor dog a bone;
When she came there,
The cupboard was bare,
And so the poor dog had none.

 

Hence the original large wooden cab of the engines could have been referred to as such. As in "I am getting in "Old Mother Hubbard's cupboard."

>>Even if a third person was watching the left side, that boiler sits between each side of the operating cab, making contact with the enginner impossible.

 

Well, today we have something called radio!  Heck, you could even equip a camelback with video monitors if necessary.

Would they be relegated to hump yard duty? 

 

Hadn't considered the side rods cleaning the cab off.  I thought it was boiler explosion.  But I guess it doesn't much matter where you are, as such, when the boiler goes boom.

A picture is worth a thousand words:

 

You can clearly see what happened to the engineer when the rod bearing failed.

 

Jon 

Sorry, that's incorrect.  Ask any short line - the fact that its rails don't cross state lines doesn't exempt it from STB / FRA jurisdiction.  (And the Central wasn't confined to NJ - it had quite a bit of track in PA.)

 

The ICC didn't ban the use of camelbacks - it banned the construction of new camelbacks.

>> I guess it doesn't much matter where you are, as such, when the boiler goes boom.

 

Actually, you might be slightly better off along side the boiler than in back of it!

>> the fact that its rails don't cross state lines doesn't exempt it from STB / FRA jurisdiction.  (And the Central wasn't confined to NJ - it had quite a bit of track in PA.)

 

I have seen photographs of CNJ Camelbacks (passenger and freight) operating in Pennsylvania.

 

Actually, a railroad comes under federal law if it:

1. Connects with any other interstate railroads.

2. Crosses another interstate RR, federally funded waterway or highway, at grade, by bridge or underpass. 

Believe ICC rules did not apply to equipment that stayed inside a state. That is why arch bar trucks and wooden cars remained around after being banned in interstate commerce. Believe that is why the Delaware & Hudson put cabs on tenwheelers and Consols that went across state lines, and may even have ventured into Canada. The FRA is a different entity guided by different federal laws, then the 19th century ICC. But point well taken, the ICC banned new construction of camelbacks (CRRNJ's newest camelbacks were constructed in 1916, if memory serves).

 

Again, no.  See Kent's post above.

 

You are confusing "interstate commerce" with "interchange service," and ICC with AAR.  Lots of arch bar trucks remained in service MOW / company service), but couldn't be interchanged with other railroads.

 

"interchange service" is a subset of interstate commerce.     But I shall yield as there is no prize given in this contest!

Ok, can't resist! The Interstate Commerce Commision was....was.....(superceeded by the FRA) a federal agency which regulated railroads through the 1970's from it's creation in 1887. The ARA, which was followed by the AAR, was an industry group which convened to determine best practices in engineering standards, etc. They were parallel organizations.  So, yes, I do know the differnce. Now I bow out!

>>Lots of arch bar trucks remained in service MOW / company service), but couldn't be interchanged with other railroads.

 

Ditto for Tourist Railroad passenger cars with friction bearings.

The term "Plain bearings" is even more correct.