You mention loads that actually seem light during my career as an over the road Locomotive Engineer on the UP. The load capacity really climbed rather quickly. When I hired out in 1973 a 4 axle cars could haul 100 tons or 200,000 lbs. One of my heaviest trains was two grain trains put together. It totaled 155 cars at 133 tons per care. Doing the math that is 20,615 tons or 41,230,000 lbs. I had 6 SD-40s on the head end, which was 18,000 horsepower. To make it over the Huey P Long Bridge, a 1.25 % grade, 2 more SD-40s was added as pushers. It took about one horsepower per ton to make it over the crest of the bridge. And anything over 10,000 tons exceeded the drawbar / knuckle strength. Today I believe the gross weight on 4 axles is around 145 tons.
I think making the boiler a larger diameter and shortening the distance between tubeplates by making a larger grate and combustion chamber would have been a good start. Dispensing with the compound arrangement and having four smaller cylinders in ‘simple’ mode would have helped too.
Modern cars are 286,000lbs, or 143tons. VERY few cars have a tare weight exceeding 30 tons, which means most cars can carry in excess of 100tons each. An empty 130-car coal train on NS's Pittsburgh division weigh between 3000-3500 tons depending on inclusion of light-weight aluminum hoppers. Those trains isually weigh in between 18-20 rhousand tons.
Another case of too much locomotive and not enough steam. Still nowhere near as problematic as their accordion jointed boiler locomotives. Cool video, thanks much!
I don't think so, a fire box from a 2-10-2 is too small for this size of a locomotive. The combined tubes are too long, this loco had 7 Tube plates. This mean, it is not possible to get enough draft at that boiler and enough fire to use all the heating surface.
That's an evolutionary step in the future that wasn't then available. When Super-Power came along the four-wheeled trailing truck required significant and detailed design development. @@TheHoveHeretic
Perhaps. But with being based on the existing 1800 class a larger diameter boiler would likely have impinged maximum axle load. The issue, as with other jointed boilers was the lack of draft - and that's a product of tube length rather than barrel diameter.
My question would have to be why the Santa Fe didn't stick with one or maybe two prototypes, given these beasties were such a radical departure from the practices of the time? Or better yet ..... if your area of expertise is in running trains, maybe do that and leave designing big, complex locos to builders with an established track record?
In the early 1900s, the Santa Fe was relatively lightly-built, and so spreading engine weight over many axles was a goal in itself. Compare this 10 driven-axle engine, for example, to the I1sa 2-10-0 class (1916-1923) on the Pennsylvania R.R., a railroad with strong bridges and tracks: 102,600 lbs. tractive effort, and 72,600 lbs. on each driving wheel. In addition, modern anti-wheel slip systems didn't exist, so maximizing drivers was seen as a way to get more tractive effort onto the rails. Unfortunately, less axle weight also made engines more "slippery." This engine must have required a careful hand on the throttle when starting a train.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower - Thank you! When looking at railroad history, it is always important to look at the subject from the perspective of the company that made the decisions, because they had to look at the idea from a financial, mechanical engineering, and civil engineering perspective. Clearly, ATSF must have believed enough in the 2-10-10-2 concept enough to convert an entire class without first building a prototype. Despite the almost-predictable lack of success met by the 2-10-10-2 idea, the 2-10-2 "Santa Fe" type was popular with the ATSF up through dieselization.
They tried to much to improve thermal efficiency at the cost of not enough steam raising surface, fur such a large locomotive the boiler looks skinny. Interesting is the part of dead weight in a train, you should think that in the UK with limited train lengths and axle loadings they would have adopted larger wagons sooner to get more payload on a train, but yet the British coal car didn't grow much until 1970. The typical coal car grew from 8 or 10 ton capacity in 1870 to 16 ton for the last batches of 4 wheel cars in 1950. On the European continent the 4 wheeler quickly grew to a 27-30 ton capacity around 1950 and bogie side discharge hopper cars were also introduced en masse around that time, these had a 50 ton capacity which grew to 70 ton nowadays. The hoppers were used for transport of coal to large industrial users and power plants, the four wheel wagon stayed in use for household coal deliveries on local goods yards to local coal merchants.
You hit the nail on the ehad Tom.. The firebox and boiler were inadequate for the size of the locomotive. I just find that perplexing as to why the Santa Fe engineers didnt figure that out prior to conversions. Baldwin or Alco were not involved with this.. Perhaps they should have been.. At least in a consulting role.. You know? Yeah I found the hauling issue's in the U.K. and Europe a bit perplexing as well.
Its obvious. It wasn't able to supply enough steam. But it was a awesome try. I'm surprised a design engineer didnt come up with a design that added a extra firebox on the front end with a smaller tender. And a extra cab for the engineer. Kinda like a Garrett. But what do I know. I'm just a retired trucker & a ole rail fan.
@@martinanschutz7410 understandable really i suppose..still a pity mind you,because who knows what sort of beast would've followed.Thanks for the confirmation Martin,and have a nice day.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower no,but with four articulated engines,i expect it would have gone round very slight curves..but imagine the overhang at the front🤨
You mention loads that actually seem light during my career as an over the road Locomotive Engineer on the UP. The load capacity really climbed rather quickly. When I hired out in 1973 a 4 axle cars could haul 100 tons or 200,000 lbs. One of my heaviest trains was two grain trains put together. It totaled 155 cars at 133 tons per care. Doing the math that is 20,615 tons or 41,230,000 lbs. I had 6 SD-40s on the head end, which was 18,000 horsepower. To make it over the Huey P Long Bridge, a 1.25 % grade, 2 more SD-40s was added as pushers. It took about one horsepower per ton to make it over the crest of the bridge. And anything over 10,000 tons exceeded the drawbar / knuckle strength. Today I believe the gross weight on 4 axles is around 145 tons.
75t at the time were really heavy loads.
I think making the boiler a larger diameter and shortening the distance between tubeplates by making a larger grate and combustion chamber would have been a good start. Dispensing with the compound arrangement and having four smaller cylinders in ‘simple’ mode would have helped too.
The firebox was also too small.
Modern cars are 286,000lbs, or 143tons. VERY few cars have a tare weight exceeding 30 tons, which means most cars can carry in excess of 100tons each.
An empty 130-car coal train on NS's Pittsburgh division weigh between 3000-3500 tons depending on inclusion of light-weight aluminum hoppers. Those trains isually weigh in between 18-20 rhousand tons.
Another case of too much locomotive and not enough steam. Still nowhere near as problematic as their accordion jointed boiler locomotives. Cool video, thanks much!
Absolutely correct
Can you please do a video on the climaxes plz
The geared locomotives
You got it! And thank you very, very much!
That boiler diameter is way to small maybe if was bigger they would been slighty better.
I don't think so, a fire box from a 2-10-2 is too small for this size of a locomotive. The combined tubes are too long, this loco had 7 Tube plates. This mean, it is not possible to get enough draft at that boiler and enough fire to use all the heating surface.
@@martinanschutz7410Perhaps replace the trailing pony with a four wheeled truck as was done when Mountains morphed into Northerns?
That's an evolutionary step in the future that wasn't then available. When Super-Power came along the four-wheeled trailing truck required significant and detailed design development. @@TheHoveHeretic
Perhaps. But with being based on the existing 1800 class a larger diameter boiler would likely have impinged maximum axle load. The issue, as with other jointed boilers was the lack of draft - and that's a product of tube length rather than barrel diameter.
Exactly right... the chief failure was the firebox size.
My question would have to be why the Santa Fe didn't stick with one or maybe two prototypes, given these beasties were such a radical departure from the practices of the time? Or better yet ..... if your area of expertise is in running trains, maybe do that and leave designing big, complex locos to builders with an established track record?
Like Baldwin? They too were barking up the jointed boiler tree.
Baldwin was very stubborn in not adopting unproven technology. They innovated very little, just made construction more efficient
@@theimaginationstation1899there have been a few "interesting" ideas down the years, haven't there? Franco-Crosti 'Big Boy', anyone?
In the early 1900s, the Santa Fe was relatively lightly-built, and so spreading engine weight over many axles was a goal in itself. Compare this 10 driven-axle engine, for example, to the I1sa 2-10-0 class (1916-1923) on the Pennsylvania R.R., a railroad with strong bridges and tracks: 102,600 lbs. tractive effort, and 72,600 lbs. on each driving wheel.
In addition, modern anti-wheel slip systems didn't exist, so maximizing drivers was seen as a way to get more tractive effort onto the rails. Unfortunately, less axle weight also made engines more "slippery." This engine must have required a careful hand on the throttle when starting a train.
Great Info!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower - Thank you! When looking at railroad history, it is always important to look at the subject from the perspective of the company that made the decisions, because they had to look at the idea from a financial, mechanical engineering, and civil engineering perspective.
Clearly, ATSF must have believed enough in the 2-10-10-2 concept enough to convert an entire class without first building a prototype. Despite the almost-predictable lack of success met by the 2-10-10-2 idea, the 2-10-2 "Santa Fe" type was popular with the ATSF up through dieselization.
They tried to much to improve thermal efficiency at the cost of not enough steam raising surface, fur such a large locomotive the boiler looks skinny.
Interesting is the part of dead weight in a train, you should think that in the UK with limited train lengths and axle loadings they would have adopted larger wagons sooner to get more payload on a train, but yet the British coal car didn't grow much until 1970. The typical coal car grew from 8 or 10 ton capacity in 1870 to 16 ton for the last batches of 4 wheel cars in 1950.
On the European continent the 4 wheeler quickly grew to a 27-30 ton capacity around 1950 and bogie side discharge hopper cars were also introduced en masse around that time, these had a 50 ton capacity which grew to 70 ton nowadays. The hoppers were used for transport of coal to large industrial users and power plants, the four wheel wagon stayed in use for household coal deliveries on local goods yards to local coal merchants.
You hit the nail on the ehad Tom.. The firebox and boiler were inadequate for the size of the locomotive. I just find that perplexing as to why the Santa Fe engineers didnt figure that out prior to conversions. Baldwin or Alco were not involved with this.. Perhaps they should have been.. At least in a consulting role.. You know? Yeah I found the hauling issue's in the U.K. and Europe a bit perplexing as well.
I get some remindance of the Baldwin Centipede.
Sort of.. But the tender wasnt all that functional compared to others for sure. It had its limitations..like the loco itself.
Its obvious. It wasn't able to supply enough steam. But it was a awesome try.
I'm surprised a design engineer didnt come up with a design that added a extra firebox on the front end with a smaller tender. And a extra cab for the engineer. Kinda like a Garrett. But what do I know. I'm just a retired trucker & a ole rail fan.
Oh, you mean like the Virginian did.. I get your meaning. Dunno how the Santa Fe guys didnt think of that from the get go.
The Baldwin "Kit Mallet" on steroids!
yes! Good comp!
Some of the pics are HO brass and Lionel 3R scale models.
That's done because the older the loco, the less photography that there is available. So the model pics are used to fill in the blanks so to speak
I wonder if a bigger fire box would have helped
I would say there would be a pretty good chance of that. The Virginian’s 2-10-10-2’s had a firebox area that was over 200 square feet larger.
@@machinist1879 UP got it right with big Boy ,,it had a big enough boiler and higher pressure steam ,,it was actually much bigger too
Yes..that was one of the biggest factor in failure in the design... Why the Santa Fe designers didnt figure this in is beyond me.
Double decapod: need twice the firebox, but didn't, so not enough steam.
Well..the Santa Fe engineers didnt get that memo in hatching their plan.. Baffles me.
hi,
i'm sure i read somewhere that the Santa Fe were contemplating a Quintuplex 2-10-10-10-10-10-2! now THAT would have been a sight.🤨
Yes it is true, there were plans , but the failure of the this loco and the triplex are the grave diggers for this plans .
@@martinanschutz7410 understandable really i suppose..still a pity mind you,because who knows what sort of beast would've followed.Thanks for the confirmation Martin,and have a nice day.
Well I dont thing the thing would negotiate curves very well.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower
no,but with four articulated engines,i expect it would have gone round very slight curves..but imagine the overhang at the front🤨
@@bcn1 Yeah, just not a good idea... Totally limited in places it could operate.