Mystery Steam Locomotive

[Ridgefielder]

I just bought a very old book called When Railroads Were New; it's written by someone named Charles Frederick Carter, and was published in New York, by Henry Holt & Co., in 1909 . The book is illustrated, and one of the illustrations shows a comparison of the size the Best Friend of Charleston with "the largest [locomotive] ever built" in America.

That "Largest Locomotive" is an 0-8-8-0 Camelback (!); the caption says it is a compound engine weighing 410,000 lbs. The tender is not in the picture; the cab is numbered 2600 but there is no road name on it. It's a bizarre looking beast-- the front pair of cylinders look to be about five feet forward of the smokebox, and the lead pair of drivers are forward of the smokebox as well. It appears to have Walschaerts valve gear. Judging by the size of the cylinders, the rear pair are the high pressure half of the compound, the forward pair the low pressure. The firebox is enormous-- the same width as the tender-- and the engine is clearly deckless and fired from the tender gangway.

So.... anybody out there know what this thing is? I don't unfortunately have the technology here at home to scan the picture in and post it, otherwise I'd put the photo in here as well.

[scottychaos]

Erie Railroad 0-8-8-0..
there were only three of them, used as pushers..
the only articulated Camelbacks ever built..



built by Alco in 1907, and yes, at the time, they were the largest locomotives ever built!

Scot

[Allen Hazen]

Having the rear pair of cylinders be the high-pressure ones and the forward pair the low pressure was standard on compound Mallets(*). I ***assume*** (but would love to hear from anyone who knows more) that this is because the rear pair are on the locomotive's "rigid" frame, the front pair on the frame that is hinged, so having the front pair low pressure meant that only low pressure steam had to go through a movable, hard to keep steam-tight, joint.
--
(*) Yes I know that ***officially*** the term "Mallet" only applies to conpounds and not to simple articulateds, so officially I've been redundant here.

[Ridgefielder]

Erie Railroad 0-8-8-0..
there were only three of them, used as pushers..
the only articulated Camelbacks ever built..

Photo made URL for brevity (John P)

built by Alco in 1907, and yes, at the time, they were the largest locomotives ever built!

Scot

That is one ugly locomotive. Were they a success? I'm assuming the answer is "no" if they only built three of them.

How long did they last in regular service?

Edited by a Moderator (image to url for brevity) 3-15-10 352PM CDT

[scottychaos]

Erie Railroad 0-8-8-0..
there were only three of them, used as pushers..
the only articulated Camelbacks ever built..

Photo made URL for brevity (John P)

built by Alco in 1907, and yes, at the time, they were the largest locomotives ever built!

Scot

That is one ugly locomotive. Were they a success? I'm assuming the answer is "no" if they only built three of them.

How long did they last in regular service?

Edited by a Moderator (image to url for brevity) 3-15-10 352PM CDT

actually they were quite sucessful!
I think Erie only bought three because thats all they needed for this particular pusher district (Summit Grade, also called Susquehanna Hill, leading up to Starrucca viaduct.)

Lets see..the book "Erie Power" says:

Built 1907, Alco Schenectady.
L1 "Angus" class.
numbers 2600, 2601 and 2602.
Largest locomotives in the world, and largest ever built, in 1907.


They weighed 409,000 pounds,
developed 94,800 pounds of tractive force.

They were true Mallets, compound, which meant they used the steam twice.
first at high pressure in the rear cylinders, then a second time, at lower pressure in the front cylinders.
(which is why the front cylinders are larger..the front cylinders were "low pressure" cylinders, so they needed to be larger.)

The three L1 engines satisfactorily replaced nine heavy decopod and consolidation type locomotives.

These engines were were true Mallets in that they were compounds. The reason for compounding was that although superheaters and stokers were available by 1907, they were in an embryonic stage far from coping with the demands of such huge locomotives. Using live steam in four cylinders large enough to produce the desired tractive force at speed would have quickly drained the boiler. Consequently the economical use of steam was essential to the Mallet principle at that time. And in those days the best method for getting more work from each pound of steam was obtained by compounding. In fact, this feature was a vital part of Mallet's patent specification. Single expansion cylinders for both driving wheel groups were out. Strictly speaking, apart from the articulated running gear, single expansion articulated locomotives are not true Mallets, although they are most often called "Malleys", compound cylinders or not.

The L1's could operate as single or simple-expansion locomotives, if desired, by use of a intercepting valve. This was a feature of Mallets and arranged for live, or high pressure steam to be fed to all cylinders, thereby increasing tractive force considerably. On the other hand it had the effect of sppedily draining the boiler of steam which on a hand-fired L1, did much to prevent the fireman from viewing the majestic panorama as seen from Starrucca viaduct.

-from the book "Erie Power" by Frederick Westing.

Westing then goes on to describe how manual firing probably limited the potential of these locomotives..

but overall they did their job well between 1907 and 1921 (14 years)
when all three were sent to Baldwin for rebuilding..
they returned from Baldwin as 2-8-8-2's, and with their cabs moved to the rear in the more conventional fashion.
they were no longer camelbacks..
they then served until 1930..for a total of 23 years service..quite typical for the era..

I would consider them a success!

Scot

[Ridgefielder]

but overall they did their job well between 1907 and 1921 (14 years)
when all three were sent to Baldwin for rebuilding..
they returned from Baldwin as 2-8-8-2's, and with their cabs moved to the rear in the more conventional fashion.
they were no longer camelbacks..
they then served until 1930..for a total of 23 years service..quite typical for the era..

I would consider them a success!

Scot

Interesting, thanks! Did they remain compounds after rebuilding, or did Baldwin convert them to simple articulateds?

[scottychaos]

but overall they did their job well between 1907 and 1921 (14 years)
when all three were sent to Baldwin for rebuilding..
they returned from Baldwin as 2-8-8-2's, and with their cabs moved to the rear in the more conventional fashion.
they were no longer camelbacks..
they then served until 1930..for a total of 23 years service..quite typical for the era..

I would consider them a success!

Scot

Interesting, thanks! Did they remain compounds after rebuilding, or did Baldwin convert them to simple articulateds?

They remained compounds..

from the book "Erie Power" again:

Baldwin, in 1921, was given the order to rebuild the three L1 Mallets Nos. 2600, 2601, and 2602. Their center or camelback style cabs were moved to the rear of the locomotive and by the addition of a 2-wheel forward and 2-wheel trailing trucks became Mallets of the 2-8-8-2 type. No changes were made in the cylinder sizes or boiler pressure. Improved boiler efficiency was obtained by the use of Schmidt type A superheaters, Standard DuPont type B stokers, and Elesco feedwater heaters. Sandboxes were relocated somewhat changing the "skyline" appearance, but those three engines retained their L1 classification.

They also retained their original road numbers..

I tried looking for a photo of one on-line, after the rebuild..cant find one..
(the Erie Power book contains one photo post-rebuild)

Scot

[Triplex]

1921 was a few years before the general switch to simple articulateds on both new and rebuilt power, wasn't it?

I wonder what it says about me that I find this locomotive not only interesting but attractive...

[GSC]

Not exactly consistent with itself in appearance, it still is a very lovable ugly duckling!

Just a step or two away from Erie's "Matt H. Shay" 2-8-8-8-2 Triplex, which wasn't very successful.