Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
hey,simulatortrain,there is another railroad that you accidently foregot the Reading railroad that ran coal trains and utilized the camelback steam engines that burned the type of coal that you mentioned,which explains why their firebox design!![]()
No, I know, but they only burned anthracite. I'm not sure, but I think Erie and Lackawanna both had engines that burned both types.
Not really because of the side rod motion, it was mainly because if a rod broke (which is fairly common) it would be propelled into the cab, usually destroying which ever side of the cab was above the broken rod, and whoever was in that seat
Not really because of the side rod motion, it was mainly because if a rod broke (which is fairly common) it would be propelled into the cab, usually destroying which ever side of the cab was above the broken rod, and whoever was in that seat
That's the most bizarre thing, I was talking to someone about a week ago who was telling me the exact same thing. Weird coincidence, eh? Reminds me of the snake-head effect the old steel ribbon on wood type of rail use to produce.
And that also doesn't mention the fact that the fireman and engineer were, in essence, in two completely separate parts of the locomotive, which makes it a tad hard to communicate verbally, especially when you have steam and fire roaring and hissing all about you. Just being together in the same cab is barely audible without having to shout to the other person over the ambient noise.
I don't suppose any railroads ran their steam off of lignite coal on a common basis, did they? Would that even have enough stored energy to generate enough heat? Also, was there ever any practice of 'cutting the coal' with a mixture of high and lower-grade coal as a money-saving measure?