Here’s a beauty. Actually its a UP loco, now I read the caption. One of the guys over on MLS found a photo in the Getty Museum photo archives, and I cropped out the loco on the bridge:
Interesting - LSC cropped the front off ? The Preview looks fine.
Nice loco Pete. LSC auto-crops at 800 pixels wide. In Firefox you can Right Click and select View Image to see the whole thing.
ok–explain operations to me–why did they have 2 cabs. assume the rear only had a firebox door–did it have any other controls and what was the purpose of doing i this way?
Matt Kerr said:
ok–explain operations to me–why did they have 2 cabs. assume the rear only had a firebox door–did it have any other controls and what was the purpose of doing i this way?
Ditto? For visibility in tunnels? In fog? In snow?
Is it possible that the second cab belongs to a second locomotive behind the camelback?
Thank you Wikpaedia…
Camelbacks were developed to allow for the use of larger fireboxes, such as the Wooten, which could not be encompassed by a cab.
Yep, looks to me like the second cab is on the adjoining track 
Ralph
Nice photo find.
Found this info online:
Union Pacific Camelback Locomotives Roster
4-4-0 761-770 Rogers 1887
2-8-0 1301-1311 Baldwin 1886
Camelbacks had a large wootten style firebox and grate area for the slower burning anthracite coal they used which created a visibility problem for the driver if at the rear.
The Erie 0-8-8-0 mallet camelback below had a 100 sq. ft grate area which was hand fired.
(http://members.trainweb.com/milepost51/rrmem/2600buildersphoto.jpg)
(http://members.trainweb.com/milepost51/rrmem/2601profile.jpg)
cool—or coal if you prefer—thanks!
That thing is a BEAST and looks capable of pulling down a mountain. Very cool.
That must have been a very tight and hot cab for the engineeer though.
It just goes to show there is a prototype for everything.
Who is going to step up to build one? LOL
Hate to say it Ralph, but I think your wrong. I believe the cab is on the rear of that loco. Most Camelbacks did not have a very good shelter for the fireman in the back. If you look at the pic that Garratt posted you will see there is basically a roof and nothing else for the fireman.
Camelbacks were not very popular in the west. Reading ran quite a few, but it was mainly because they had an easy supple of the Anthracite Coal. I heard that the camelback were handy in switching operations, because the engineer had a better view of everything.
The UP camelback was most likely a test of wither it was a good idea to use them. I bet you they found out quickly that they needed a better shelter for the fireman at the back and thus the cab.
Look at the size of the lead cylinder. That was a compound engine, with the rear set full pressure and the front low pressure. That does look rather large even for a compound.
I’ve got a couple of the B’man chassis that would match up, But I had another idea in mind for them, but that would be quite unique, But I don’t think that it would make it around my pike.
Edit: Also notice that the front has a sliding valve in the steam chest and the rear has a more modern configuration of a round valve works. I makes you wonder if the rear set was a later replacement.
I didnt notice that Dave. Good eye. To me it looks like the first photo of the mallet looks like a builder photo and the different steam chests are on it too. Which leads me to think it was on purpose. I wonder why???
Ah! The widow maker. Nice engines, but without the roof at the rear of the firebox the fireman was left to the elements. That would more than likely kill a fellow in the dead of winter in snow country, at the least put him in bed for a few days.
And fireman had a few implements they had to monitor for operations so I’m sure there was some equipment back there with him also.
Some came with out the second roof.
And the reason for the widow maker handle. Note this is the engineers side after a siderod broke loose
I wonder if the reason for the 2 different valve chests had to do with lubrication. D valves had a lubrication problem, when locomotives went to superheated steam. So superheated locomotives went to piston valves, to eliminate the lubrication problems. But the low pressure front steam valves would not be exposed to superheated steam. The steam would have cooled some by the time it got to them. So maybe thats why the rear (high pressure) valves are piston valves and the front (low pressure) valves are D valves.
Just a thought.
Todd Haskins said:
That thing is a BEAST and looks capable of pulling down a mountain. Very cool.
That must have been a very tight and hot cab for the engineeer though.
It just goes to show there is a prototype for everything.
Who is going to step up to build one? LOL
Engineers would hang out the windows to cool off, so many fell out and were killed that they had to put in a presence control device hooked to the brakes,
For this very reason they were eventually outlawed
There was legislation to stop using the camelback design because broken rod accidents frequently took out the engineer’s cab. Baldwin later rebuilt the Erie Mallets as 2-8-8-2 with a rear engineer’s cab, superheaters and automatic stokers. They originally required two firemen to feed the grate.
Mallets were compound for the efficient use of steam otherwise the boilers would quickly loose pressure.
The Erie Mallets could run high pressure steam into all four cylinders for short term extra grunt.
There were nearly 2 miles of fire tubes in the boilers.
The large front, low pressure cylinder size was one of the limiting factors for Mallets. They had to get them through tunnels.
Andrew
Jake Smith said:
Hate to say it Ralph, but I think your wrong.
Yes, it does appear I’m wrong.
I’ve never seen a camelback with a complete rear cab.
Learn something new every day
Ralph
