Hello.
I have always wondered why is the rear of the tender is higher than the front of the tender? The only thing that it does is force all the water to the front of the tender, but I’ve never seen that on any other railroad or locomotive. Does anyone know why?
Thanks
Chester Louis SA #64 Hampshire County Narrow Gauge
Because the wieght of the fuel load over the front trucks compresses the springs in the suspension…most steamers do it…just some are not as noticeable as others…
It also depends on what time period you are looking at, during the tourist era there seems to have been a time when this was much more accentuated and it may have been due to a suspension problem that was fixed when #15 under went a major overhaul several years ago, it does not seem to be that evident in the photo below that was taken some time after the overhaul (http://freightsheds.largescalecentral.com/users/gary_buchanan/15-01.jpg)
I never really noticed it squatting in the front, but Gary may be right. It may have received some suspension work during the rebuild. 14 ran with 15’s tender for at least a season while 14’s tender was repaired.
I took this picture after 15’s rebuild and return to service. Like Gary’s, it doesn’t really show the front as being significantly lower.
It is slanted like that on purpose, if you ever get a chance to, read the Baldwin spec sheets some time.
That is to keep the fuel forward and in the pickups mounted at the front of the tender.
Let me throw my tuppence in here. First, I believe the statement fuel is incorrect in this case. The fuel, being coal, has an angle of repose of 35+/- degrees. That would be the minimum (and best case scenario) if you are looking to have coal “flow”. Steeper angles would be better. If this were an oil fired locomotive, then a slope for fuel would be applicable.
I would believe the intentional pitch forward to make sure the water is available for the water feed system to the boiler. Of course this is all a moot point when climbing a 4% grade. That would make for a real pronounced pitch forward to compensate for that.
In either case; water or fuel oil feed; slant would only make a difference when the tank was near empty. And as Bob mentioned, on a steep grade any intentional slant would be negated.
Only My speculation. Based on the D&RGW 315. The rear of the tender is a full width water tank, full height. The front half of the tender is about 2/3 coal space, 1/3 water legs. Water per cubic foot is way heaver then coal. How if the exact same spring packs were in the front truck, as the rear truck, I believe the rear would be squatting, with a full load of coal and water, due to the extra weight of the water over the rear truck. Also the rear has the Air tank and a full coupler box and knuckle, and a light, and the front only has a draw bar ( + a fat old man trying to shovel enough coal to feed the beast).
I think that if new and the manufacture wanted it to set level when full loaded, the spring pack would have to be different for the two trucks. I think that after the half way mark of water and less then full coal load, the rear would be setting higher.
Done on purpose to keep the water to the feed pick up, I think not. If the water level is that close to empty in the tank, you have some really bigger problems, to deal with.
I will ask our (315) head mechanical engineer if there is a difference in the two trucks and the spring packs.
“if you ever get a chance to, read the Baldwin spec sheets some time.”
Can you expand on that? I’ve got the spec sheets for all of the EBT’s locomotives, but beyond stating tender wheel diameter, fuel and water capacities, material, and coupler height, (and the drawings to which the tank and frame are to be built), they’re quiet on much else pertaining to the tender. I know Baldwin’s tanks, frames, cabs, and other things were all done to set drawings with key dimensions coded by letters, and those letters corresponding to a chart that gave real measurements based on capacities, etc. I have drawings like that for tender tanks and locomotive cabs, but not for tender frames.
From what I know of the EBT’s tenders, each tender rode on a pair of identical trucks with identical-diameter wheels, and the beams making up the frame were the same thickness front to back. The decking is also the same thickness front to back, so if there is a designed-in forward pitch to the tender frame such that the tank slants forward, it would have to be at the bolster. If there is something built in to that end, it’s doubtful it’d be significant enough to show up in photographs–at least to where it could be attributable solely to that and not the weight of the fuel and water compressing the springs on the trucks front or rear. Quite honestly, in all the photos I’ve looked at and studied, I’ve never noticed any pronounced pitch one way or the other–at least nothing that jumped out at me.
“…+ a fat old man trying to shovel enough coal to feed the beast.”
I’d imagine after a few weeks of shoveling enough coal, the “fat old man” wouldn’t be quite so fat anymore.
Later,
K
Kevin Strong said:
“…+ a fat old man trying to shovel enough coal to feed the beast.”
I’d imagine after a few weeks of shoveling enough coal, the “fat old man” wouldn’t be quite so fat anymore.
Later,
K
No, maybe not, but he would sure feel older. 
David Maynard said:
Kevin Strong said:
“…+ a fat old man trying to shovel enough coal to feed the beast.”
I’d imagine after a few weeks of shoveling enough coal, the “fat old man” wouldn’t be quite so fat anymore.
Later,
K
No, maybe not, but he would sure feel older.
Or dead :]
The Main problem with firing 315 is that there are 6 guys on the crew, and rarely do we have more then 3-4 days in a row that we get to run her. So some times you may not get to fire at all, just get greasy dirty and full of coal dust.
No complaints, I wouldn’t trade the experience for a live steam K37.
This photo, probably taken in the 80’s shows #14’s tender as it looked for a number of years, it does have a pronounced forward tilt but I suspect it was related to a mechanical issue and not a design feature. I recall having one that showed this even clearer but back in those days I was still shooting slides and I have way too many of them to go on a witch hunt.
That’s a lot of drop on the front of the tender. My guess is a couple of broken springs.
Notice the difference in deck height. That would be a ankle turner on the deck plate.
No doubt Dave, the only saving grace was that the firebox door is almost even with the back of the cab and the fireman could do most of his work from the front of the tender.
I have seen other pictures of steamers with their tenders tilted forward. I just figured it was the steam version of the “Ford sag”
There’s supposed to be a height difference between the floor of the cab and the deck of the tender.
The fall plate sits just below the floor of the cab, but above the deck of the tender. No doubt the tender in Gary’s photo is lower in the front than in the rear, but comparing that photo to others of #14 at earlier times in her life, that’s definitley not by design.
Later,
K
Loco112 . said:
It is slanted like that on purpose, if you ever get a chance to, read the Baldwin spec sheets some time.
That is to keep the fuel forward and in the pickups mounted at the front of the tender.
Post them here please, or at least quote the relevant specs; that would be very relevant to this discussion and helpful. Thanks.
John Passaro said:
Loco112 . said:
It is slanted like that on purpose, if you ever get a chance to, read the Baldwin spec sheets some time.
That is to keep the fuel forward and in the pickups mounted at the front of the tender.
Post them here please, or at least quote the relevant specs; that would be very relevant to this discussion and helpful. Thanks.
I don’t think he’ll be back…he’s become “persona non grata”…
see: http://www.largescalecentral.com/forums/topic/8174/purpose-of-this-forum/view/page/1
I have a question? Are these Loco’s a standard design and are they in the Catalog for Baldwin?
Paul Austin
