and paraguay
Good thoughts Dave. I would almost guess you are right for just the reasons you mention. I would almost place money on it being a square shell covering a round tank. That would make a lot of sense. As for the smoke jack, As I said this is the only picture I know of of this tank. So your guess is as good as mine. I have seen no mention of how this tank was filled. It sits on a river so a small steam pump would make a lot of sense. Canyon Creek is to the left and heading back toward the camera in this picture but at this lower level of the creek is pretty flat so any piping to gravity feed it would have to have run a long way. There is another creek tot he back right of this photo that is a little steeper but not much. So I am thinking a steam pump is very plausible.
That is interesting. I wonder why square. Because Dave is right a cylinder is much much stronger than a square. Forces are not applied equally in a cube. But in a cylinder it is more equal. A sphere is (I believe) the strongest of geometric shapes but don’t quote me on that because I am no engineer either.
Welded steel I can see because you can just make the weakest part stronger than any force that could be applied by just making it out of thick steel. I could see pros and cons in steel especially farther back in time when it was not as easy to form giant curved steel panels as it is today. I also know height of the water body matters a lot not just its volume. Pressure is a factor of height not volume at least in so much as the pressure in the pipes it feeds. A 100 foot tall straw with produce as much water pressure at its bass as a 100 foot tall and 100 foot diameter tank. So maybe being a shallow rectangle or square that is large in size can be built reasonable without building up too much pressure to blow it out? I 1000 gallon tank that is a foot deep wouldn’t create a lot of pressure to blow out the sides. So … But in the cals of my little tank and given that it is a US western mining town circa 1880s I am going with Dave’s theory that it is a square building holding a round tank inside.
I happen to know an engineer who works in the water industry that is a member here, Oh Dan???
Somewhere in my stuff I have drawings of the Saltillo tank that @Gary_Buchanan sent me about a thousand years ago…
Korm,
Do you know anything about that tank? I could see where this could still be a round tank housed in a rectangular building. with an open “room” on either side. But wouldn’t have any clue why anyone would have built it that way. So my initial guess is that it would be indeed a rectangular tank.
Dave has me, per my norm, over analyzing this and wanting to model it. There are some things that look odd and possibly telling to me. The fill spout is all the way to one side. And then there is what appears to be a wooden Hatch/window/thing to the left. The smoke jack (if it is from the building and not a steam pump on the ground is also on the “window” side. Those tells make me think there is a small round tank on the near side of this building and then the left side is a room where a stove and wood could be stored to keep it thawed. What the window hatch thing would be for I am taking a stab is for getting fire wood in it. These were all wood fired locos and that hatch is track side. I can see the locomotive pulling up and placing the tender under that hatch and then taking wood from the tender and loading it into the little room.
Does that sound reasonable? would there be any fatal flaw in my thinking? It would be fun to model as I have described it if there is not a glaring reason why it would be a horrible idea.
Devon,
It is a good theory but I see one flaw, firewood size. Locomotive fuel wood was usually cut 2-4 feet in length so unless they brought special wood, think 16 inch stove lengths, they couldn’t use it in the typical wood stove without some extra work.
Well that’s a flaw but not a fatal one. That shoots my ones size fits all from the tender theory but a gondola full of fire wood for wood stoves would be equally workable. The station would need firewood as well so I could see very plausible that scenario or even if brought in by wagon you would still have to get wood into the room portion of the tank and since its so close to rivers edge the track side would make sense. Heck a ladder stretched from the station platform would gain them some height for getting wood up there.
So while I appreciate the knowledge that locomotive wood was longer than wood for stoves is quite interesting I did not know that nor would have guessed it but it does make sense to have nice long wood the length of the locomotive fire box. But it is not a deal breaker for my heated water tank with a wood stove theory.
My obsession is kicking into full gear. I am finding it very difficult to find out any information on why a tank would be square. Came across a picture which is nothing more than someones drawing but it got me thinking further. Its nothing more than an open top (I assume) round wood tank with a square roof over it.
Now knowing my railroad was cheap and was built in a big rush, I can see a couple more plausible ideas for its design. It would be far easier to build a round open top tank and then put a square or rectangular roof on it. Way easier and faster to build a square roof than a round (octagonal) one. And then by making a rectangular platform and roof and enclosing it, but still having a open top wood tank inside it, then a wood stove would keep the water from freezing.
I am thinking simple construction with the added benefit of being able to heat the tank.
il_fullxfull.4159433021_cj23.avif (80.2 KB)
Well this explains it well enough for me!!!
“To replenish the used water in the tank, delivery pipes extended from the ground into the bottom of the tub and were enclosed in an insulated, wooden “frost box” to prevent freezing. This box contained several layers of wooden walls covered with insulating felt or building paper, and which were separated by 2-inch air spaces. Five such insulating air spaces offered protection down to 30-degrees below zero (Fahrenheit) where the water consumption each 24 hours equaled the capacity of the tub. Put simply, the high amount of energy required to freeze fast-moving water causes it to still freeze at 32-degrees F, but at a slower rate than if the water were not moving. On railroads located in northern climates (particularly the Canadian Pacific), to prevent freezing it was not unusual to enclose the entire water tank and tower in a wooden structure equipped with a heating stove. As the Age of Steam Roundhouse’s 50,000-gallon water tank supplies water for a fire suppression sprinkler system, an electrically-powered immersion heater sits inside the tub to prevent the mostly stationary water from freezing.”
From the Age of Steam Round House Museum.
And from Trains Magazine
I am convinced enough that my little tank is exactly as described in the above articles. I can very much see that this is a wooden structure that has inside a round tank with a stove to keep it from freezing. There is certainly enough evidence to make an argument for anyone visiting my railroad and questions me on it. 
that tank is standing at one of the last stations of our national railroad, turned “museum”.
as far as i remember they maintained partial service till about 1980.
i dont believe, what i saw there was just an outer wall, but the tank itself. see the pic of a “mobile” tank at the same station.
Also the UK had a lot of rectangular water tanks.
And here’s an interesting one, described as a “Braithwaite” water tank. A quick google says that Braithwaite manufactured pressed steel water tanks.
Thanks guys. Those are cool and given what we “know” to be correct here in the USA, it is nice to see something unique and different. Steel I can see it. Either welded or riveted, the strength of steel can easily over come the pressures of a water tank. Still not sure the “logic” behind it, as a cylinder is still stronger. However, if you can do it, want to do it, and there is no glaring reason not to do it, then do it. One thing about a cube versus a cylinder is there would be more volume for a given piece of real estate. If you can put water in the corners that are absent in a round tank then there is just that much more volume over the shadow on the ground. If space were at all a concern I could easily see it. But in all of these cases that wasn’t the case, but they did it anyway.
Now that we know it was done I wold kinda like to know why given it is a big break form traditional tank construction logic.
I really like the top photo you posted Peter. That is just a neat tank. not only the shape but pretty ornate. Looks like it was built on a porch roof or something.
you are thinking too modern. in former times (and even more so in less advanced countries) the ability to bend steel was not commonplace,
Hence round wooden stave water tanks. I never said anything about round steel tanks which are the modern norm. Prior to welded (or even riveted) curved steel, most tanks were round wood stave. I am not sure a square tank of any construction has ever been normal. And to clarify I am not talking small 1000 gallon square tanks. I am talking 10s of thousands of gallons if not 100s of thousands of gallon tanks. While you guys have proven anomalies exist, cylindrical construction has always been the norm. The materiel’s have changed for sure. But the shape is pretty consistent for a long long time. I will also clarify I am referring to elevated tank structures. Cisterns with acres of land to constrain them certainly were made in many different shapes with rectangle or square being normal.
Even most hand dug wells were dug cylindrical for what I assume is the same reason. It is simple a stronger shape with evenly dispersed pressure. In the case of a well it wasn’t explosive pressure but implosive pressure.
Fun discussion none the less. And as you and Peter have obviously shown there are exceptions to everything.
ok, i’ll play the devil’s lawyer.
round woodstaves needed the experience of a cooper for the angled sides, or groove and tongue tecnic.
if i remember right, in this forum years ago we had pics of original rectangular wooden tanks on railway cars (that were firefighting cars, i think)
futher, save in the desert, one finds wood for beams everywhere, steel for belts not so often.
wrong.
i have seen round wells, with stone sidings, but just as often square wells with wooden sidings.
as i can’t find a pic from an original, here a pic from a model
Again there are certainly exceptions.I am not nor will I ever say it didn’t happen or even happen frequently. I am saying it was not the norm or standard. Neither in tank or well construction. So for me to be wrong you are going to have to say “most wells are square”, are you going to make that claim?
As for deserts and tanks. Again obviously there are condition like lack of materiel that will cause an exception. But show me were even in arid regions rectangular steel tanks were more common than round wood stave ones. Yes you needed expertise and you needed materiel. And both were shipped in as a regular practice. After all are big steel panels laying around in deserts or were they shipped in and erected by people skilled in welding or riveting?
Until you can show me where the normal standard of construction for an elevated tank is anything other than round and most likely, before the ease of availability curved steel panels, was wood stave construction, I stand by my pure speculative guess that the vast majority of elevated tanks were round wood stave construction until curved steel became a readily available thing.
And just to add need to the tank, remember that in the day there would have been a section managers? house somewhere in the vicinity of a heated tank to tend the fire, deice any switches, and provide service if there was a gated crossing. Also to save you speculation here is a drawing of EBT’s enclosed tank from
# Plans of Enclosed Water Tower, East Broad Top Railroad – Free Model Railroad Plans
1 Like
Absolutely Dave. Section houses are another thing of interest for me. The Milwaukee had several “section houses” on the Roland Pass near Avery, Idaho. Its fun to call them that because each had a name on the map that almost makes it sound as if they were settlements. As I learned more about RR history in general and this section specifically, many of the section houses were the size of an out house and were more or less a place to eat, sleep, and get out of the weather. Many time occupied in shifts and with permanent residence being at a real town or such.
At Roland summit there was/is a mile long tunnel that had doors that were opened and closed in the winter. There was a section house on either side. On the Montana side there was an actual RR settlement with bunk houses and a chow hall etc. On the Idaho side at “Roland” from what I can gather it was nothing more than a shack. But they were tasked with opening the doors and shutting them for passing trains. My understanding is this kept the large amount of running water found in the tunnel from freezing when the wind would rush through the tunnel.
That set of tank plans is great. Certainly illustrates what Dave said that its a building holding a round tank. That could be a fun model. But since it doesn’t look anything like my little tank I’ll pass. but thanks for sharing I do want to read the associated article.