While looking through a copy of
Railpace Magazine, I noticed this picture of and Arcade & Attica steam loco. I'm not big on steam locos, and it maybe my eyesight, but it seems like the tender is tilted toward the loco. I can see the practicality of tilting the tender, to get the water to the boiler, but every steam loco model I've seen the tender is level. Am I just imagining this, or is it a detail model manufactures overlook, as "unnecessary".
[
attachment=2760]
In this picture, I drew a level line, and put an arrow on the tender, showing the tilted end. I think it is tilted on one end. Any input from you steam afficendos would be helpful.
[
attachment=2759]
I have been told that some locomotives' tenders tilted forward so that they would be more level when heading upgrade. The draw from which water was extracted from the tender was at the front. I would also imagine that a tender loaded with coal would tilt slightly forward, and then level out as the coal was used up.
looking through the copies of the locomotive cyclopedia i have show none with a tilting tender , a couple of things could account for this a different tender, redrivering the loco with smaller drivers or different trucks .
jim
The "tilted tender" is clearly the sign of a problem. Note the coupler mismatch between the tender and the coach. Also, if you draw a straight line between the journal box cover hinges on the lead truck of the tender, it will parallel the floor of the tender, and extends above the rear truck's journal box covers. I suspect the problem might be the bolster springs on the lead truck.
the photo here also shows the tilt. Makes me wonder what is actually going on there. That is not "normal", and I am surprised that the condition seems to be "acceptable".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arcade...motive.jpg
This was common on the D&RGW narrow gauge.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.drgw.net/gallery/DRGW473/drgw_473_silverton_co_26_aug_2006_000">http://www.drgw.net/gallery/DRGW473/drg ... g_2006_000</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.drgw.net/gallery/DRGW478/dsng_472_homeranch_co_26_aug_2005_000">http://www.drgw.net/gallery/DRGW478/dsn ... g_2005_000</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.drgw.net/gallery/DRGW453/drgw_453_unknown_000_2160x1346">http://www.drgw.net/gallery/DRGW453/drg ... _2160x1346</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.drgw.net/gallery/DRGW453/drgw_453_durango_co_000_2160x1462">http://www.drgw.net/gallery/DRGW453/drg ... _2160x1462</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.drgw.net/gallery/DRGW456/drgw_456_gunnison_co_jul_1939_000">http://www.drgw.net/gallery/DRGW456/drg ... l_1939_000</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.drgw.net/gallery/DRGW486/dsng_486_shalona_co_27_aug_2006_000">http://www.drgw.net/gallery/DRGW486/dsn ... g_2006_000</a><!-- m -->
Sometimes, the tilt is more noticeable than other times or some locos it is more noticeable than on others. This could be optical illusion, or because the amount of coal and water in the tender is different. Or, it could be due to sagging springs on the trucks. But, I have never seen one tilted the other way.
In the photo of the #473, the line formed by the journal box covers on both trucks, parallels the floor of the tender.
In the photo of the #478, the line from the top of the pilot deck, to the top of the tender deck, rear, show the tender parallel, and therefore, level.
In both these cases, the tender is level, and it is paralax error/ optical illusion that you see.
In the case of A&A #18 there is no optical illusion, there is a problem. The loco's line is parallel with a line drawn from coach coupler to pilot coupler, and the tender is definitely tilted.
If that's intended ( no pun ) it is then a classic maneuver known as "TILT"......game over.
I see the tilted tender too 88. But it also looks like the engine is tilted upward in the front slightly, does anyone else see that? Maybe its just an illusion that the camera angle is making for the tilted engine appearance. There is something definitely wrong with the tender though, as stumper pointed out.
Definitely something wrong there.
You'll also notice that the rear of the loco is slightly lower than the front, although the drooping tender may be causing that. Soft coal is about 10lbs. lighter per cubic foot than water, although the proportions of each will vary from tender to tender. Water is typically used-up faster than coal. The water outlet pipes usually extend through the tender's floor, so unless the loco is on a steep uphill climb, there would be water available at the pipe in most instances, even without the slope.
From looking at the photo, the tender appears to be of the water-leg type, where the water cistern extends around both sides of the coal bunker, and right to the front of the tender. Other types, called water-bottom tenders, had the cistern extending beneath the coal bunker, with the bunker itself the full width of the tender.
According to the Railroad's website, the loco underwent a six year rebuilding programme, emerging from the shop in May of 2009.
EDIT: I just sent them an e-mail asking about this, so perhaps they'll be able to end our speculating. I'll post when I hear from them.
Wayne
The model image suggests to me that there is a slight problem with the mounting of the truck or with truck springs...perhaps. All the proto photos look fine to me with camera lens composition and the angle of viewing/photography contributing the artifact of the tilted look. When I compare the sills and footplates of the tender and engines, they look like they are all converging normally to a prespective point outside the forward edge of the photo/image...so normal.
Thanks for the answeres guys.
As fa as composition, angle of picture, good theory. But here's another pic, taken at a different angle, and since going through a town much slower.
Tender still looks like its tilted.
I wonder if it could be a dip in the rail causing, or making more obvious, the strange angle of the tender+loco. Causing a undulating effect.
I think it's a simple matter of physics. In photographs where the loco and tender are idle, any tilt will be far less noticeable or nonexistent. However, in photos where the train is moving, the tilt becomes much more visible. I would imagine that the faster the train is traveling, the move obvious the tilt becomes.
When an object accelerates, the rear end drops down. There is a lot of fancy math involved in calculating spring rates and weight transfer, but we've all seen and experienced this happening in our cars. If the rear end of the loco drops during acceleration or while at speed, it only makes sense then for the nose end of the tender to dive down since they are coupled together.
I have seen that loco before, and yes the tender is tilted. It has 2 different trucks.
Your first photo explains it perfectly, Puddlejumper. That's an Andrews tender truck on the rear, and an all-cast type, commonly called a Bettendorf, on the front (Bettendorf was the name of one manufacturer, but many companies made very similar style trucks). Andrews trucks were originally designed to accept the journal boxes from outlawed archbar trucks, a cost-saving measure when that regulation went into effect.
When freight cars were shopped, it wasn't all that unusual for them to return to service with dissimilar trucks, but it seems odd that the A&A couldn't obtain two matching trucks for that tender, especially considering that the overhaul took six years.
I have four pairs of un-used Athearn Andrews tender trucks - it shouldn't matter that all wheels are insulated, and therefore useless for current pick-up, and I'd be willing to donate a pair to the A&A.
[album]697[/album]
While this would lower the tender
"somewhat",
, at least it'd be level.
Wayne