|
|
 Posted - July 18 2013 : 10:59:59 AM
|
I don't want this to sound like a stupid question, but on a cab forward steam engine where do they throw the coal? I am currently bidding on one on eBay and the set up just does not make scense to me. Thanks!!!
|
Country:  USA ~
Posts: 664 ~
Member Since: May 05 2012 ~
Last Visit: June 11 2024
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 18 2013 : 11:06:36 AM
|
hi gg1 i was told here by one of the members that cab forwards ran on oil,i like you did not know,as we never to my knowledge had cab forwards here in uk ken
Edited by - catfordken on July 18 2013 12:49:09 PM
|
Country:  United Kingdom ~
Posts: 8294 ~
Member Since: September 28 2006 ~
Last Visit: October 20 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 18 2013 : 11:18:39 AM
|
| They were all oil fired. If you see one that is coal fired, then whoever owns it is a complete idiot, moron, maroon, and nincompoop.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 239 ~
Member Since: September 17 2012 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 18 2013 : 1:51:53 PM
|
the closest we had to a cab forward,was the Bulleid Leader class 0-6-0 + 0-6-0,which had a cab one end for the driver,and a cab at other for fireman,driver and firebox,the boiler was in the middle,ken
|
|
Country: United Kingdom ~
Posts: 8294 ~
Member Since: September 28 2006 ~
Last Visit: October 20 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 18 2013 : 5:08:48 PM
|
| One other small detail... the oil tank was slightly pressurized (6 pounds of of pressure, if I recall) so that the oil would flow forward to the cab and firebox.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 1091 ~
Member Since: July 07 2011 ~
Last Visit: July 20 2026
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 18 2013 : 5:14:43 PM
|
Always an exception to any rule
"They were all oil fired"
http://loco.skyrocket.de/ See > general > Cab Forward > Thuile's Locomotive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuile_locomotive
The inventor appears not to have been very smart!
Regards,
John
**************************************************************************
The Lord prefers common-looking people. That is the reason that He makes so many of them.
Abraham Lincoln
Edited by - JRG1951 on July 18 2013 5:25:34 PM
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 886 ~
Member Since: January 11 2012 ~
Last Visit: December 16 2023
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 18 2013 : 6:07:37 PM
|
Thats a neat loco, ken Does someone make it or did in OO scale?
IF the SP Cab Forwards were coal fired It would of been a automatic feeder via a auger(sp)
Edited by - microbusss on July 18 2013 6:08:56 PM
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 15033 ~
Member Since: February 23 2009 ~
Last Visit: July 22 2026
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 18 2013 : 6:15:10 PM
|
| dapol made it in oo about 3/4 years ago ken
|
|
Country: United Kingdom ~
Posts: 8294 ~
Member Since: September 28 2006 ~
Last Visit: October 20 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 18 2013 : 7:06:51 PM
|
It's got 2 cabs, so it's more of a disfunctional camelback that had it's hump fall forward. A true cab forward has one cab and that's it.
And an auger is impractical, imagine the maintenance and how long that auger would be.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 239 ~
Member Since: September 17 2012 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 19 2013 : 06:29:19 AM
|
I'll toss in my 2 cents worth here......
The Cab Forwards were oil fired for the most part, ALL of them, that were to run regularly....Sadly a coal fired Cab Forward would have really been interesting as something that large would have needed 2 stokers up each side of the loco from the tender. This, I'm not sure would have worked well at all as in the real world, it did not take much to stop a stoker1 Being said that anything one inch in diameter, would have stopped the auger from spinning, which would have stopped the feed of coal. OLD Coal tipples or coaling towers that were bolted together were the culprits of this, they would get loosened bolts into the coal and then would get stuck in the stokers of the steamers....On a large loco, this was trouble, for the whole engine crew, and the railroad! Reason? It took all 3 of the crew to "fire" that thing by hand and in most cases would NEVER get the loco over 6 MPH in motion! The Engineer, the head-end Brakemen and the Fireman were all with loaded shovels to make the thing move!
A story I read a few times, from a type of locomotive the B&O "Had" wasn't long for it tho......
They had 0-8-8-0's that were built, WITHOUT stokers......Every one hated them! required a large engine crew to run the thing.....Engineer, 2 Head-end Brakeman, and 3 Firemen inside ONE cab, and Tender deck! With that "crew" it was said this locomotive would never see 20 MPH! Didn't last long, as it went to the big B&O shops in Baltimore, and was re-fitted with stokers, and a few of them came out from the shops as not 0-8-8-0's but, 2-8-8-0 road loco's instead of hump service switchers!
So, to shovel the amount of coal it would need to move a large loco would have been a real job......On a Cab Forwards, it would have been impossible to do, due to the location of the coal and the place it needed to go, and I don't even think if it were augered to the firebox, it would have worked right, for very long......Oil firing was the only way to make that type loco effient! Specially the USA type of "Cab Forwards". Naturally there are other types of them around the world, BUT these were special builds of the cab forward design.....Built for a specific purpose, just like those on the SP, and or any other locomotive, for that matter.
~John
Many have tried to, and failed, ya just can't repair stupid... 
Do NOT try to Idiot-Proof anything!!!! God, will simply create a better......IDIOT!
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2911 ~
Member Since: March 26 2012 ~
Last Visit: January 14 2014
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
Home
Forums
Events Calendar
Forum Admins & Mods
Register
