We had done some work on the fireless engines at the Sunbury, PA power plant in the mid-'80's, and were surprised to find that they didn't have a reducing valve to the cylinders, to the air compressors yes, but not to the cylinders. When charged to full pressure (i forget what the pressure was), they would take off like a jack rabbit on a date. Must have been buggers to control until the pressure dropped somewhat.

I do recall that the badge plate on the tank called out the shell as being 2-1/32" thick. I guess 2" just wouldn't do.

I was thinking about seeing that little fireless operating, and it occurred to me that it was probably the only time in this country that I saw a steam locomotive working commercially where it was intended to work, doing the job it was built to do, without it being a special occasion, charter, etc., and that was in the 1980s! The only other place I ever encountered those circumstances was China in 1987. That Pennwalt engine might have been the last steam locomotive operating in its original service in the U. S. that was not an excursion engine. If so, it deserves a decent fate.

That makes me wonder which company had the last running fireless engine in the US?
I'd always assumed that North American Rayon at Elizabethton TN had the last one, which stopped running in 1990 if memory serves. But in the past few years, I've heard of others running well into the 80s.
NARC 1 (a porter 0-6-0F) had the distinction of being what has to have taken part in the last interchange of steam with another carrier also running steam, with the ET&WNC (2-8-0s 207 and 208, now known as their original guises of SRR 630 and 722) on their tracks outside the plant, which continued until 1967.
https://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/2/1/9/3219.1258401444.jpg

It would be painfully close.

PP&L Shamokin Dam ordered its refurbished ex-SP SW900 in October 1988, thus its number 1088 at the plant, but I'm not clear on exactly when it arrived. The plant had reactivated its two Porter fireless locos after the ex-West Pittston & Exeter Alco finally died irretrievably, and I remember the steamers doing their usual duty (switching the thawing sheds for hopper cars so the coal would flow out when dumped) alongside the 1088 throughout the 1988-89 winter, but I don't have a hard date on when the steamers were last used.

Thanks for all the discussion! I'm glad it was ok to resurrect this one...

So, the Caro MI Porter engine is still there, and the restaurant is now called "The Rails End" (on FB)... they're not interested in selling, but they were nice about it, and since they seem to have good reviews for their food I hope to stop and grab a bite there someday.

The Harbor Beach fireless cooker supposedly was running as late as 1994, so it's not been out of service for a long time (relatively speaking). It's owned by Senscient still, so I'll ask them what they think about letting her go.

I've been digging around online a little more, and saw that there's also one with the San Luis & Rio Grande Railroad which is going through bankruptcy, so maybe that one might be available to restore as well.

As for a steam source, there's a sawmill and kiln right next door to our group's sidings, and I was also advised by Harry Valentine (who wrote all those wonderful articles on the future of fireless locomotives) about searching for a monotube coil boiler style for injecting steam. So I'm in the process of contacting Clayton Industries (a UK company but with US reps as well) to see about what that would take to set up financially.

I can understand while many people with deep ties to railroading today think and love diesel, and that's not a bad thing, I just think that for the public at large, the "chuff-chuff" of steam has a powerful attraction that the hum of a diesel can't quite match for many. After watching some videos of Dampfspeicherlok moving freight still (recently on youtube at https://youtu.be/yVZMUaOgPSs), I think these locomotives have the cache of steam still (sounds, sights, coupling rods, etc) without some of the maintenance issues. They do still fall under 1472 regimen inspections, but the components aren't as complex, there's less wear, and so easier to inspect and maintain and operate. With the current cost of running steam boilers and the downtime + cost before being operational again, I think at the least fireless locomotives could fill in the blank for those downtimes.

"As for a steam source, there's a sawmill and kiln right next door to our group's sidings, "

You must be kidding or you have no idea what a fireless requires. A sawmill would likely run on saturated steam. The fireless for a power plant built after 1950 would likely use 1000 degree F and 2000psi . And that's water, not steam.

Yes, that's...sort of the entire point of this thread. To learn.
So glad you could join us.

There's plenty of preserved examples in this country that run at far lower pressures, and most have a reducing valve that drops the pressure at the chest to under 100 PSI. At least three have run in preservation in the US on nothing more than an air compressor. It's not ideal, but the subject is museum service, not shoving unending strings of loaded hoppers into a plant for several hours at a time. Pretty sure there's a compromise to be found somewhere.

But hey, if you're offering to ship this guy the spare subcritical Babcock & Wilcox unit you have sitting in your backyard, don't let me stop you.

Reading through this thread I was thinking the same thing. The only reason these things work is that the super hot water under enormous pressure is what keeps these things running. As pressure drops more water turns to steam and in effect keeps refueling itself until pressure drops to that of the reducing valve. Sure, you can run it on air or low pressure steam but not for very long. You can run a large mainline engine on air for that matter.

You need a large industrial boiler to get any meaningful work out of a fireless and if you are going to maintain an engine and a boiler you might as well restore a traditional locomotive.

Not necessarily. A moderately sized, commercial off-the-shelf steam boiler could be used for charging. These typically burn natural gas or fuel oil, and are completely automated. You could even charge your fireless steamer during off hours, maybe even without supervision. Maintenance of such a boiler is a piece of cake compared to a typical locomotive boiler, and any decent mechanical contractor would be qualified to do the maintenance.

So, use cheap natural gas for fuel, charge ~16 hours, operate 8 hours (with intermittent recharging if necessary), contract maintenance of the boiler out, no need for qualified operators for the boiler (depending on size and your state’s regulations). It might be just the ticket for a short intermittent museum or tourist operation.

I'm not exactly sure how this misinformation about how firless engines work has spread so far, when the information is readily available. Fireless engines didn't necessarily require either of these things.

After reading this thread, I did quite a bit of looking into where and how firelesses were used. Advertisement literature from Porter, who was well known for fireless engines, go into quite a bit of detail on the pressures and capacities. I'm sure very modern fireless engines are capable of going into extremely high pressures, but the vast majority built in the US between 1940 and 1950 rarely had storage tanks that went higher than 400-500psi. In fact, the same advertisements give 150psi as a standard, and say storage tank pressures have been put in use at as low as 85psi.

Secondly, you don't flood a fireless engine with superheated water directly from a massive high-pressure boiler. Oversimplified, the storage tank was filled with water, and steam was then piped in and "bubbled up" through the water in the vessel. As the steam condensed in the relatively cool water it would do two things: 1- continue to raise the water level and 2- raise the temperature of the water. Eventually the water would be to the point it would boil off, and as pressure and temperature continued to rise, would become superheated. Eventually the pressure inside the vessel evened with that of the supply line, and at that point the steam from the line could not overcome the pressure to enter the storage tank on the engine. This was called "charging" and could take anywhere from a half hour on up, depending on the pressure, and thus, the temperature required. Higher pressures needed higher temperatures, and more time to bring up to that heat. "Zero Downtime" is a common advertising line since employees could do other work while their engine charged.

So in theory, all one would need is a steam supply of equivalent or better temperature and pressure to hook up and charge the engine with. Doesn't need to be a massive industrial boiler at thousands of pounds of pressure.

The National Cash Register in Dayton, had three firelesses that ran from 1909 up till 1961. At 150psi charging, they could get 3-4+ hours of work. When one ran low, they went back to the engine house and traded it out for a freshly charged locomotive.

Hope this helps.

-Sam

Sorry if I've said any classic "newbie" things about fireless locomotives -- I'm definitely new at steam in general: coming from old cars, I know more about things like tuning SU carburettors in an MG TD...

The sales rep from Clayton Industries (based in LA, not the UK), said that it was an interesting idea and we're working out numbers. He mentioned that Jay Leno uses a Clayton boiler to charge up his steam-powered cars for convenience, so it's not completely out in left field for them to consider.

I believe Germany had the last production run of fireless 0-6-0F locomotives in the 1980s and he was very helpful: "They have a service weight of about 109,250 lbs and a maximum TE of about 20,700 lbf when the boiler is fully charged @ 290 psig. They still work with boiler pressure down to 29 psig giving a TE of 3,700 lbf. All axle are fitted with roller bearings. Speed I believe is 19 mph (30 kph)."

So I'm thinking to get the most out of one would need a boiler with more than 290 psi, and then it's a matter of waiting for the chargeup time: get it charged up overnight to run for the day is the idea, with a safe boiler that can run unattended.

So far finding a fireless that a group is willing to donate/sell here in the US seems to be the major hurdle. I've seen lots of pictures of them rusting away here and there, but all that rust must be hiding train treasure underneath... Well, they made 202 of the German models, so worst case scenario would be sourcing one in Europe, refurbishing it in Germany, and shipping over here. Yeah, it's all $$$ (€€€), but that's secondary to finding the right resources in the first place. Maybe buy the boiler first and get a sauna/hot spring going to raise the funds??

After Sam's explanation with Ted's enthusiasm, I hope someone can successfully operate a fireless in museum service.

Wesley

I would suggest an industrial museum with a rail component rather than bring a fireless out of the industrial plant context.

Seems there are few fireless locomotives stuck away here and there, mostly loved, but unwanted and slowly rusting away.

Given the discussion here, if part of the museum's mission is to demonstrate steam technology, would it be that much of a stretch to modify a fireless to look more like a fired tank engine with the addition of a stack with a rerouted exhaust line, compressor, etc, a false backhead, perhaps with lighting for the "firebox."

It might not smell right, but it could look pretty good and sound right. If it works to get people, and a future generation, interested, it just might make sense.

Ted,

I sent you a PM.