More properly, it should be Vanderbilt firebox, This was a corrugated tube or tubes for the inner firebox, and was an attempt to get away from staybolts. Visually, I can imagine it looked something like a corrugated drain pipe, though larger and much heavier. If I'm remembering things correctly, the firebox performed well, but could not be scaled up as much as it needed to be as engines grew larger (corrections welcomed, of course). Fire cleaning wasn't much fun, either, but that wouldn't be such a serious problem with oil firing.

While looking up material for this reply, the search engine came up with this book, published online by San Diego Railroad Museum:

http://www.sdrm.org/faqs/boilers/index.html

http://www.sdrm.org/faqs/boilers/toc.html

The section on fireboxes is below:

http://www.sdrm.org/faqs/boilers/page38.html

http://www.sdrm.org/faqs/boilers/fig37.jpg

I seem to recall there was a marine return-tube boiler that also used a corrugated-tube firebox, but I'm afraid I don't recall the type's name.

This is cool--a general railway column in the Aurora, Ill. Daily Express, from August of 1901. Not only is there an apparently regular column of railway news, there are also all sorts of interesting and atmospheric ads of the day. . .

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2 ... 02,4198533

It's interesting to note that the rage for what would turn out to be 15-inch gauge pleasure railroads in Great Britain actually started many years earlier as an engineering study for the minimum gauge for a working railway. This was before motorcars had been invented, and before electric trolley cars were really practical as well.

http://www.perrygrove.co.uk/History1.html

http://www.perrygrove.co.uk/History2.html

http://www.perrygrove.co.uk/History3.html

http://www.gn15.info/the-perrygrove-railway/

http://www.drivingcreekrailway.co.nz/Introduction.cfm

http://www.gn15.info/the-driving-creek-railway/

It is interesting to contemplate where this may have gone if the internal combustion engine hadn't been invented.

The speed and length of these 15-inch gauge trains on a line called the Bure Valley is impressive. Note the enclosed passenger cars and several steam locomotives with cabs big enough to keep the weather away from their crews:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PBp74Jc ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=ZQctPBB5VkI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YyCVP-A ... re=related

Hamilton Ellis' "The Pictorial Encyclopedia of Railways" defining the term "Railway":

"Motive Power is immaterial; the rail is the thing, the rail that both supports and guides".

I think that, too often, we confuse the term "real" with "original" and "fake" with "model".

Many people enjoy the hobby of model railroading. In that hobby, train cars are used that closely resemble railcars used either currently or those used in the past on "the prototype" lines. Most of these model trains are made in relatively small scales. HO scale trains are 1/87 the size of the trains they are modeled after. There are other, larger scale trains however. Live steam locomotives (backyard railroads) are models that are big enough for us to ride on. Some narrow gauge locomotive used at theme parks are models of historic, standard-gauge prototypes.

I think a lot of rail enthusiasts consider "historic" equipment which hauled freight and passengers along legendary lines to be more interesting than a little dressed up engine that has been hauling passengers around a theme park for her whole life. The historic equipment is viewed as "real" equipment, while the theme park train is viewed as an "amusement ride". Yet this logic leaves a few questions.

-Railroad companies and theme parks are both commercial ventures, and both are hauling cars for their owner's profit. Why then is the Porter 0-4-0 hauling sugar cane cars considered "real" while the Crown 4-4-0 is considered "fake"?

-What about 1/1 scale models? Are the Leviathan and the Tornado "fake" because they are replicas?

-What about railroad museums and scenic railroads? The trains are there for education and amusement now. Did they lose their "real" status when the railroad company that owned them retired them?

-Obviously, model trains can't be considered "non-historic". If they were unable to become "historic", then why is there a "National Toy Train Museum"? Why is old Lionel equipment so highly prized?

I think the main difference is the "originality". When steam engines were in regular railroad service, their owners were not trying to mimic/ model anything. They were working hard to beat their competition and get the train from point A to point B as quickly and efficiently as possible. In that sense, they were "original".

Trains at scenic railroads and theme parks, however, are not like that. Steam trains are a bit of a novelty to much of today's public. In fact, riding a train of any kind can be a novelty. Theme Parks do not have steam locomotives because they are fast, efficient people movers. They have them because they entertain the public. Most of these trains do not travel great distances or move very quickly. However, they do attract the public. They are hearkening back to an earlier day. They are trying to mimic an earlier time. They are, in essence, modeling a railroad. Train museums that have operating train rides do the same thing, though usually with a greater focus on historic authenticity and education than a scenic railroad or theme park. Smaller train museums that don't have their own line often build HO or N scale model railroads to depict the past.

As the opening quote said, "Motive power is immaterial". Whether the locomotive you are operating was built 100 years ago or 1 year ago, it is still a real locomotive. The line it operates on is still a real railroad. Fake locomotives are those tractors you see at carnivals with a train of water barrels carrying kids following behind. Whether it was built by Alco or Athearn, Baldwin or Bachmann, Cooke or Crown, it is still a real train. Some engines are originals and others are models. Just because a model is a copy doesn't make it "fake". You're HO scale model of engine xxx is not engine xxx, though it was patterned after it. But that doesn't mean it isn't an engine.

Guys, you're all going about this the wrong way.

Here's the easy way to tell them apart: Wave a Federal Railroad Administration or AAR regulatory book or document at them, and see how they react or what they then say.

If they're a "real" railroad, They'll say "Okay, what parts apply to us? What do we have to do?"

If not, they'll say "Oh, we're inspected by the state amusement park inspectors, go away!"

>:-)

I tend to agree. Yeah, they might be "real" locomotives because they pull trains... heck, my HO scale models do that. But, are they real railroad locomotives? No, because they don't work for a REAL railroad. For our purposes here, on a site dedicated to railway preservation, real railroad has to mean common carrier. Sure, logging locomotives, plantation locomotives, industrial locomotives, and amusement park locomotives are locomotives, and may be historic, but only belong in museums that tell the story of those industrial adaptations of railway technology. They have no place in a collection that professes to tell the history of American railroading.

Are replicas real railroad locomotives? Two questions; was the locomotive they replicate used in service by a "real" railroad? Are they a faithful replica? Or are they simply a steam outline I/C amusement park engine, or an empty box named Thomas?

Check out this pretty Pacific at the Little Amerricka Amusement Park in Marshall Wisconsin. No gaudy colors, coal fired, running on a 2 mile line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_606f- ... re=related

This locomotive was built in the shops at the park.

I think you're going to discover (if you haven't already) that there are a lot of people directly involved with railway preservation who will strongly disagree with you (myself included). Those "industrial adaptations" are considered by many of those folks to be a part of any country's railroading history (especially in places like Great Britain and much of Europe, where industrial railways were very common) and shouldn't be shoved off into a corner simply because they're not "common carrier" railroading (after all, the very first steam locomotive was one of those "industrial adaptations").

You're entitled to your own opinions, though; just keep in mind that the persons who post here represent just a portion of those who actually are involved in railway preservation, and no single viewpoint or set of viewpoints represents those of everyone who is involved.

I think our friends at Disney would argue with you on the first point, but not on the last. Disney used steam railroads as real people movers from the inception of the first theme park, and even seperate lines within the parks such as the connection to the Frontier oriented campground. You can commute on the Ffestiniog. Don't know about the 6 Flags or Busch Gardens properties, never been to any of them.

dave

Yes, the trains at the Disney parks are used to move guests from one area of the park to another, but they were not chosen because they were the most efficient mode of transportation. Disney could have used diesel or gasoline powered engines instead of steam locomotives (in fact, several parks are converting to internal-combustion power). Other parks (such as Silverwood in Athol, ID) have a genuine steamer and a loop of track, but only one station on the line.

I also have to agree with Mr. Swanson on the issue of equipment and lines that were not common carrier. Just because a certain railroad was owned by a logging (or mining or plantation) company doesn't mean that it isn't a railroad. In some cases, the railroad was owned by a company whose primary goal was transporting items (common carrier) and in some cases the railroad was owned by a company who used it for moving its own products (lumber, mining, etc.) Remember that common carriers did and still do use other modes of transportation, even if trains are the mode they focus the most on. You had early companies such as the "Oregon Railway and Navigation Company" and railroads throughout the years have owned and used buses, boats, and trucks.

If your museum is the "This-Specific Railroad Museum", then your collection will likely tell the story of that company. But if your museum aims to preserve the railroad in general, then I don't see a reason to exclude the equipment and the history of smaller, non-common-carrier lines.

P.S. Take a look at IRM. They preserve equipment from all over North America, and they've got some logging and industrial equipment as well as lots and lots of trolleys and interurbans.

Folks;

Much of this sounds like picking nits or counting rivets. Based on some of your definitions; a locomotive could be "real" in one form of service, and "fake" in another. (There are many gricers in Britian who consider a steam locomotive no longer "real" when it gets shunted off to a "steam zoo" of any kind, or when it no longer runs.)

When I was putting together my Surviving World Steam Locomotive CD, and was mulling over this; I finally decided that any steam locomotive with a gauge larger than 12.0" was fair game for the following reasons:

1. The hardware (i.e. the Westinghouse air brakes on Crown Engines) more closely resemble "full size" equipment than their "live steam" breathen.

2. Several "full size" builders (Krauss, Baden State Rlys, Yorkshire Engine Co., Kerr Stuart & Co, etc.) also built examples of these.

3. Usually, these were either given serial numbers, or were one-off examples; making them easier to track. Most "live steam" locomotives are not; which makes it impossible to track their whereabouts.

So, park trains, replicas, and homebuilt steam locomotives along with steam locomotive remains can all be found on the CD. I do however add a note to the park train, replica, and homebuilt examples designating them as such.

Yes, it's Navel Gazing and/or counting the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

No matter what you classify the 2 foot gauge Crowns as, I have to think that the folks who stay away since they're painted bright colors are really missing something. The sight and sound of them working together to haul the train up the hill was great, no matter what color the drivers are!

I don't have any delusions of suddenly convincing folks to come and check it out, this was just a fun discussion.

Agreed; but I agree they are missing out. I have ridden behind the engines at Six Flags over Texas and Disneyland, and a three foot Crown locomotive in Jefferson.

I have even ridden behind CPHs (gasp!) and enjoyed the ride (double gasp!!!) Some, like the one at the Lufkin Zoo, and the one that used to run along the Trinity River in Fort Worth, can actually be fairly long, scenic, and quite enjoyable. And, if they have more than one station (like the one in the Fort Worth Zoo); then yes, they are people movers as well.

(It is a shame the engine at the Fort Worth Zoo and the engines at Disney World's Animal Kingdom are not real steam locomotives; they are closest thing to riding a sugar or timber train in say Cuba or Indonesia that I have experienced in my limited travels so far.)

What is the engine in the top photo, Venice #1? Is that actually Wildcat #2, or is that the second engine they have in pieces?

To be entirely technical, the Venice boilers are best classified simply as "cylindrical firebox" vessels as the design deviates some from the traditional Vanderbilt style. The fireboxes on the two Prairies—and an earlier prototype which preceded it—were not corrugated, and the originals, at least, were partially stayed over the crown sheet. Around the time of their construction, the SP rostered a class of compound Atlantics with cylindrical corrugated fireboxes (dubbed "wrinklebellies" by crews) which were less than successful. Per an old head whose grandfather ran them, the corrugated fireboxes apparently had a tendency to "vortex" water through the grooves, which brought their fast demise and replacement with conventional mud leg vessels. It's been sort of assumed the VMR's builder, John Coit, probably had some experience around them as a civil engineer for the company and likely lifted his inspiration from that experiment.