Baldwin's formula:

Tractive effort = .85 of boiler operating pressure times cylinder diameter squared times stroke, result divided by driving wheel diameter. Weight isn't a factor, but.......

down the page is a rule of thumb "approximately 25% of the adhesive weight can be utilized as tractive force." Nothing but weight a factor this way.

So, it appears that the first formula provides the TE that would result were the adhesive weight in the ballpark demonstrated in the second rule. Only a poorly designed locomotive wouldn't...... or a modified one not concerned with TE as a result of the modifications.

I think I'd replace the saddle tank but keep the lead truck. maybe drop the BP a bit to compensate, or sleeve the cylinders. No point having power you can't put to practical use.

Trains Magazine discusses the Porter today: https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... -in-limbo/

This locomotive had some serious issues on maintenance and performance.

But if we are talking tractive effort issues, at Scottdale they managed to have a reasonably steep grade somewhere - like 2% - that restricted them to two steel coaches. With only that, there apparently were resulting issues on braking, so the locomotive was equipped with high-friction Cobra brake shoes on the drivers and it was obvious the independent was heavily used as the driver tires had been deeply scarred by the brake shoes to the point there were visible shards of steel at the flanges. Just sad.

So yeah, putting the saddletank back on might be a good idea to boost the TE for that third car and not lean on the independent!

How difficult would it be to effectively ballast the locomotive to make up for the lost saddle tank, so that it could continue to be used as a tender locomotive? I'm thinking that the mount points for the tank would be able to hold plenty of weight.

The pilot axle is a big issue when it comes to tractive effort. That should be removed so that the weight it takes would go back on the drivers. It would then be relatively easy to add weight to the frame so as to get the weight on drivers back to where it should be.

Not difficult, but why not put the weight to use as available water? You can still have the tender attached.

My understanding is that, apart from use as a static display, weight on drivers is a very low priority compared to other matters.

Because it looks rather handsome without a saddle tank.

Yes, but at what point does it stop being "preservation" and starts becoming "railroad themed entertainment"?

Back when I was at KRM, we had a meter gauge 0-4-0 tank engine from the Louisville Cement company. At some point they filled the saddle tank with steel balls about the size of a baseball, and bought a tender from Porter. On a setup like this, that may not be a bad approach to maximize weight on the drivers.

Is it illegitimate to have any steam locomotives that are useful as steam locomotives and not as historic objects? I think we all get too hyper focused on "must be PRESERVED" and not pay any mind to the fact that there is a subset of locomotives out there that are not preserved, but are kept around to operate because a steam locomotive is desired for the operation. For example, our J&LNG 58 is not preserved in the strictest sense. We have made many alterations to it to make it suitable for continued use on our railroad. Air brakes, tender, bell, lights etc. are all not part of the original design, but that does not matter as what we want is a steel mill locomotive capable of safely pulling trains on our railroad. However, when J&L 57 is restored, it will be as a true restoration, which will also make it a curiosity that won't be of much use to us as an operating locomotive. I think 58 serves a much higher purpose exposing people in NE Ohio to operating steam than it does as a strict representation of what an obscure steam locomotive in a completely obliterated Pittsburgh steel mill would have looked like.

No. 7 has been in this 2-4-0 tender type configuration since the 1980s and has operated at several tourist railroads in this area. It probably has more historical significance from those years than it does from being a ubiquitous tank engine down in Connellsville. So much of it has been changed that it would largely be a replica if it were to be rebuilt as a tank locomotive anyways.

It isn't as if there are no preserved examples of Porter 0-4-0Ts out there, and the world will not be harmed if this already heavily modified example is not restored back to its as built appearance.

I am reliably informed that the pony truck is not equalized to the drivers and carries no weight but its own which resulted in derailments, etc. Much hot air has been expended over a matter of no consequence.

FWIW industrial railways did use tank and tender combinations, one which comes to mind being the Imperial Valley Irrigation engine which had a startling variety of whistles in very frequent use at Railfair 1991.

I was pointing this out to make the point and remind people that there is a difference. You've made the decisions on the best use of 58, and it's really great what you're doing with 57.

There are very good reasons to do both.

But it's important that people not conflate the two.

This is the "Railway Preservation News" forum, after all.

Amen, Rick!

Here is a statement on "consumption," or use artifacts in operation from Recommended Practices, published by the Heritage Rail Alliance.




Wesley

Randy, I've sent you a message. I'm serious.

Chris