Erie Railroad L1 Class: #2600, 2601 & 2602: 0-8-8-0 Articulated Camelbacks: American Locomotive Works

Click on the builders plate

at the bottom of each chapter to bring you back to this table of contents.

Simply put: this website is dedicated to the existence of three very unique locomotives - the Erie L1 Class 0-8-8-0 Articulated Compound Mallets

I have always had a particular fondness for camelback type locomotives; and of all the types built, these three articulated types constructed by American Locomotive Works (Schenectady, NY) for the Erie Railroad are at the top of the list. A close second being the St. Clair Tunnel 0-10-0 side tank Camelbacks.

The Erie L1's were the seventh, eighth and ninth Compound Mallet articulated locomotives constructed in the United States, following the order to American Locomotive company for a single 0-6-6-0 for the Baltimore & Ohio (#2400 "Old Maud") built in May 1904 (ALCo c/n 27478); and an order to Baldwin Locomotive Works for five 2-6-6-2 for the Great Northern.

But the Erie L1's were first and only camelback articulated Mallet locomotives to be constructed in the United States - and for that matter, the world.

The Erie L1 0-8-8-0 was further noted as "Mellin compound Mallets", after Carl J. Mellin who patented the improved method of compounding the steam cylinders.

The L1's were designed for and assigned to pusher service over the Gulf Summit grade and Susquehanna Hill, which includes the famed Starrucca Viaduct on the New York - Pennsylvania border, and the line was part of the Erie's Delaware Division.

The 0-8-8-0's pretty much never ventured west of Susquehanna, Pennsylvania; or east of Deposit, New York. However, a publicity image by Erie Railroad shows one of the locomotives in Port Jervis, NY in 1911.

But despite this local limited use, they obviously left their mark on the collective history of railroading as many items were produced to publicize their construction and service; postcards, paintings, and advertising scale models.

These locomotives remain the topic of many discussions today. Unfortunately, some of those discussions and comments are rooted in misconception.

A lot of this website is rooted in dispelling and proving those myths wrong. That is the premise behind the Real Facts - not Railfan Fiction portion of this website.

As a historian, I am pro-fact and pro-accuracy, and I am as thorough as I can possibly be. I don't merely repeat what I read, I go through the effort of verifying what I read.

A lot of the statistics I have stated do not come from crowd-sourced and easily editable Wikipedia; but from established, reputable and authoritative references and sources such as steamlocomotive.com, actual builders information, as well as industry and technical journals and compendiums from that era.

Since all of the men that actually operated the Erie L1 are long since gone; operational information and techniques comes from (and has been corrected) by both active and retired railroaders, especially those with experience in steam locomotive operation.

But unfortunately, due sometimes in part to novice railfans not understanding the limited technology that of which existed at that time by todays standards; and sometimes in part to biased and / or revisionist historians; there is an inordinate amount of misunderstanding (or just plain bad assumption) on their parts regarding these Erie locomotives (and to be frank, others locomotives and topics as well.)

Regrettably, this erroneous info makes its way onto the web and before you know it its being parroted in modeling forums, Facebook groups and railfan threads.

So, a great deal of the information contained within the chapters of this website, were in fact inspired by these myths, misconceptions and misinformation and have been proven incorrect with good old fashioned research, and posting the documentation to prove otherwise, hence the Real Facts - not Railfan Fiction chapters and the Test and Thesis chapters showing the unedited locomotive test results.

It's been said I take the long way to get where I'm going, especially when disproving a fallacy. Sometimes, it's just necessary to put all the data in black and white and jam it in front of the misinformed to get them to realize the error of their ways.

Naturally, if I am in error; please feel free to contact me and I will make a good faith effort to review the facts you provide.

.

Chapter 1:

A veritable "who's who" of railroad notables

In one way or another, indirectly or directly; the design of the Erie L1 came about as the result of several inventors, engineers and designers of industrial apparatus.

	James Millholland
	1812 - 1875 Baltimore, Maryland, USA
	Railway master mechanic for the Philadelphia & Reading; and initial designer of the anthracite firebox, and many other inventions which became standard on American railroads. Millholland had the honor of working on Peter Cooper's "Tom Thumb" locomotive, and found so much pleasure in working with it, he dedicated his profession to railroad locomotives. Also an early user and advocate of the superheater, the feedwater heater, and the injector. Inventions and contributions include the cast-iron crank axle, wooden spring, plate girder bridge, poppet throttle, initial design of the anthracite firebox, water grate, drop frame, and steel tires.

	John E. Wootten
	1822 - 1898 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
	Wootten would assume Millholland's position of master mechanic; when the latter retired from the P & R. While James Millholland first designed a firebox for burning anthracite culm; it would be Wootten that would go on to perfect the final result, and have his name inextricably associated with the design. Wootten also realized in the mid-1870s, when he held the position of Superintendent of Motive Power (and soon after General Manager) of the Philadelphia & Reading RR; that if a firebox be could be designed to utilize the vast unwanted quantities of anthracite culm (mine / breaker waste) in the Northeast United States; a vast savings in the cost of operation of steam locomotives could be achieved. Due to its width and placement, the design of the Wootten firebox required the repositioning of the engineers cab which resulting in the Camelback locomotive type. This is without a doubt the most significant contribution to the Erie L1 design, not to mention those Camelback style locomotives that both preceded and succeeded it.

	Anatole Mallet (pronounced mal-LAY)
	1837 - 1919 Lancy, Switzerland
	Mechanical engineer, inventor of the first successful compound system with articulated railway steam locomotive, patented in 1874. Developed the boiler over articulated frames containing drive wheels and compound cylinder placement (in contrast to the Beyer or Garrett types of articulated locomotives); and of which the Erie L1 fell into this Articulated Mallet design type. This Mallet style of locomotive became popular not only for the heavy freight drag or pusher operations; but for timberland harvesting firms with excessive curvature and steep grades as well.

	Angus Sinclair
	1841- 1919 Laurence-kirk, Mearns, Scotland
	Erie Railroad special instructor, locomotive engineering, publisher of "Railway & Locomotive Engineering" technical journal. Sinclair's "contribution" to the Erie L1, was that he is believed to have stated before the L1's were completed, that the L1 would "dry up the country's canals and make water transportation obsolete". While this was clearly hyperbole, it is understood that the Erie RR saw fit to honor this statement by assigning Sinclairs' name to the class of locomotive: "Angus"

While all the men mentioned thus far have contributed to the advancement of steam locomotives, or at least certain design philosophies; it is this man that is most directly involved in the design and construction of the Erie L1 Articulated Compound Locomotives:
	Carl J. Mellin
	1851 - 1924 Hagelbergs församling, Skaraborgs; Westergotland, Sweden
	Mechanical engineer and designer of steam locomotive and marine steam propulsion systems. From 1877 to 1887, after completing technical studies, apprenticeships and internships; he was employed by Robert Napier & Son, Glasgow, Scotland; as a designer for maritime propulsion systems, as well as the ships themselves. He then was employed by Atlas (now Atlas Copco) in Stockholm, Sweden. He immigrated to the United States in 1887. In 1894, he obtained the position of chief engineer for the Richmond Locomotive Works, in Virginia; and in 1902 began employment as a consulting engineer for American Locomotive Works of Schenectady, New York. Here, Mellin directed the design office as well as supervised the workshops for the construction of propulsion machinery for US Navy battleships; but his forte was designing locomotives. He is recognized for the designing the "The Spirit of the Twentieth Century", a 4-4-2 "Atlantic" built for the "Big Four" (the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway) exhibit in the Palace of Transportation at 1904 Worlds Fair / Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri. This exhibit earned him a gold medal. Specific to this website, Mellin was supervising engineer for American Locomotive Company when the Erie L1's were designed and built, and he developed and patented the specific compound cylinder system used on the Erie L1 design.

.

.

Chapter 2:

Why the cab is in the middle: the Wootten Firebox

that's Wootten, with two O's and two T's

Some readers may not know the reason for the cab astride the boiler arrangement of Camelback locomotives, so it is here that I will take some time to explain.

The Wootten firebox was designed by John E. Wootten, who was at that time in 1866, the Superintendent of Motive Power for the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad and held the position of General Manager of the same railroad beginning 10 years later.

But technically speaking, Wootten's firebox design was the culmination of an effort beginning with James Millholland, and it is with him that this history begins.

2.1 - James Millholland

James Millholland became involved with the railroads at an early age, with the honor of working as an apprentice on Peter Cooper's "Tom Thumb" locomotive. Millholland found so much pleasure in working with that locomotive, he dedicated his profession to railroad locomotives. He progressed his way up through the ranks of the mechanical forces until he attained the position of railway master mechanic for the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad.

At this point in time, most locomotives were primarily fueled with wood or soft coal: bituminous. It was here that Millholland realized, due to the plentiful supply of anthracite coal in the Northeastern United States; that he attempted to design a firebox capable of burning this plentiful hard coal. Anthracite was so hard in fact, it was also called "stone coal".

Millholland would take wood burning locomotives that were nearing the end of their service life, or had suffered various forms of firebox or boiler failure; and rebuild them with fireboxes of his designs.

Millholland's final design found that a wider and shorter firebox than normal was needed to burn this anthracite. As anthracite coal is harder than bituminous (soft) coal and by taking longer to burn, locomotives using anthracite therefore needed more "grate area" to sufficiently "fire" (generate steam) in the locomotive.

A simple comparison would be to wood species used for heating: softwoods such as pine or fir burned fast; while hardwoods such as maple, oak and ash burned slow.

Typical wood or bituminous (soft coal) burning fireboxes on locomotives of that time were long and narrow, and fit between the locomotive frame. If the firebox was rotated 90 degrees to short and wide (instead of long and narrow), along with changes to the fire grate, the anthracite culm could be burned efficiently in a mobile object such as railroad locomotives.

Some of these initial designs of anthracite firebox worked, but not well enough to find widespread acceptance. One of the outstanding obstacles was the accepted form of banking a fire was to have thick or tall bed of fuel (wood or soft coal) and long flame.

His plans were interrupted in January 1854, when the Philadelphia & Reading Shops burned, and his attention was needed on the rebuilding of those facilities. While he was able to return his attention to converting the P&R's fleet of locomotive to coal burning; he never truly succeeded in developing a successful anthracite firebox. He resigned his position in 1866. His successor was John E. Wootten.

2.2 - John E. Wootten

Like Millholland prior to him, Wootten was aware of the plentiful amount of anthracite from the areas mines.

Even more prolific was the waste "culm". Culm is the remnants and smaller pieces of coal after it had been broken and sized by screening for commercial use.

As this culm was mostly small and irregularly sized, it was unwanted. It found itself being piled next to or in close proximity to the breakers (the coal sizing mills) and in quantities to be considered a nuisance.

As with most things unwanted, it was extremely cheap and in large abundance. Large abundance might very well be an understatement, as there were hundreds of veritable mountains of this unwanted culm scattered throughout northeastern Pennsylvania.

If a locomotive firebox could be developed to use this culm and burn it easily, efficiently and reliably; the railroad(s) would benefit from it as a cheap fuel source.

2.3 - How cheap was culm?

Putting it into perspective for the era: circa 1890; the rates for coal was as follows: screened anthracite coal of the pea size cost 60 cents per gross ton, whereas culm was only 10 cents per gross ton. This constituted a 50 cent per ton difference; however it should be noted that the pea anthracite and the culm was blended 1:1 for use in Erie locomotives. This brings the averaged amount to 35 cents a ton, allowing a net savings of 25 cents per ton of coal. And when you have hundreds of locomotives using the culm, the cents add up into dollars.

In reviewing Millholland's designs; Wootten realized the misgivings and errors of the then established science of firing a boiler with thick beds of fuel and tall flame. That method may have worked for soft coal or wood, but it did not work for anthracite.

By dispensing with those established practices of firing a boiler by that method, and now specifying a thin bed of fuel and short flame, Wootten was able to make his firebox design meet the criteria required of being reliable, efficient, and by way of the fire being easy to maintain and as such the heat output, even a novice fireman could maintain it.

In other words, culm was now suitable for locomotives, where men of varying degrees of ability could satisfactorily achieve and maintain the fire fueled by anthracite for producing a steady and reliable production of steam for all operating conditions whether it flat and level or mountainous territory, the slow pulling of a heavy freight, or a face pace of a passenger train on a schedule.

But, this oversized "Wootten" firebox took up most if not all of the space on the rear of the boiler or "backhead" where the cab was normally placed.

This position of the firebox also presented the issue of the cab floor now being higher than the standard tender deck height.

Also, due to the broad nature of the firebox, the engineer could not see around the firebox as he would encounter with a normal rear mounted cab.

If the cab were to be mounted on top of the Wootten firebox, the crew would be in effect sitting on top of the firebox.

Also as a result of this placement, the cab would be raised higher than before and would necessitate the tunnels of that time to be raised. This of course was not an option.

As we can see by the bottom left image, the Philadelphia & Reading contemplated this rear cab Wootten firebox arrangement. Ungainly to say the least!

So, necessity dictated the locomotive cab be located towards the center of the boiler in front of the firebox instead of on the rear as normal.

Hence the camelback locomotive was born. This placement allowed the engineer to retain access to the entire length of the boiler, and from the front or the rear steps to maintain the appliances.

The fireman however would remain in the rear to feed the fuel as customary, and tenders with high deck heights were constructed for use with camelback locomotives.

However, the Wootten firebox also changed the weight distribution on the locomotive chassis, and due to the increased size of the firebox, mostly precluded the use of trailing trucks on the frame to support the firebox. This meant the firebox needed to be mounted over the driving wheels for support, which meant moving the driving wheels further back in the design of the chassis.

2.4 - Lack of trailing truck

This is why Camelbacks are predominantly seen in wheel arrangements without trailing trucks, and where the rear driving wheels could carry the full weight of the Wootten firebox. These wheel arrangements were mostly comprised of (but not limited to) those listed (and there were camelback locomotives with trailing trucks):

0-4-0 and
0-6-0 switchers;
0-8-0 and
0-10-0 transfer engines;

as well as road engines such as:

2-6-0 (Mogul),
4-6-0 (Ten-Wheeler),
2-8-0 (Consolidation),
4-8-0 (Twelve-Wheeler or Mastodon).

2.5 - Whyte Notation

also called the "wheel arrangement"

In the United States and United Kingdom, wheel arrangements of locomotives are described by the leading or pony wheels (in any), the powered drive wheels and the trailing truck (in any).

This system was devised by Frederick M. Whyte, and came into use in the early Twentieth Century. Geared steam locomotives, electric locomotives as well as diesel electric and gasoline mechanical locomotives do not use the Whyte notation. These are classified by their model and the number of axles and trucks, and whether those axles are powered or unpowered.

The Whyte Notation counts from left to right (with left being the front of the locomotive); the number of idle leading wheels (not the axles as in other systems), then the number of powered driving wheels, and finally the number of idle trailing wheels, with these numbers being separated by hyphens.

For example, a locomotive with four wheels (on two axles) leading in front, then six driving wheels (on three axles) and then two wheels (one axle) trailing is classified as a 4-6-2 locomotive, and is commonly known as a "Pacific".

A small switching locomotive with no leading wheels, four driving wheels on two axles), and no trailing wheels, is notated as an 0-4-0.

With this system being explained and returning to camelback locomotive design; notice that most of the wheel arrangements as used on early camelback locomotives lack a trailing truck. This was due to the size of the firebox. An exception to this list is the 4-4-2 "Atlantic", which by nature of its tall driving wheels (for high speed passenger service), required the boiler and firebox to be higher, thereby allowing a trailing truck to be fit under the firebox.

Certain wheel arrangement were better suited to high speed passenger service, while others were more adept at low speed high tractive effort. Some were able to due both heavy long distance passenger trains as well as freight service.

2.6 - Camelback: Who Used Them?

Returning to camelback locomotive design, as a result of this large firebox on the rear of the locomotive, the cab was relocated to middle of the boiler and such locomotives became known as "Camelbacks" or "Mother Hubbards".

The camelback design worked very well for many of the railroads located in the northeastern "hard coal country" of the United States such as the few that come to mind.

There were many others and by no means should this be considered a complete list.

Philadelphia & Reading
Erie
Central of New Jersey
Lehigh Valley
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western
New York, Ontario & Western
Delaware & Hudson
Lehigh & New England
Long Island
Wheeling & Lake Erie
Maine Central
Pennsylvania (minimally)

Even Western and Canadian railroads experimented with and rostered Camelback locomotives:

Union Pacific
Southern Pacific
Santa Fe
Canadian Pacific

So successful was the camelback design, over 3000 examples were constructed.

2.7 - Evolution to Mounting the Cab on the Rear

When locomotive design practice evolved to feature rear mounted cabs on locomotives with Wootten fireboxes, these cabs lacked the usual doors on the front wall. This is perfectly illustrated by the image of the rebuilt Erie L1 at right.

Without a doubt, this lack of front doors on the cab hindered the engineer and / or fireman from their basic maintenance duties such as but not limited to: filling the sand domes; adjusting valves; cleaning the bell; oiling and maintaining the steam generator for locomotive lighting; all of which are along the top of the locomotive as well as lubricating / maintaining the air pumps for the brakes, which were mounted along the side of the locomotive.

The engineer or fireman (or both) would have to climb down at the cab / tender access steps, walk to the front of the locomotive, then climb back up to boiler walkway; instead of exiting directly from the front of the cab as had been the practice.

Erie Railroad #2600 after Baldwin rebuild - 1921
authors collection

In the case of a 55 foot locomotive chassis as on the L1 - from cab / tender steps to front steps; it was a hike: 55 feet to the front, 50 feet back to the cab; 50 forward to dismount at the front steps and then 55 feet back to the cab / tender steps.

And you thought the engineer sat on his seat and the fireman leaned on his shovel all day!

It should be noted - this trend away from camelbacks was due in part to safety. But as I will cover in a later chapter, camelbacks were not universally banned by the Interstate Commerce Commission or any other federal agency, by locomotive employees unions, et cetera; despite the popular misconception they have been.

Then if the camelbacks weren't outlawed, what did cause the trend away from camelback type locomotive design? What usually talks the loudest? Money!

Just as in the beginning when anthracite was cheaper than bituminous and culm was the cheapest of anthracite, anthracite rose in price due to its desirability of being clean burning and low dust; which made it a favorable fuel for home heating. This led anthracite coal breakers to be more judicious in what they dumped as culm (waste), as well as the resulting increased prices from increased demand.

Added to this increase in the price of anthracite, was the Anthracite Coal Miners strike of May - October 1902.

That led locomotive manufacturers to revert to firebox designs that burned the now cheaper bituminous coal that did in camelbacks. Ironically, a Wootten firebox is just as capable and efficient at burning bituminous coal as it could culm, so existing locomotives with Wootten fireboxes could run either.

This is to say nothing of the development of the diesel-electric locomotive in the 1930's; first as switchers, then in increasing quantities of road locomotives; which pretty much supplanted steam as a locomotive power as a whole by the 1950's

2.8 - Comparison to Another Type of "Camelback"

A lot of people, railfans and non-railfans alike; inevitably ask: "If the camelback design was so questionable, then why was it popular and saw widespread use?"

First as has been demonstrated, its design was out of necessity to use the cheap fuel type at hand. And despite the over-hyped media outcry about its design due to a few dramatic accidents; it was in fact a successful design.

And the following comparison might be a stretch, but it would not be the only widely successful locomotive design where performance and reliability was exceptional, but its shortcomings were crew ergonomics or comfort. What locomotive is this you ask?

None other than the Pennsylvania GG1. Another center cab design, it could in a way, be considered a "camelback electric locomotive". While a GG1 was not steam powered nor did it have the associated reciprocating main or siderods; it is well documented that the visibility from the cab (engineer or firemans side, to the front or to the rear) was poor, due to the high long hoods.

Access to the locomotive cab was via a rather tall vertical climb. But once inside, both the engineers and firemans stations were notably cramped. I've personally been in the cab of a GG1, and even though I'm 5'9" and overweight, it would a very tight squeeze even for someone of smaller stature.

But undoubtedly, the GG1's were a successful design and many built. There were thousands of center-cab diesel locomotives built (especially by General Electric) so having the cab located in or towards the center of the locomotive was not the factor in and of itself.

Again, as I and others have pointed out, despite the outcry over steam powered camelbacks, they were in fact; successful as well.

.

.

Chapter 3:

What is Mallet Compounding?

The three Erie L1 0-8-8-0 locomotives were the only articulated Mallet Camelbacks built, and they would also have the distinction of being the Erie Railroads' first "Mallet" locomotive, as well as their first articulated locomotive.

For the record, the correct pronunciation is mal-LAY, after Anatole Mallet, who was a Swiss mechanical engineer and consultant.

However, and all too frequently here in the States, it is often pronounced mal-LUTT (like the hammer).

You may say ta-MAY-to, I may say toe-MAH-toe; but mal-LAY is the correct pronunciation in this case.

Mallet Compounding is a system designed to utilize steam twice, instead of once (also known as simple expansion).

Compounding thereby extracts additional energy or force out of steam, making the engine more efficient.

Therefore in such an engine that steam from a boiler is used first in high pressure (hp) cylinders, then piped partially expanded to a second set of low pressure (lp) cylinders for final expansion.

Compound:
intake
primary high pressure expansion
exhaust to low pressure cylinder
secondary low pressure expansion
exhaust to smokebox (to atmosphere.)

vs.

Simple:
intake
expansion
exhaust to smokebox (to atmosphere)

Because steam that needed to be expanded will occupy a larger volume, therefore means the low pressure cylinders have to be larger than the high pressure cylinders.

After this final expansion, steam is then vented to the atmosphere through the smokebox, to induce draft for the firebox.

This compounding method is a very efficient way to use the steam twice for large multi-cylinder locomotives, as well as marine vessels and stationary steam locomotives used for electrical generation or pumping; and where single expansion would have used up the steam capacity too quickly.

3.1 - The Intercepting Valve

But there was another feature inherent to the design of Mallet Compounding; the intercepting valve.

This valve, located in the left side high pressure cylinder, allowed the engineer to admit high pressure steam into the low pressure system. This was especially useful when starting the locomotive and train on a grade. Not often, but when required; a train may have had to stop while already on the the incline. If the train was heavy enough, even an L1 could have issues getting moving again with all that tonnage. By admitting high pressure steam into the low pressure system, gave the front cylinders more power, and having more power assisted in getting the train started moving again.

But, there was a drawback to using this intercepting valve: in its "simple" setting where it diverted high pressure steam to the low pressure cylinders, it used up the steam pressure in the boiler at a quicker rate.

Therefore it only was used absolutely when needed, and was not intended to be used in normal operation. Westing referencing to this in the Erie Power book (as you will read later).

"The L1's could operate as simple or single expansion locomotives, if desired, by use of an intercepting valve. This was a feature on Mallets and arranged for live, or high-pressure steam to be fed to all cylinders, thereby, increasing tractive force considerably. On the other hand it had the effect of speedily draining the boiler of steam"...

Westing clearly states simple expansion was an option "if desired".. Nowhere does he state that it operated in this simple expansion mode all the time.

Unfortunately, most railfans only read the second half of the chapter. Perhaps Westing could have worded it better, but it is still very clear that when read carefully and thoroughly, the boiler was only "speedily drained" in the simple expansion mode of the intercepting valve, not all the time during regular compound operation.

And this effect was known long before the L1's. It is inherent to the design of the Compound Mallet with intercepting valves. (For the record, a Compound Mallet could be built without an intercepting valve, and it would be useful in a normal capacity just the same.

Where I will pick apart Westings description: "live, or high pressure steam". Live steam is under pressure, any pressure; whether it be 215 psi or 50 psi or 5 psi. Under any pressure, it is "live" steam. Only once it is exhausted and not under pressure, is it considered "dead" steam.

You can have a 1 hp single cylinder steam engine that operates at 5 psi.. like the little alcohol powered novelty toy engines that are sold. If steam is under pressure, it's live steam. It's still alive partially expanded from 215 to 50 psi. Only when fully expanded and no longer under pressure, is it dead. Like electricity: any volatge in a wire is live voltage. Zero voltage is dead.

So, he should have stated "live, or pressurized steam". Other than that, and quite obviously, this Mallet Compounding design was successful, as these L1 locomotives served not only the Erie Railroad reliably for 23 years for but before then, as well as after; on many other articulated Mallet compound locomotives that were built for several different railroads.

3.2 - Articulated ≠ Compounding

It should be kept in mind that an articulated locomotive does not equate to Mallet Compounding. Articulated denotes the type of frame or chassis, and from that you had Simple Articulated or Mallet Compounding Articulated.

As such, not all articulated steam locomotives need be of the Mallet Compound type. A significant number of articulated locomotives were built were of the simple expansion type. And plenty of rigid frame locomotives utilized compounding, but were not of the Mallet Compounding design.

Commencing in the late 1920's, saw the advent of successful, high efficiency superheating, feedwater heating, improved metallurgy and manufacturing practices for higher boiler pressures, mechanical coal stokers, etc; which led locomotive builders away from the compound Mallet locomotive design, but the design did not become extinct.

The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway ordered twenty-five H-6 class 2-6-6-2 in 1940 for use as low-speed coal mine shuttles between the mines and classification railyard in Russell, Kentucky. Ten locomotives were completed before the order was cancelled with the final locomotive delivered in 1949. It is these ten locomotives that would carry the distinction of being the last compound Mallets constructed.

If any class of service to which type was better suited at than the other; compound Mallets seemed to be preferred for low speed, heavy drags and pushing; whilst simple expansion types were predominantly used for higher speeds over longer distances; but this is not set in stone.

A short, very incomplete list of the popularly known types of articulated locomotives, both Mallet compound and simple:

Mallet (Compound) Locomotives					Simple Expansion Locomotives
year built	railroad	class	wheel arrangement	notes	year built	railroad	class	wheel arrangement
1904	Baltimore & Ohio	2400 "Old Maud"	0-6-6-0	first Mallet Articulated	1910	Southern Pacific	MC-2, MC-4, MC-6	2-8-8-2
1907	Erie	L1	0-8-8-0		1936	Norfolk & Western	A	2-6-6-4
1910	Norfolk & Western	Y	2-8-8-2		1936	Union Pacific	CSA-1/2; 4664 "Challenger"	4-6-6-4
1912	Pennsylvania	CC1	0-8-8-0		1941	Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range	M-3 / M-4	2-8-8-4
1918	Virginian	AE	2-10-10-2		1941	Union Pacific	4000 "Big Boy"	4-8-8-4
1940	Chesapeake & Ohio	H-6	2-6-6-2	last Mallets built

.

.

Chapter 4:

Why the need for Articulation?

"It don't mean a thing, if you ain't got that swing - doo wah - doo wah - doo wah!"

4.1 - What is Articulation?

An articulated locomotive is a type of locomotive that is distinguished from those designs with a rigid frame.

The purpose of articulated locomotives was to provide additional drive wheels (which in turn added tractive effort), but avoid the drawbacks of a long wheel base of a rigid frame; by which would limit the locations the locomotive could be operated at, namely track profiles with excessive curvature, whether they be mainlines or mountain logging railways.

More axles meant a longer wheel base, which equated to the shallower curve that particular locomotive could be operated on. The most axles ever incorporated into a single rigid frame in US locomotive design, was the 9000 class 4-12-2 for the Union Pacific Railroad.

Also, a benefit of a larger articulating locomotive, allowed one large locomotive to replace a second (or third) locomotive, which would have also meant a separate engineer and fireman for each locomotive, as well as eliminating that second (or third) locomotive, and its associated cost for maintenance and upkeep.

The articulated locomotive is designed to allow the front set of driving wheels and its mechanisms be mounted to a frame that pivots or "swings" to the left and right (on the horizontal plane), separately and independently from the main frame.

Each group of these drive wheels, with their cylinders, drive rods and other associated components; is called an "engine". Therefore, articulated locomotives have a front engine and a rear engine.

So, by dividing up the axles into two groups (or even three groups as in the Erie Triplexes) allowed the locomotive to be operated on sharper curvature than a single long rigid frame locomotive could. This was especially useful where numerous curves existed along a rail line; such as those encountered on mountainous territory like the Erie, or on logging operations in the Pacific Northwest.

For the record, the front engine of the Erie L1 could swing a maximum of 16 degrees from center.

The pivoting group of drive wheels or "engine" - the front set; and the rigid frame drive wheels - the rear set; of an articulated locomotive are represented by the two middle numbers in the Whyte Notation. The numbers on either side of the center two numbers (if other than zeros) represent the lead or pony truck on left, and trailing truck on right; so reading from left to right, and the left being the front of locomotive):

leading or pony truck - powered drive wheels - powered drive wheels - trailing truck

As such is the case of the Erie Triplex, those were 2-8-8-8-2: a two wheel lead or "pony" truck, three engines of eight drive wheels, and a two wheel trailing truck; or in the case of the Virginian Triplex 2-8-8-8-4, denotes two wheel leading truck, three engines of eight drive wheels and a four wheel trailing truck

By comparison, those Whyte notation examples of rigid wheelbase locomotives such as the 0-4-0 through the 4-12-2; the single center number represents the powered drive wheels.

The following table represents the wheel arrangements of all known articulated (simple and compound) locomotives built and operated in the United States.

Whyte Notation	Whyte Name	user railroads
0-4-4-0		D&RGW
2-4-4-2	"Little River"	Columbia River Belt Line
0-6-6-0	"Two six-coupled"	B&O, KCS, WM, NYC, WM
2-6-6-0	"Denver & Salt Lake"	D&SL
2-6-8-0		GN, AGS, B&O
2-6-6-2	"Mallet Mogul"	GN, C&O, WM, NdeM
2-6-6-4	"H4-A" also "Norfolk & Western"	N&W, P&WV, SAL, B&O
2-6-6-6	"Alleghany"	C&O, VGN
4-6-6-2	"Cab Forward"	SP
4-6-6-4	"Challenger"	UP, Clinchfield, NP, D&H, D&RGW, SP&S, WM, WP
0-8-8-0	"Angus"	Erie, PRR, NYC
2-8-8-0	"Consolidation Mallet" or "Bull Moose"	PRR, GN, UP, RDG, B&O, KCS, AT&SF
2-8-8-2	"Chesapeake"	N&W, SP, UP, OR&N, Southern, VGN, GN, Clinchfield, D&RGW, RDG, WM, MP, SL&SF, DM&IR, PRR
2-8-8-4	"Yellowstone"	NP, SP, DM&IR, D&RGW
4-8-8-2	"Cab Forward"	SP
4-8-8-4	"Big Boy" (originally Wasatch)	UP
2-10-10-2	"Virginian" "3000 class"	AT&SF, VGN
2-8-8-8-2	"Triplex"	Erie
2-8-8-8-4	"Triplex"	VGN
abbreviations: AGS = Alabama Great Southern; AT&SF = Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe; B&O = Baltimore & Ohio; C&O = Chesapeake & Ohio; D&H = Delaware & Hudson DM&IR = Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range; D&RGW = Denver, Rio Grande & Western; D&SL = Denver & Salt Lake; GN = Great Northern; KCS = Kansas City southern: MP = Missouri Pacific; NdeM = Nuevo de Mexico; NP = Northern Pacific; N&W = Norfolk & Western; NYC = New York Central; OR&N = Oregon Railway & Navigation; PRR = Pennsylvania RR; P&WV = Pittsburgh & West Virginia; RDG = Reading; SAL = Seaboard Air Lines; SL&SF = St Louis & San Francisco SP = Southern Pacific; UP = Union Pacific; VGN = Virginian; WM = Western Maryland; WP = Western Pacific

Before concluding this chapter, it should also be taken into account that some rigid frame duplex locomotives, like the 4-4-4-4, 4-6-4-4, 4-4-6-4 or 6-4-4-6; while they have two groups of drive wheels and two sets of cylinders similar to an articulated locomotive, they were not articulated, and consisted of a rigid frame containing both sets of drive wheels.

.

.
.

Chapter 5:

"Pushers" and "Helpers"

also known as "banking locomotives" in the United Kingdom

.

The L1's were designed for, and assigned to "pusher service"; that is, they assisted by pushing heavy freight trains over Gulf Summit on the Pennsylvania / New York border.

The Gulf Summit was not simply straight up and over, it had numerous curves and reverse curves on both sides of the summit.

These freight trains normally had one or two locomotives on the head end; which was sufficient for most of the route, which was fairly level along the banks of the Susquehanna River and the West Branch of the Delaware River. But to go over the steep Gulf Summit, those locomotives were inadequate.

Placing a third or even fourth locomotive at the head end of the train would provide more pulling power, but with the weight of the train pulling backwards downhill, the train could then incur a pulled draft gear (the bar that holds the coupler under the freight car) or a broken coupler knuckle.

This would make the train "break" into two parts, and even with the recent advent of air brakes, this was not something a railroad wanted to happen on steep grades.

Pusher locomotives like the L1's; were added to the rear of the trains if needed at Susquehanna, PA for the eastward trains; and at Deposit, NY for westbound trains to push them up and over Gulf Summit.

Pushing relieved the tension and strain on the draft gear and coupler knuckles throughout the train length, as well as alleviated slack action which is also known as run in / run out.

The maximum grade of the west slope: from Susquehanna to the Gulf Summit is 1.36%, and is slightly steeper than the east slope: Deposit to Gulf Summit, of which the maximum is 1.01 %.

authors collection
added 08 January 2022

A 1.36% grade equates to a 72' rise in 5,280' of length, or a 1 foot rise over 73 feet (1/73). It should be noted, a 1.36% grade is not the steepest grade encountered on a railroad in the United States, much less on the Erie Railroad system. The steepest grade encountered on the Erie Railroad is the Blossburg to Alford, PA segment which was a staggering 2.84%.

But this 1.36% grade was not the only factor involved requiring the addition of locomotives for assistance in surmounting Gulf Summit, as there also exists many sharp curves on both sides of Gulf Summit which induced even further resistance upon the train. One curve in particular, progresses from 5 degrees 30 minutes to 6 degrees in the opposite direction and then back to 5 degrees 25 minutes in the other - all in less than a mile.

These reverse curves add significant resistance to the train already struggling to make it up the grade; so again, it was not an easy "straight run" up and over or that of which a train can get a running start. Because of these grades and curves, speeds for negotiating Gulf Summit are low.

In some cases, other railroads that also had steep inclines along one or more of their routes; opted to utilize older freight locomotives to help push these trains up and over the grade. This helped alleviate the expenditure in investment of newer more powerful designs for the cost conscious railroad; as well as made use of locomotives past their "prime" of mainline / long distance service; but were still serviceable and useful none-the-less.

Or a railroad could rebuild, say an older design of heavy freight to a pusher by changing cylinder dimensions, valving, method (compound to simple and vice versa) and such.

The Erie Railroad however, chose to purchase dedicated locomotives for pushing. In "Development of the Locomotive Engine; by Angus Sinclair, 1907; Erie previously had built two 0-8-0 pusher engines numbers 57 & 58 by M. W. Baldwin in June 1850, which were specifically designed for use on 68' grades (68 feet to the mile) with 18½" x 23" cylinders and 48" drivers and weighed 27 tons. Sinclair sourced this information from an 1858 American Railway Journal compilation on Erie Motive Power.

In "Erie Power", by 1891, the Erie ordered six units of the S1 class locomotives (to be used in pairs) specifically for pushing. These were prior to the order to and would be the locomotives replaced by the L1's when delivered in 1907.

So, it is quite apparent that Erie management was not adverse to having locomotives constructed specifically for pusher use. Which further reinforces their decision in 1906 to invest in the L1 locomotives, which by design were built from the beginning for this specific purpose of pushing.

They weren't built to lead fast freights hundreds of miles, or to pull passenger trains on a strict timetable. They were built to push, push slowly, and push firmly.

.
.

.

Chapter 6:

The History of the L1 Locomotive

and the P1 Class Triplex "Matt H. Shay" for direct comparison

We are fortunate that a very nice history concerning the construction and reconstruction of these locomotives is contained in the 1970 book: "Erie Power" by Fred Westing & Alvin Staufer (Stauffer Publishing, 1970). You will find these pages under the chapter of Erie Mallets, pages 198 through 215.

For the sake of thoroughness, I have scanned and reproduced the pages here on the chapter of Erie Mallets for reference. I highly recommended purchasing a copy of the book, if for nothing else, the great action photographs. The book can be found for very reasonable amounts on most used book websites, internet auctions and shopping sites.

Until my own research, and for the longest time; I pretty much regarded this historical accounting as gospel - after all, it was published 50 some odd years ago and within a generation or two of the locomotives operation.

6.1 - Unfortunately, it is not as accurate as once believed

However, as original documents and photographs surfaced during my research, I uncovered several discrepancies and / or inaccuracies; some major, others just cosmetic. Insomuch, learning of these inaccuracies was kind of disappointing, as I have always revered the older publications (like the Staufer "Power" books) to be the last word and authoritative.

It now appears that in his composition, Mr. Westing may have allowed a little too much personal opinion sway his judgment on overall performance or in captions for the images. In particular are his conclusions regarding the performance testing conducted by the Erie Railroad and Cornell University in 1907, and of which the explanations for some of the lackluster results.

The test results are defined in great detail, and explain the reasons behind the results of the third test, and how it skewed and lowered the average performance numbers on the whole. These explanations can be read in "The Test" and the "The Thesis" chapters later in this website.

I have also included the last few pages of that chapter which pertain to the experimental Erie 2-6-8-0 Mallet and the Erie Triplex 2-8-8-8-2 "Matt H. Shay", and as the images of the Erie L1 both as built and as reconstructed by Baldwin Locomotive Works were on those pages, even though the text was for a different locomotive entirely.

I have annotated the scanned pages with those differences I found or highlighted details that reinforce my disproving of common myth and misinformation.

Please note, the following pages have been digitized for reader convenience, reference and review under the Fair Use provision of the US Copyright Office and no such infringement should be inferred by the use of said documents for commentary, criticism, and research as discussed below. Original copyright remains with original author (Frederick Westing) and publisher (Alvin Staufer / Staufer Publishing).


.
. ..

1) "two fire doors to facilitate spreading coal" and; "if you wanted to use two fireman" 2) "speedily draining the boiler of steam" in simple or single expansion mode; not in compound expansion mode, of which this was the standard mode for use.	3) dynamometer car rated to 70,000 lbs tractive force, but the L1's were rated at 94,000 lbs.! If the geiger counter at Chernobyl only read to 3.6 roentgens, does that mean there wasn't 15,000? 4) "results showed ONE good fireman could get plenty of power from an L1." 5) "satisfactorily replaced" (not questionably, barely, could not or unsatisfactorily) 6) Subjective assumption. The L1's did everything they were designed to do and did it for 21 years, reliably. Perhaps this chapter could have been better worded as "the full power potential of the L1's could not be measured accurately with the equipment available at that time of testing, and perhaps should have been retested if and when that equipment became available."
.
	Since this authors having secured a first generation high resolution scan of the original DeGoyler negative housed in the Southern Methodist University archives; that is a person (presumably the fireman) standing by the firemans canopy, not a head or tender light. Furthermore, with the new scan, we are able to discern that train is on the eastbound track, the tender light is not illuminated, thereby the train is going up Gulf Summit. So yes; they are pushing against the four wheel bobber caboose. This is not unheard of: in the Placement of the Caboose chapter, there is a postcard of three Consolidations pushing on a bobber caboose and coal train. Returning to this image, the train is stopped and posing for the photographer, hence the men on top of the tender and cars. The image as well as a zoom and crop may be seen in the Memorabilia & Photographs chapter below.
.
	The wooden pushing beams were installed from the beginning. They are seen in the erecting drawings, builders photographs (including the E. DeGolyer construction image on p.202 above) as well as images in Railroad Gazette (p.174).
.

While this highlighted text has nothing to do with the Erie L1 Class; it does show how misinformed present day railfans assume that when the coal and water was used up in the Triplex, it lost tractive effort. Which as read here, was not the case as it clearly states that factor was taken into account in the design! Not to mention the locomotive being used on short runs and replenished more quickly, the coal and water was not run down as other distance hauling locomotives would be.
.

.	Table of comparative statistics among the various Erie Mallets (L1 class highlighted).
.

.

"Erie Power" chapter on Erie Mallets; pages 198-215 by Fred Westing & Alvin F. Stauffer (Stauffer Publishing, 1970) added 13 January 2013
.. . . .

Chapter 7:

Real Facts - not Railfan Fiction!

“The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion.” John Lawton

or if you prefer:

Damnant quod non intellegunt. Translation: They condemn what they do not understand.

Sigh, where do I even begin?

Camelback locomotives already have erroneous information swirling about them. The Erie L1 class Mallets appear to be doubly damned in regards to misinformation.

Not only do a lot of railfans not understand how they worked, but also do not understand what they were designed for and the work they performed; why only three were built; and when they were designed, they were cutting edge technology of that era.

It is all too easy for todays generation of railroad enthusiasts to look at the culmination of super-power steam locomotives of the 1940's through 1950's; and then erroneously think these Erie L1's weren't good enough, simply by comparison to those latter designs.

Some of these arise from the Stauffer / Westing chapter of Erie Mallets in "Erie Power"; while others come from present day misunderstandings and myths posted in Facebook Groups by the misinformed; or worse, the less-than-minimally informed. You know the types: "If I didn't see it, it didn't happen" juxtaposed by the "I read it on the internet, it must be true!" types.

So, the next several chapters are dedicated to dispelling the all-to-prevalent myths and misconceptions about the Erie L1 locomotives.

Dispelling Myths & Misassumptions

"It wasn't the biggest - the Big Boy was"	"They were too big - the cabs struck each other kiiling engineers and fireman"	Reliability & Longevity: 23 years at 1,700 miles per month in 8.5 mile increments!	They only built three - because it wasn't successful." Because three were only what Erie needed.	"They Used Two Fireman." No. One Fireman! and Dual Firebox Doors
"That Small Tender - it coudn't have been that useful." Because it only had to go so far.	1=2 or 1=3 or 3=6 or 3=9 No, it isn't Enron math	Unsuccessful? Not in the least. Let's add up the numbers..	Placement of the Caboose Before or after the pusher locomotive?	"Camelbacks Were Banned in the U.S." No they weren't. More bad myth.

Chapter 7

"The Erie 0-8-8-0 wasn't the biggest - the 'Big Boy' was."

I had a railfan contact me in early 2024, stating the Erie L1 wasn't the largest locomotive ever built - it was the Union Pacific's "Big Boy". The tone of correspondence was rather indignant, I may add.

First, I had to take a minute and re-read his email to make sure I was not misreading it. When I realized I had not; the next few moments I took were to come out of a state of shock. Only then, could I take a few minutes to actually explain the "Big Boy" wasn't built until 1941, and these L1's were built in 1907, and when they were built 34 years before the "Big Boy"; the L1's were the largest steam locomotive built - at that time.

And even then, if you were take all the steam power built up to 1954 (the last steam locomotive built for general service in the United States); the Big Boys were still not the undisputed "largest" by several units of measurement:

by weight: the first batch of C&O H-8 Allegheny's were heavier: even if only by 150 pounds: 1,208,900 lbs vs the Big Boy at 1,208,750 lb. But the C&O M-1 class weighed in at 1,233,970 pounds; 25,220 pounds or 12 tons heavier than the Big Boy.
by wheel arrangement: the Virginian Triplex holds that record 2-8-8-8-4 (24 drive wheels), vs. 4-8-8-4 (16 drive wheels) for the UP Big Boy;
by horsepower: 7,500 hp @ 46 mph for the C&O H-8 Allegheny vs. 6,290 hp @ 41 mph for the UP Big Boy;
by length: the UP Big Boy is 130' 10" vs. PRR S1 Duplex at 140' 2" (and was not articulated!) or vs. the N&W Jawn Henry which was the longest at 161' 1" (engine & tender).

Needless to say, I am still awaiting a reply from this person (but I'm not holding my breath...)

I am not anti-"Big Boy" or anti-Union Pacific in the least; nor can I say with honestly that I favor eastern railroads over western; pre-superpower designs over superpower; experimental locomotives vs. those commercially produced and sold, etc. I am not an Erie Railroad historian or even a "buff", nor can I consider the Erie my "favorite" railroad. That honor belongs to the rail-marine operations of the Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal.

But, I can say very enthusiastically that the Erie L1 is my favorite locomotive design.

It would be like a "car guy" trying to compare a 1920's Model T to a 1950 Cadillac. Of course the Caddy was bigger, more powerful, much faster, heavier, could go further, and do so more comfortably! Yeah, they both had four wheels and ran on gasoline, but that is about where the similarities end. Hell, one shouldn't even compare a Model 'T' to a Model 'A' for that matter because of the advancement made in automobiles in that 20 year period.

As of her restoration to operation in 2019, the Union Pacific 4014 "Big Boy" is the largest steam locomotive currently operating in the United States.

But she is not by any means, the largest steam locomotive "ever built" and certainly not before 1941. Not here in the United States, and certainly not in other places around the globe.

.

.

Chapter 8

"They Were So Big - The Cabs Struck Each Other"

Here is yet another head-shaking unbelievable falsehood that I located on the web in November 2024. Posted to a Youtube video of a O scale model 0-8-8-0 Camelback being demonstrated, one of the commenters to the video made that comment below.

"Here is another fact for you: The Angus boilers were so big that when two Angus passed one another, the cabs struck each other.
There were a number of engineers and fireman killed."

How does one even counter a so blatantly erroneous and false statement? The fact that one even has to disprove this statement, angers me greatly.

Loading Gauge a/k/a Clearance "Plates":

The United States railroad industry (and other railroads around the world) have what are called "loading gauges".

This loading gauge is not to be confused with "track gauge", which is 4' 8½".

In the US, loading gauges began to be standardized in 1886; in 1956 they became better known as "clearance plates" or just "plates": Plate B, C, E, F, H and so on.

Loading gauges / clearance plates are industry wide standards agreed upon by the railroads and equipment manufacturers.

Each plate: B, C, E, F, H carries the limiting dimensions of the largest piece of equipment pertaining to that particular class. The plate size on a railroad car is stenciled on the door and indicates the car's size.

These dimensions define the physical parameters of the equipment total widths: total heights, total lengths. From these the railroad determined if the car will not exceed engine, boiler, car body overhangs on curves; track spacing, curve elevations; load restrictions, etc; of which allows for interoperability and interchangeability between railroads.

These plates, as noted for each piece of equipment, would be referenced by the clearance department for every railroad that car might enter trackage upon. Therefore, plate size is used to help avoid collisions with fixed structures, and help to designate the car's route.

The yardmaster puts all the cars going to particular destination into one or more trains.

The brakeman and/or conductor check the plates on his manifest to the route the train is scheduled to take.

By cross referencing the plate of the car to the railroads clearance tables; a clearance bureau (a team of railroad employees who sole job is to check the safe transit of oversize equipment) they can determine if one particular route had a tunnel that was too small for the car to go through, therefore that car would have to be routed a different way.

Say a train made up of double-stack cars, of which their size pertains to Plate H and needs to get from Point A to Point B. Plate H in the chart to the right is defined by the aqua colored outline.

Double-stack cars require more clearance above the tracks than other types of rail freight. To accommodate double-stack trains, railroads have raised bridges and the roofs of tunnels, and raised the height of signal bridges and other obstacles.

But on this route from Point A to Point B, there is a tunnel we'll call "Tightsqueeze Tunnel" with small portals. The Railroad's 'Clearance Bureau' checks their tables and notes that the Plate H double stack cars won't fit through the "Tightsqueeze" Tunnel.

So, the Plate H cars are now diverted to a route with acceptable clearances and arrive at their destination.

Do you think for even one minute, American Locomotive Company constructed a locomotive so incredibly huge, without first checking track clearances, tunnel clearances, and other restrictions where it was going to be used?

Interstate Commerce Commission Accident Reports:

Here is another reason how this alleged "fact" can be determined to be false: by law; the railroads must report all serious injuries and fatalities to the Interstate Commerce Commission.

"The ICC began collecting accident reports in 1901, but details in those early reports could be sparse.
Starting in 1910, the ICC required that accident reports include the location of the accident and any injuries or deaths that occurred, within 24 hours."

These records have been preserved, in their entirety; in the National Archives. Furthermore, they have been digitized and cross referenced by type of accident, location date, railroad, engine number, as well as other search parameters. For my research, both here on the Erie L1 locomotives on this website, and in the course of my research on the Rail-Marine Terminals in New York City; I personally have researched these records on multiple occasions.

We've got reports of crewmen casualties between moving cars during switching, derailments, under overturned or shifted loads, boiler explosions & other steam pipe related situations, slip and falls.

Nowhere it it mentioned in these records; between July 1907 (when the Erie 0-8-8-0 Angus locomotives were first delivered to Erie), through 1921 when they were rebuilt by Baldwin to rear cab; or even to December 1930 when they were ultimately scrapped; that any crewman was injured or killed by being crushed in the cab of a locomotive of Erie locomotives 2600, 2601 or 2602; when in collision with any another locomotive of any type, (much less another locomotive of the same type).

The only accidents recorded taking place with one of the Erie Angus' was the derailment October 10, 1910 (no injuries) and injury by shop crewman when broken stay-bolt blew out of the firebox and injured the worker. Both of these are mentioned in the chapter: L1 Mishaps

Another case against this falsehood:

When the Erie Railroad when originally built, it was constructed to broad track gauge - 6 foot between the rails - not the present 4' 8½" standard. This includes the route the Angus' operated on.

Likewise, locomotives and rolling stock that were built for the Erie Railroad was oversized by latter day standard gauge standards.

When the Erie re-gauged its trackage to meet the then newly adopted US Standard of 4' 8½" in 1880, track clearances actually increased because one rail or the other was moved in-board by 15½"- which had the effect of leaving either more room between tracks (on two or multiple track main lines), or more room to tunnel walls and trackside objects such as signals, walls, stations etc; but the equipment, having been manufactured for standard gauge, was inherently narrower. Alleghany County Historical Society:

New York Tribune - January 4, 1879

Erie's Narrow Gauge
The Laying of the Third Rail.

Advantages of the New Gauge.

In April last of the Erie Railway reorganized, and under the new management the familiar name was changed to New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad. But the new management made other changes besides that of name.

The most important of these has been change of the gauge of the road, which has been accomplished by the laying of a third rail. This work was begun in 1876, when the alteration was made on the Buffalo, and a part of the Susquehanna Division, so that narrow-gauge cars of the Lehigh Valley Line were run from Philadelphia through to Buffalo on the Erie Road from Waverly.

Last summer the laying of the third rail was continued to Binghamton, connection being there made with Albany by the Susquehanna Railroad (to become the Delaware & Hudson Railway; PMG).

The work was completed last when the additional rail was finally laid to Jersey City, and yesterday the first train passed over to Port Jervis, the end of the Eastern Division. Hereafter it will be in constant use.

As such; the rights of way, bridges, tunnels and other physical infrastructure of the Erie, were slightly wider when built to accommodate the original Erie 6 foot gauge; and were now really wider what with the narrower equipment of standard gauge.

Rule Books

And to further drive home the fact that this statement is blatantly false, if a said conflict of clearances were to exist between any locomotive to any other locomotive or fixed object, it would be so stated in the Rule Books issued to employees for that era.

Since I own the very Rule Books from 1908 through 1930's and for when the Erie 0-8-8-0 Mallets operated; these Rule Books are scanned and presented on this website in Chapter 23: Erie RR Rule Books & Special Instructions. Not a single Erie issued Rule Book or Special Instructions Book defines or specifies a clearance restriction for the Erie L1's, other than those regarding weights on certain bridges in operation with other locomotives. These Employee Time Tables, Rule Books and Special Instructions are the very last word in regards to these operational conditions. If it is not listed, there was not a rule for or against. You are of course invited to look through them for yourself.

Perhaps the most astounding part of this statement is, how anyone can believe for even a single minute that after the first such incident of the cabs colliding between two Erie 0-8-8-0's operating side by side; that the Erie would have not remedied the issue immediately and allowed it to continue repetitively. And by allowing the situation to continue, thereby killing "multiple" numbers of engineers and fireman?

Furthermore, removing the human element out of this equation; that the Erie would allow these locomotives, read: expensive pieces of equipment; to be damaged once and again, to great expense? The Erie was not running a demolition derby.

The railroad as a whole: corporate mechanical engineers down to the divisional supervisor, down to individual shop superintendents at the local level would never intentionally allow a defect that would routinely damage extremely expensive equipment, not to mention remain a danger to the crews.

The locomotive builders and the railroads were incapable of that level of incompetence, to say the least.

But apparently this guy does. So, I think I'll enter a relaxing Lotus position, close my eyes, take a deep breath, and shout: "TAKE YOUR PIPE AND STUFF IT!"

.

.

Chapter 9

Reliability & Longevity

.

Some railfans state the L1's were "not successful" or they were "short lived".

This could not be further from the truth.

9.1 - Reliability & Down Time

According to the Cornell University Thesis of 1908 submitted by Cullen & Gridley; out of a 6 month period (180 days), an L1 was out of service 6% of those days due to maintenance. This includes scheduled periodic maintenance, to include but is not limited to: cleaning the flues and smokebox, flushing the boiler, packing grease in the journals, checking the firebox staybolts, adjusting linkage, packing fittings of the flexible pipe for the articulated unit, changing the packing on air compressors, blowing accumulated moisture out of the air brake system; adjusting feedwater injectors.

This 6% equates to 10 days out of 180 that a particular L1 locomotive was out of service being maintained.

It is also stated, quite clearly; that of the three locomotives purchased by Erie, two locomotives were in daily use, with the third in reserve. So, Erie took this into consideration when they ordered three L1's.

So apparently, excessive downtime for unexpected repairs, or time out of service for standard maintenance was not an issue for the L1's.

Therefore, this reason cannot be a valid conclusion for being "unsuccessful."

9.2 - Longevity

Simply put: the three L1's served the Erie Railroad reliably as built and without modifications or major repairs, from 1907 to 1921. That's 14 years.

Fourteen years is a decent period of time for service longevity on a steam locomotive, especially so for those locomotives built towards the beginning of the 20th Century, and those in round-the-clock heavy pushing service, and unlike the pampered & polished speed queens of crack passenger trains.

This era of manufacture saw primitive to middling metallurgy, and was pre-"super power", meaning before the advent of reliable and efficient superheaters, feedwater heaters and mechanical stokers that would make the later generations of steam locomotives higher powered in a compact size.

Add to this yet another seven years of service after 1921; and following their rebuilding by Baldwin to rear cab, and with (the then) installation of the most modern appliances of mechanical stoking, feedwater heaters and superheating. It should be noted this rebuilding retained most of the original valve & piston assemblies & sizes, valve ratios & gearing (only the front cylinder set was changed), chassis, driver size, the boiler and the steam distribution system.

This gave the Erie L1 Class a total service life of twenty-three (23) years.

When we compare the L1 with its direct predecessor for Gulf Summit pushing service, we find the Erie S1 / J1 Class (2-10-0 Decapod) of which only six were built in 1891. These locomotives were built for the same purpose as the L1 would be in 1907: pushing service over Gulf Summit. These S1 class locomotives would be paired up, and helped push freights over the hill.

In 1907, after 16 years of reliable service and with the arrival of the L1's; these S1 Decapod's would be rebuilt and converted from compound cylinders to simple expansion (and now reclassed as J1) and then relegated to yard service, where they would soldier on until the mid 1920's. So, here we have yet another successful class of locomotive, of which only six were constructed; with a rebuild taking place at 16 years of age, and a total service life of approximately twenty-five years. But, no one considers those locomotives to be "unsuccessful."

With the S1's retired from pushing assignments over Gulf Summit, these duties now fell to the L1 and then other newer locomotives like the R Class 2-10-2 "Santa Fe" types, which began arriving in 1915. Forty-two R1 Class were initially built, followed by fifty-five more by the end of 1919. And these were built for system wide service - not just Gulf Summit pushing. All ninety-seven R1 class were out of service by 1949 which correlates to a thirty-four year service life.

Now, let us really try to stack the deck against the L1; and compare the L1's twenty-three year service life (and being a non-superpower locomotive built in 1907) with later popular and proven "superpower" locomotives, both articulated and rigid wheelbase and built towards the middle of the century with pretty much all the modern appliances developed and maximized to enhance steam locomotives:

railroad	locomotive type	# built	usage dates	service life	notes
Union Pacific	4-8-8-4 "Big Boy"	25	1941 - 1962	21 years	And the Big Boy's are undoubtedly considered successful.
Union Pacific	4-6-6-4 "Challenger"	105	1936 - 1958	24 years	Some were rebuilt to fuel oil and other modifications at midpoint through their lives. All successful.
Norfolk & Western	2-8-8-2 "Y Class"	16	1942 - 1959	17 years	Successful.
Chesapeake & Ohio	2-6-6-6 "Allegheny"	60	1941 - 1956	15 years	Successful.
Norfolk & Western	4-8-4 "J Class"	14	1941 - 1959	18 years	Successful.
Reading T-1	4-8-4 "Northern"	30	1945 - 1959	14 years	(originally built as 2-8-0's in 1923); heavily reconstructed in 1945 to 4-8-4.

The list can go on and on. If one simply looks at the website steamlocomotive.com; and browse through the data tables; you will find even more popular steam locomotive designs that did not last as long as the Erie L1, but were considered "successful".
.

.

9.3 - Mileage Accrued in 6 month period

Yet another and perhaps better way to calculate the successfulness of the L1 Class, is the mileage accrued.

Taking the following criteria learned from the six month test of the L1's concluding on March 31, 1908 showed the L1's cumulative total locomotive mileage (of all three locomotives) as 31,763 miles.

Breaking this number down:

31,763 miles divided by the three locomotives = 10,587.6 miles per locomotive, for that 6 month period.
10,587.6 ÷ 6 (months) = 1,764.6 miles per locomotive per month.
1,764.6 miles per locomotive per month ÷ 30 days = 58.82 miles per day
58.82 ÷ 17 miles (1 round trip Susquehanna to Gulf Summit & return; or Deposit to Gulf Summit and return) = 3.46 trips per day
(Obviously, you can't have 3.46 trips, so let's just round this down to 3 trips.)

This is until one realizes, that initial figure was the cumulative miles for all three locomotives. However, as the 1907 Erie Test reports, only two were in regular service, with the third locomotive in reserve.

It is not stated further, but lets us presume when one locomotive need its periodic shop servicing, it would come out of service and enter the shops, with the reserve locomotive taking its place. So it is entirely logical that only two L1 locomotives were in actual use at any one time.

So, let us recalculate:

31,763 miles divided by two on duty locomotives = 15881.5 mile per locomotive, for that 6 month period
15,881.5 ÷ 6 (months) = 2646.9 miles per locomotive per month.
2646.9 miles per locomotive per month ÷ 30 days = 88.23 miles per day.
88.23 miles ÷ 17 mile round trips = 5.19 trips per day; (or 5 trips).

This number is lot more conducive with the amount of trips the locomotives are known to have taken on an average work day.

As can be read in the 1908 Cullen / Gridley Thesis - locomotive #2602 (the one used in the test), took five trips in an average work day over nine hours (09:00-18:00).
It made four round trips to perform pushing duties, averaging 70 minutes equals 350 minutes (or 5.8 hours), and a fifth trip strictly to replenish coal and water.

Run	Time	Elapsed Time (Minutes)	Notes
1	09:25 - 10:25	60
		53	coast downhill & wait
2	11:18 - 13:11	113	This run is actually marked as Run 3 in the Thesis, but the clock times as noted are then out of sequence for those of Run 1 and Run 2 Also, this was the run as listed as having an inexperienced fireman who let the steam fall below usable pressures.
		156	coast downhill, possibly took on coal
3	15:47 - 16:50	63
		10	coast downhill
4	17:00 - 18:08	68

So, three to five trips is by what I calculate to be an accurate amount of trips per work shift.

Yet, there is another minor factor to be taken into consideration: the locomotive assigned to the east slope (Deposit to Gulf Summit) had to travel an extra 8.5 miles to go on duty at Deposit. When required, it also incurred an extra 25.5 mile trip to replenish its supply of coal: from Gulf Summit to Susquehanna (8.5 miles) and back to Deposit again (17 miles).

That's not two 17 mile round trips, that two 34 mile round trips (or the equivalent of 4 round trips for the west slope locomotive) and that was twice a shift. So in fact, one of those two locomotives in that rotation, (the one assigned to the east slope - Deposit to Gulf Summit) had to travel further for servicing twice; once at the beginning and once around the middle or end of shift to take on a load of coal.

Not only do these calculations appear to be accurate regardless of how you calculate and average the hours, buthese figures further correlate to the rule books, which specified Mallet pusher locomotives could operate at no more than than 22 miles per hour as stated in the Erie RR - Special Instructions - 1914; and that L1 engineers earned pro rated overtime over 10 hours: L1 Engineers Pay Rate - 1910.

So, in conclusion:

Remember: the L1 was a locomotive that its only purpose was to make short duration (17 mile) round trips: 8.5 miles from Susquehanna up to Gulf Summit and return to Susquehanna (by coasting downhill) or Deposit to Gulf Summit which is also a distance of 8.5 miles.

No matter how you calculate the averages, the L1's were obviously not "shop queens". A "shop queen" for those of you not familiar with the term, is a somewhat derogatory moniker assigned to locomotives (or any equipment for that matter) that spent more time in the shops having issues fixed, than actually working and being used and making revenue.
.
.

.

.

.

Chapter 10:

"They Only Built Three."

Because they only needed three = a low construction quantity

The L1's were not designed to be the sole or double-headed power long haul locomotives like the C&O Allegheny's were, which were used to haul 11,500-ton coal trains for 250 miles from Hinton, West Virginia to Columbus, Ohio;

Nor can they be compared to be high speed heavy haul freight locomotives like Union Pacific's Challenger's and Big Boy's; which saw service between Ogden, Utah and Green River, Wyoming - 160 miles over Sherman Hill.

The L1's did not see fast passenger service like the 4-8-4 N&W J Class to pull crack passenger trains between Norfolk, Virginia, and Cincinnati, Ohio; a distance of 610 miles through the Appalachians.

The L1's were unlike the 4-8-4 Reading T-1's, which were extensively rebuilt from I-10sa 2-8-0 Consolidations; and were designed to pull time-sensitive freight trains up to 150 cars in length, and travel as fast as 65 miles per hour. Ironically, the T-1's also saw pusher service.

So, if by chance you are judging the success of the L1 locomotives by the number built, in this case: three; a low production total does not always equate to lack of success.

Erie only had three L1's built, because they only needed three. Two for service, one as reserve.

Three L1's replaced six S1 Decapods (2-10-0) or nine H10 Consolidations (2-8-0). Which is what Erie had them designed for, purchased them for, to which they did. For 23 years. The crewmen required for the three L1's equaled 6 men, and reduced the need of 18 men to crew the nine H-10 Consolidations or the 12 men needed to operate the six S-1 Decapods. This reduction in manpower and payroll added up to serious financial savings.

This is in conjunction with the fact the small area of operation - a seventeen mile radius; and a specialized duty assignment (a slow pusher) for heavy freights, did not require a large fleet of locomotives as would be needed with long distance high speed running like some of the later superpower locomotives in the list above, where a locomotive would or could be away from its home terminal area for hours (or even days) at a time, like they would on through freight trains or passenger train traversing multiple states and over hundreds of miles.

The fast passenger trains transiting over Gulf Summit did not need an L1 to help push it over.
Neither did the local way freights.

It was only the real heavy tonnage freight trains needed that help: coal drags, and 60-75 car freight trains of 3000 to 3500 tons needing to climb over Gulf Summit.

So three locomotives of this design were sufficient to supply the necessary power and assistance for the purpose and area needed. And since they did not venture far from their assigned area, they returned to the originating location in a short period of time. Which was about an hour to an hour and 15 minutes.

The short answer is, the Erie only ordered three, because it only needed three.

.

.

Chapter 11:

One Fireman or Two? ONE!
.

Returning to the subject at hand (pun intended), the three Erie 0-8-8-0 locomotives as built, were originally hand fired (meaning a fireman had to hand shovel coal into the firebox). It should be noted these locomotives has 100 square feet of grate area and the locomotives were equipped with two doors on the backhead.

Due to these two doors, it is quite frustratingly stated repetitively in internet groups, that these Erie locomotives utilized two fireman, one for each firebox door.
.
And it is this, without any room for doubt; which is the most prolific case of misinformation regarding the Erie L1's.

Recently added to my collection is the June 1970 issue of Railroad Magazine. This issue contains a five page article on "Erie's Monster Mallets", pages 30-34 as authored by Robert A. Le Massena. While most of the article is concerned with the Triplexes, there is a brief mention of the L1's; and sure enough it is stated the locomotives "gulped steam in such vast quantities that two fireman were needed to spread coal over the 100 square-foot grate."

► By all historical accounts and documents, this is not the case. ◄

Official railroad recordations and documents to date, indicate they were fired by a single fireman.

This is confirmed through official documentation, namely the Erie RR Dynamometer Test of 1907; as well as the 1908 Cornell University senior thesis by Cullen & Gridley.

I think it is safe to conclude the railroad and University engineers of that era were a little better informed to the staffing requirements than some railfan's assumptions half a century later. I know what you are thinking, aren't I (mean the author) a railfan? Yes, however I am drawing my conclusions from official documents from the era, not erroneous information being repeated a century after.

If one actually takes the time to read the historical accounting of the design of these locomotives as written in Erie Power (as seen above); references are made, several times in fact, to a singular fireman:
.
.

"... Hand fired loco had two fire doors to facilitate spreading coal over that huge grate area. Also handy if you wanted you use two fireman."

Not: Locomotive had two fire doors for two fireman, nor anywhere in the chapter does it specify two fireman were needed to fire this locomotive.
"... if you wanted to use two firemen" not "when you used two fireman" or "for two firemen".

The use of the second fireman was an option secondary to the need of covering the grate area with even coals. One fireman was the norm, and nothing about this locomotive required noting or needing a second fireman in normal operation.
.
.

"... On the other hand it had the effect of speedily draining the boiler of steam which on a hand fired L1, did much to prevent a fireman from viewing the majestic panorama from Starrucca Viaduct."

Reference to a singular person "a fireman", not the firemen.

Also this reference to "speedily draining the boiler" was in reference to the simple / compound intercepting valve being set for simple instead of compound. According to multiple documents; the majority of the time and in normal operation, the intercepting valve was set for compound; with the simple position being reserved for emergency situations of having to start the locomotive from a dead standstill on the grade with a load.
.
.

"... several runs showed one good fireman could get plenty of power from an L1 Mallet without being taxed to the point of collapse."

Again, reference to a fireman in the singular: "one good fireman", not firemen in plural.

.
.

In the 1908 Senior Thesis written on page 18 by Charles R. Cullen and Sidney Dias Gridley, upon their observing the 1907 Erie Dynamometer Testing:

"The Coal... it was weighed and dumped out for the use of the fireman."

Once again; for the use of "the fireman", in the singular.
.
.

In the photo of #2602 that appeared in the Alexander book, again, one man by the air compressor (the fireman), one on the walkway in front of the cab (the engineer) and one on the pilot (the brakeman). Three men: One fireman. One engineer, one brakeman / switchman.
.
Some of you may wish to point out in some of the photos, there are more than three crewmen. I refer you to the Erie Rulebook which stipulates:

"Pusher locomotives between Susquehanna and Gulf Summit will be provided with flagman."

Normally, there was no conductor for pushing locomotives; as conductors were assigned to the through train the pusher locomotive was assisting. Some of the photos show men in suits. Obviously they are not part of the crew. It is also understood the Port Jervis taken in 1911 image was an Erie publicity photo (hence the suit clad men) and other employees were included in the image.

And, saving the best proof for last; in the dynamometer car tests conducted in 1907 by the Erie Railroad; the written context of "The Test" makes reference to several times to "the fireman', (in the singular) and not "firemen" (in the plural) and this official document holds additional and necessary confirmation of the assignment of a SINGLE fireman to fire the locomotive:
.

I submit verbatim:

"... clearly illustrates the capacity of one of these machines when being fired by one fireman, who was not by any means seriously overworked."

"The poor results of the third run, as compared with the first and second, are explained by the fact that fireman was not of a grade equal to the men who fired the first two tests."

"fired by one fireman", "That fireman". In the SINGULAR.

<Mic drop>

It is indeed unfortunate some railfans cannot fathom such a large locomotive being singularly fired.

Yet, according to all archival sources, it was.

Part of the reason for the construction of the L1's was to reduce the need for multiple smaller locomotives required for pushing, and this was to include saving on manpower by eliminating an engineer and fireman on each of the pusher locomotives, which were used in multiples.

When referencing the misconception of the second firedoor equaling a second fireman; the placing of that second fireman on the L1 (as it is wrongly assumed) would have partially negated that savings in manpower and defeated the purpose of the design of the L1 in the first place.

Perhaps some of you may have visons of that scene in "Emperor of the North" where 'Shack' and 'Coaly' are shoveling in coal as fast as they can to get out of the way of fast mail they are about to meet head on; or in the movie "The Train" with 'Pesquet' and 'Didont' are frantically shoveling coal to outrun the RAF fighter.

But that is not the case here. The L1 was a locomotive designed for slow speed pushing over a short limited distance; not main line, requiring fast speed over a long distance.

Also, it is pertinent to read the operations manuals and trade literature of that era and pertaining to the locomotives and railroads of that day. Fortunately, these publications are readily available for free on Google Books, and I have included them below.

And now, I shall explain the actual reason for two firebox doors.
.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 12:

Dual Firebox Doors

It doesn't mean there were two firemen...

It should be noted it is now understood that the Erie L1's used both anthracite culm OR bituminous coal. The Thesis of 1908 written by Cornell University seniors Charles R. Cullen and Sidney Dias Gridley clearly lists the coal used during the 1907 Erie RR Dynamometer Tests as bituminous, from Erie Railroads' own Dagus Mine in, Kersey, Pennsylvania.

As the 1907 test incurred no special preparations; it can be concluded that the coal used during the test was used as well in regular service, and of which was dispensed at the Susquehanna Coaling Tower near the shops for all locomotives.

Anthracite coal burns slower but hotter than bituminous (hence the Wootten firebox). And any coal fired boiler requires an even bed of coals - and with a wide firebox as used in the Wootten design; two fire doors allowed a single fireman to more evenly distribute the coals over a larger area. Whereas, a single centered door on a Wootten firebox (as commonly seen on other fireboxes) would hinder or outright prevent the fireman from reaching the rear most corners (blind spots) of the firebox making it difficult or impossible to either shovel in coal or rake it even to those corners, thereby being "IMPRACTICAL". Since in practice, an uneven coal bed (the layer of coal on the fire grate) would cause uneven heating of the steel firebox; which at best, would cause inefficient firing and steaming qualities. This uneven firing would lead to irregular expansion and contraction rates and this would greatly reduce the service life of the firebox; even possibly leading to a catastrophic failure. You will note, that the center graphic in the diagram at right, illustrates these difficult areas of accessibility or "blind spots" in conjunction with that single, centered firebox door. This is why on coal fired locomotives, the fireman; after shoveling coal into the firebox, may rake the coal bed even with a hoe, which is a long bar with steel blade fastened at 90 degrees on the end. By having two doors on the backhead enabled a single fireman to shovel, distribute and maintain the coal in a much more even manner, greatly increasing firing and steaming efficiency, and of which can be better visualized by the right most graphic "PRACTICAL" in the diagram at right. The basics of firing of with anthracite culm and the tools involved are covered below, in an excerpt from "Steam Boiler Engineering", 1920. (see diagram below).

Many Camelback locomotives used dual firebox door backheads, and this was not in relationship to the overall size of the locomotive or to use two fireman. Referring backwards in time to the initial development of the Wootten firebox, the first successful class of locomotive to carry the Wootten firebox was Philadelphia & Reading #408. (Remembering, first Millholland and then Wootten were master mechanics for that railroad.) #408 was a 4-6-0 "Ten Wheeler". We are most fortunate that both side and rear photographs exist. Obviously the rear photo is the one most important to this chapter and of which we will address. What do we notice about this firebox backhead? Two firebox doors. Note the size of the locomotive; not large at all in comparison to the width of the firebox.

There was more involved to maintaining a fire in a locomotive then just shoveling a load of coal in and slamming the firebox door shut. Several different tools were necessary to even out and maintain that fire; which are illustrated below and being able to access the entire firebox with those tools, was quite important.

It should also be noted that even some conventional bituminous coal fired fireboxes were sometimes equipped with dual firebox doors.

Referring to the images below, the left photo is of Lehigh & New England RR #207; an 0-6-0 switcher built by Baldwin Locomotive Works in 1936 and now preserved at the Illinois Railroad Museum. It is not a camelback nor does not have a Wootten firebox.

The photo at below right, is of Central Railroad of New Jersey #592, a 4-4-2 "Atlantic" built by American Locomotive Works in 1901, and preserved at the Baltimore & Ohio RR Museum. This locomotive is a camelback with Wootten firebox.

The 4-4-2 in comparative terms is not a much larger locomotive than the 0-6-0 either, but CNJ 592 was designed for and was used in high speed (60+ mph) express passenger service. It is a camelback, and has a Wootten firebox.

Here, we can clearly see both camelback and conventional firebox locomotives are equipped with dual firebox doors.

Different service applications, different service speeds, different locomotive builders, a 30 year difference in build time, but: same fuel (anthracite culm). And both have dual firebox doors.

	at left: Lehigh & New England Railroad #207 0-6-0 switcher - Baldwin Locomotive Works, built 1936 NOT a Wootten firebox, not a Camelback but still equipped with dual fire doors for burning anthracite. Illinois Railroad Museum, Union, Illinois Matthew Gustafson photo at right: Central Railroad of New Jersey #592 4-4-2 "Atlantic" - American Locomotive Co, built 1901 Wootten firebox, Camelback Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Museum Baltimore, Maryland Al Hafner photo below: Reading # unknown 4-4-0 "American" (Baldwin Locomotive Works or Reading Shop) Wootten firebox, Camelback Reading Company Coaling Tower & Roundhouse; Reading, PA March 8, 1926. collection of Gerry Meyle, Sr.

It should also be noted however, not all camelbacks had two firebox doors. Small camelback style locomotives that were equipped with Wootten fireboxes, such as pre-1900's 4-4-0's and the Reading Class A4b 0-4-0's, had a single extra wide firebox door. This single extra wide firebox door on these locomotives was acceptable, because even the Wootten fireboxes on this small a locomotive were not so excessively wide that a single wide firebox door would not hinder access to the back corners for the tools.
	at left: Philadelphia & Reading Railroad #1187 0-4-0 Baldwin Locomotive Works, built 1903 Wootten firebox, Camelback formerly Strasburg Railroad, Strasburg, PA presently at Age of Steam Roundhouse, Sugarcreek, OH Dick Leonhardt photo at right: Franklin Double Butterfly extra width which would have been used on the P&R 1187 with many thanks to Kelly Anderson Machine Shop Foreman, Vice President of Motive Power and Shops Strasburg Railroad Strasburg, PA

.

.

So, to make a short story long; two firebox doors did NOT mean two firemen.

It meant easier accessibility for ONE fireman to tend the coals on either side of the grate to efficiently fire the locomotive,
especially so on those locomotives equipped with a wide Wootten firebox for burning anthracite culm!

Think of this analogy: you can fit four people in a two door coupe, but a four door sedan made it easier for all four to get in and out. And having a two door coupe didn't mean there were two drivers, likewise a four door sedan didn't equate to four drivers. And, a two door coupe with really big doors also made it easier for people in the back seat to enter and exit.

I wonder if I have gotten the point across yet?

.
.

.

.

.

Chapter 13:

Small Tenders

because it only had to go so far...

.

It is often noticed and commented on, that the tenders of the L1's were small in comparison to the size of the locomotive. The tenders used by the L1's had capacities of 16 tons of coal and 8,500 gallons of water.

And, unfortunately once again it is often assumed by the unknowledgable that this "must have limited the L1's usefulness or success". Yet once again, this is a false assumption.

Due to their shorter area of operations, the L1 locomotives did not venture far. Most often, the L1 pushed the train up to and over Gulf Summit, with the L1 being uncoupled at the summit. It then coasted back down hill to its originating point, whether it be Susquehanna or Deposit. This method of operation is described in the trade journals below.

So, at its longest during regular operations; an L1 locomotive only had to travel 9 miles upgrade from Susquehanna to Gulf Summit pushing a loaded train. From Deposit to Gulf Summit was slightly less at 7 miles. It was then run "light" and coasting mostly downgrade back to its starting point.

If; for whatever the reason, the locomotive was in Susquehanna, PA and was needed in Deposit, NY; that was still only 16 miles one way or 32 miles round trip. And at 15 miles an hour, this was just about an hours service time between pushing a train over the Gulf Summit to Deposit and returning, including the time required in getting their telegraph orders, uncoupling from a train, and throwing the switches and switching to the appropriate eastbound or westbound track for the return trip and returning the switches to normal position.

The Erie Railroad facilities at Susquehanna were quite extensive: there was a large machine shop and roundhouse: 774' by 138' with room for up to 40 locomotives; a boiler shop, a blacksmith's shop, a pattern shop, a paint shop, a foundry and engine rooms for the equipment in the various shops.

It also was the location for both the coaling tower and water tank of 55,000 gallon capacity (pump fed); where as the Deposit, NY location offered only a water tank of 33,000 gallon capacity (gravity & pump fed).

Should an occasion so arise where an L1 would have to make a longer journey, say for example, to Port Jervis the next largest terminal east of Susquehanna; this was just under 100 miles from Susquehanna; and equated to 3.5 hours running time.

13.1 - Coal Consumed

According to the 1908 Cornell University Thesis submitted by Cullen & Gridley; the L1 used the following pounds of coal during its four trips tested:

	5,065
	3,711
	7,218
+	3,986
total	19,980	lbs. or roughly 10 tons of coal,

Thereby, dividing 19,980 lbs. by 4 trips give us an average of 4,995 lbs. or roughly 2½ tons per trip.

Further dividing 4,995 lbs. by 17 miles round trip equals 293.8 pounds of coal per mile.

That may sound like a lot, until you consider the standard railroad coal scoop (shovel) handled and average of 20-30 pounds of coal per shovelful.

This equates to "only" ten to twelve shovels per mile.

And most of that shoveling was only needed going uphill, not as the locomotive idled while waiting for the train to be pushed, to pass and to couple onto the rear of; or waiting to be uncoupled from; waiting for switches to be thrown, and certainly not as the locomotive coasted back downgrade to its starting point or simply waited for a heavy freight train to arrive, that would needed assistance.

So from these figures, we can extrapolate that the tender and its 16 ton coal capacity was quite sufficient for about 6 round trips. At an average of 78 minutes per trip, equals 468 minutes or 7.8 hours; or more than half of a 12 hour shift.

13.2 - Water Consumed

According to the Cornell University Thesis of 1908 submitted by Cullen & Gridley; the L1 used the following pounds of water during its four trips tested:

43,410, 20,540, 40,270 and 48,920.

First, we have to convert those pounds of water to gallons. Water weighs approximately 8.3 pounds per gallon, therefore:

43410 ÷ 8.3 = 5230 gallons
20540 ÷ 8.3 = 2474 gallons
40270 ÷ 8.3 = 4851 gallons
48920 ÷ 8.3 = 5893 gallons

The sum of 5,230, 2,474, 4,851, 5,893 equals 18,448 gallons.

18,448 gallons ÷ 4 trips = 4,612 gallons per round trip.

4,612 gallons ÷ 18 mile round trip = 271 gallons of water per mile.

8500 gallons capacity tender ÷ 271 gallons per mile = 31 miles per tender of water.

This may not seem like much, and here I will agree, it isn't. But it is a generally accepted rule, that a working locomotive uses a 10:1 ratio of water to fuel. Hence why almost every town along a rail route had a water tower or standpipe; not just for this locomotive model, but for most others.

As listed in the Erie Official List #7, issued January 1, 1909, here are the following locations with water facilities on the Delaware Division. Notice they are not more than ten to twenty miles apart from each other:

location	milepost	capacity (gallons)	type: Gravity or Pump
Parker's Glen	102	20,000	G
Lackawaxen	110	50,000	P
Nobodys	124	20,000	G
Callicoon	135	50,000	G & P
Lordville	153	33,000	G
Hancock	163	50,000	G & P
Deposit (x2)	176	33,000 33,000	G & P G & P
Susquehanna, old terminal	190	50,000	P
Susquehanna, new terminal	190	54,000	P
Susquehanna, west of station	191	50,000	P

Again, this was under hard working conditions pushing 3000-3500 tons up a 1.36% incline for 8.5 miles, then coasting down in the other direction.

Normal, more moderate working conditions would of course use the water more sparingly and increase the operating distance.

13.3 - Operations over Longer Distances

Naturally, the amount of coal and water consumed would be less if the locomotive was working moderately easy, on mostly level ground along the banks of the Susquehanna River; or as the railroaders call it "river grade"

Say a trip from Susquehanna, up and over Gulf Summit (hard working), down to Deposit (coasting); and then all the way to Port Jervis (easy working); a distance of 104 miles. Only the first 9 miles would be hard work, then the locomotive would coast down, then resume easy to moderate pushing work in Deposit, albeit not working nearly as hard as shoving up Gulf Summit.

But the numbers above are for "hard work" for 8.5 miles, with "coasting" or "idling" the next 8.5 miles, then "regular work" for 88 miles, which would use significantly less coal and water than "hard work". For the sake of this calculation however, we will use a worst case scenario of "hard work" for the full 104 miles:

Coal: 104 miles x 277.5 pounds of coal per mile = 28,860 pounds of coal or 14½ tons; (rounding up - call it 15 tons)
Water: 104 miles ÷ 31 miles per tender of water meant an L1 would have to fill up about 3.3 times; (again rounding up - call it 4 times)

So Port Jervis was easily with the capability of an L1 with a full tender of coal, but the locomotive would have had to stop 4 times to fill up the tender with water. This is not an unusual amount for the type of tender over that distance.

Additionally, it should be understood most towns along that segment of the Erie Railroads' Delaware Division had either a standpipe or water tower, so a trip with "only" a 8,500 gallon water capacity and 16 tons of coal, was not detrimental to the locomotive operation or a significantly delaying factor; if it was even required.

The distance to the next terminal west, would be Binghamton, which was 22 miles, short enough without having to stop for water or coal.

Therefore as you can now understand, a large capacity tender (such as those employeed for long hauls) was not necessary to the daily operation of the L1. As the L1's (and Triplexes) never ventured far from either of its home terminal of Susquehanna, it therefore could be fueled twice and watered several times a shift if necessary.

For comparison, the Matt H. Shay "Triplexes" (Erie Class P-1) - for all their size - also only carried 16,000 pounds of coal (same as the Erie L1's), and only 1,500 gallons more water (10,000 gallons vs. 8,500).

Again, it needs to be reiterated: the Erie L1's were not cross country / long distance locomotives; like Challengers, Big Boys, Alleghenys, Chesapeakes, Yellowstones or any other large articulated locomotives with a long haul tender. Those carried a lot of fuel and water to cover large distances without stopping frequently. That was not the case for the L1, which was almost never more than 17 miles from its "home".

Hauling a locomotive tender that was larger than needed and further than it needed to go, was inefficient to say the least.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 14:

1=3 or 1=2 or 3=9 or 3=6

No, it isn't Enron math.

14.1 - Why Erie Ordered the L1's

The main purpose for the design and construction of the L1 Mallets was to reduce the need for multiple pusher locomotives per train and with that, a reduction of locomotives; and commensurate, a reduction in manpower; as each pusher required an engineer and a fireman.

Three pushers equaled six men, not including the men on the head end locomotive(s) which could be two or even four men if the train was double headed. In short, a single train could have ten crewman not including the conductor, brakemen or flagmen (of which were assigned to pusher operations). Thirteen men to move one train. That is quite the crowd.

The average freight train climbing Gulf Summit and of that era could be comprised of 50 to 70 cars, and ranged between 3,000 to 3,500 tons.

Prior to the arrival of the L1's in 1907; the locomotives primarily assigned to pusher service over Gulf Service were the S1 class 2-10-0 "Decapods" in 1891 and the H10 Class 2-8-0 "Consolidations" in 1900.

Here we see three locomotives (which appear to be H10 class 2-8-0 Consolidations), pushing a loaded hopper train eastbound;
Each H10 weighed 313,400 lbs. total loaded and developed 37,500 lbs of tractive effort each
so three H10's would total 940,200 lbs in weight and 122,500 lbs in tractive effort.

So, depending on the tonnage of each train and the tractive effort of the lead locomotive(s), as well as the tractive effort of the pusher locomotives available; each train would require at least one, and up to three pushers. Engineer and fireman times three locomotives equals six men.

The reason so many locomotives were needed, was to develop the necessary tractive effort required to start and maintain movement of a train. The tractive effort required consists of the consideration of numerous factors, but for most applications only four factors need to be considered.

A force of 2 to 5 pounds per ton of train weight is required to move on straight level track. At very slow yard speeds only 2 to 3 pounds is needed while increasing to about 5 pounds at higher speeds. This force is required to overcome bearing friction, rail deflection, minor flange contact, etc.

Prior to the development and widespread installation of roller bearings; the initial starting requirements were much higher when cars had friction bearings as they did during the era of the operation of the L1. (Today, with all roller bearing journals this is not much of a consideration).

At speeds above 30 to 40 miles per hour, air resistance becomes a factor, but this not a factor with Gulf Summit operations at train speeds were under 30 mph for freight trains.
The second factor to consider is track curvature. Cars in a curve require a good deal of tractive effort because the wheels are mounted on solid axles. Wheels must slip and slide through the curve because of the difference in radius of the inside and outside rails. However minimal the curve, this slippage will be encountered. Wheel flange contact with the inside of the railhead adds additional friction.

For the cars in the curve, the tractive effort required is 0.8 pounds per ton per degree of curvature, where curvature is defined as the number of degrees the track curves per 100 feet.
The percent of grade is perhaps the most important factor governing tractive effort. For every ton of train weight in a grade, 20 pounds of tractive effort is needed for each 1% of slope. (One percent of a ton or 2000 pounds equals 20 pounds). A 1% grade is defined as a vertical increase of one foot for each 100 feet of horizontal distance. A 1% grade is considered steep; a 2% grade is unusually steep.

In reference to operations on Gulf Summit, we are dealing with a 1.36% grade (unadjusted - not factoring in the curvature).
The final factor and one frequently overlooked is the tractive effort required for acceleration of the train. It takes about 10 pounds per ton to accelerate to a speed of 6 miles per hour in one minute or 12 miles per hour in two minutes, a reasonable rate for a heavy train. Increasing this tractive effort increases the acceleration rate proportionately.

So, in having to push trains over Gulf Summit, multiple locomotives were required.

In some cases two locomotives were double headed on the lead end, and two pushers placed on the rear of the train. This equalized the forces between pushing and pulling. Too much force on the pulling end would break coupler knuckles or drawbars; and too much force on the pushing end could twist a car, break a frame or just simply buckle the train into a derailment.

While it is thought that any heavy freight service locomotive would have been suitable for assisting trains up Gulf Summit, only a few such classes were actually suitable and therefore actually designated and assigned in Susquehanna for regular pusher service. These were:

"H class Consolidations (2-8-0),
"S/J class" Decapods (2-10-0) [formerly 'S' Class, reclassed to "J Class" when converted to single expansion cylinders in 1907],
"R class" Santa Fe's (2-10-2) after 1915, or:
"S class" Berkshires a/k/a "3300's" (2-8-4) after 1927

.

.

14.2 - Comparison of Erie Freight Locomotive Classes

A comparison of freight locomotive classes that operated during the life span of the L1 are listed below. Light duty locomotive classes are omitted. The experimental M Class (even though short lived) and P Class Triplexes are included as both were intended for the same service duty as the L1. Also included is the K1 class passenger locomotive as due to its weight, was prohibited from operating in conjunction with a Mallet over Lanesboro and Starrucca Viaducts as proscribed in the rule books.

class	wheel arrangement	loco type name	commonly assigned service duties	years classes entered service	maximum tractive effort*	maximum driver wheelbase*	weight of locomotive (not including loaded tender)	total weight locomotive & tender (loaded)
C1 - C3a	0-8-0	Eight Coupled	switching, shifting	1905 - 1930	51,042	15'	201,000 - 237,000 pounds	364,000 - 400,000
H10 - H27	2-8-0	Consolidation	medium duty slow freight	1900 - 1906	45,711	17'	187,000 - 213,300 pounds H27 - 260,100	313,400 - H27 - 430,200
J1 (former S class) - J2	2-10-0	Decapod	heavy slow freight, pushing	1891 - 1918	51,490	18' 10"	193,000 - 197,900	290,650 - 344,600
K1	4-6-2	Pacific	heavy passenger	1905	30,248	13'	230,500	393,300
L1 L1 rebuilt	0-8-8-0 2-8-8-2	Angus	pushing	1907 1921	94,070	14' 3" (each set)	410,000 441,660	577,700 609,360
M1	2-6-8-0	hybrid	experimental	1911	62,082	17' (rear 8 coupled set)	208,000 (reverted to 0-8-0 1916)	348,050
N1 - N3a	2-8-2	Mikado	heavy fast freight / dual	1911 - 1926	62,949	16' 8"	320,000 - 346,050	508,900 - 519,780
P1 Type 1 / Type 2	2-8-8-8-2	Triplex	pushing / mid train helper	1914 - 1916	176,256	16' 6"	853,050 / 860,350	1,169,750 / 1,177,050
R1 - R3	2-10-2	Santa Fe	heavy fast freight	1915 - 1919	82,982	22' 6"	380,000 - 429,300	629,100 - 586,100
S1 - S4	2-8-4	Berkshire	heavy fast dual	1927 - 1929	78,904	18' 3"	443,000 - 468,000	753,000 - 846,600
* figures listed are for the largest locomotive of that class, as different groups of locomotives for that class would vary in specification. As locomotives developed, they mostly grew in capability so highest known number for a locomotive class is listed for baseline comparison during the life span of and against the L1. Dual service = freight & passenger service All tractive effort figures except for L1 obtained from steamlocomotive.com

The main issue that was encountered using 2-10-0 or 2-10-2 wheel arrangement locomotives on the Erie, was their long driver wheelbase: up to 22 feet 6 inches on the 2-10-2's.

When taking into consideration the plethora of curves on the Gulf Summit run between Susquehanna and Deposit, these rigid wheelbases were the upper limits of suitability for the trackage curvatures. These locomotives had the tractive effort, but not so much the agility or flexibility to negotiate the curves with minimal resistance. Their rigid wheelbase would also cause wear on the inside face of the rail head quicker than those of shorter wheelbase.

In short, a minimum of eight men for one train, and this does not yet include the conductor of the train, brakemen which were also assigned to the trains or the switchmen to operated the switches at Susquehanna and Gulf Summit.

When freight traffic was heavy with several trains present and waiting for "a push over the hill", the pool of locomotives could be depleted rather quickly.

Reducing the amount of locomotives needed to push a train, also reduced the time involved in servicing and maintenance of each of those locomotives both daily as well as the monthly shop servicing as required.

14.3 - Potential Drawbacks

However, this replacing of three locomotives with a single locomotive was not without issue either. With reduced numbers of locomotives assigned, when one out of the two locomotives suffered a mechanical failure, the train tonnage could not be averaged out among the three (or more) remaining locomotives as it used to be.

This is a similar dilemma in regards to modern day freight railroad operations and a result of the horsepower race of diesel locomotives; the higher the horsepower of the single locomotive, reduced the need for multiple locomotives of lower horsepower.

In other words: four locomotives of 2500 horsepower equals 10,000 horsepower. If one locomotive failed, you were reduced to 7,500 horsepower. But chances are the locomotives were not being operated at their maximum ratings, so there was even a little leeway in asking them to do a little more.

But as 4000, 4400 and 6000 horsepower locomotives were developed, less locomotives were assigned to the train, with most of the time only two locomotives totaling 8000, 8800 to 12,000 horsepower were needed to be assigned. But, when one of those two units failed, the train lost half instead of a quarter of its horsepower.

This is where locomotive reliability factors into the equation. And this applied to steam locomotives as well.

Enter the L1 Articulated Mallet. Each L1 replaced three H10 Consolidations (six crewmen) or two S1 Decapods (four crewman). It was easy on the curves - and easy on the eyes ;)

14.4 - L1 versus P1

For comparison, the L1's were built in 1907 and had been operating reliably for seven years, when the first P1 Triplex; #2603, quickly renumbered 5014, and better known as the "Matt H. Shay" arrived on scene in 1914.

After testing, it was determined that the first Triplex with its 90 square foot fire grate was insufficient and needed to be enlarged, and so the grate area on the Matt H. Shay was expanded to 121.5 square feet. This enlarged grate area was built from the start for the two subsequent Triplexes (5015 & 5016).

From the beginning, the P1's were designed and built with Schmidt firetube superheaters, with 53 elements and 1,584 square feet of heating surface; of which this was the largest superheater incorporated into any locomotive at that time. A Street mechanical stoker eliminated hand shoveling. The feedwater pumps as first installed, were powered off the crossheads behind the cylinders, but these turned out to be woefully insufficient. They were subsequently replaced with steam powered reciprocating feedwater pumps those of larger volume and on the boilers right side.

It is also recorded that all too often; that only one P1 was in working order most of the time; and due to their size, Erie's Susquehanna Shop could not service or repair them. The Triplexes were required to be sent to either Lehigh Valley Railroad's Sayre Shops (65 miles away) or Erie's Dunmore Shop (50 miles away) for major repairs. While these are relatively close, this was still farther away than its home shop of Susquehanna.

Despite being built later than the L1's, and with all the appliances modern to that period, it is documented that all three P1 class were out of service by 1927, and were scrapped on the following dates: 5014 in October 1929; 5016 in March 1930, and 5015 in February 1933.

The P1's for all their ballyhoo; only operated thirteen and eleven years respectively.

It is stated in Erie Power, that the summation of the P1 amongst those men that operated them was thus: "too many legs, not enough boiler". Furthermore, some men believed if the feedwater heaters worked as intended, the outcome would have been a better steaming locomotive.

The L1's, which had been rebuilt in 1921 and served another nine years for a total life span of twenty-three years; and thus outlived the more powerful and more advanced P1 Triplexes by three years.

All documentation to this day reflects reliable operation of the L1's over their lifespan.

..

.

.

.

Chapter 15:

Unsuccessful? Not in the least.

Let us add up the numbers.

15.1 - Starting from the first Compound Mallets Built

B&O #2400 "Old Maud" an 0-6-6-0 was the first compound Mallet to be built in the United States, and proved to be successful. Built in May 1904 (ALCo c/n 27478), 20" x 32" rear and 32" x 32" front cylinders, with 56" drivers; she operated as built until 1926, at which time she was rebuilt to simple expansion (20" x 32" cylinders all around). This earned her 12 more years of service, before she was scrapped January 1938. One locomotive built; 22 years until rebuilding, 12 years more service after rebuilding, total: 33.5 years of service.

She proved that the concept of Articulated Compound Mallets had a place in American railroading.

The following five compound Mallets that were built, were in 2-6-6-2 wheel arrangement built by Baldwin Locomotive Works for the Great Northern Railway, #1800 #1801, #1802, #1803, #1804. Baldwin construction numbers 28601 (#1800), 28641 (#1801) built in July 1906; 28739 (#1802), 28854 (#1803) in August 1906; and 28933 (#1804) in September 1906. These were built with 33 x 32" front cylinders and 21½" x 33 rear cylinders and 55" drivers. They would all be rebuilt after 19 years to 2-8-2 wheel arrangement 11/1925 - 6/1926.

These were the first locomotives built with this wheel arrangement, which combined the power and adhesion of the 0-6-6-0 (that ran successfully on the B&O) with both lead and trailing trucks for more flexible operation and to be easier on trackage. These five locomotives were assigned as helper locomotives in the Cascade Mountains.

These broke the ice, as the Erie L1's were the next three Compound Mallets to be constructed.

But we still have not come to any reasonable conclusion why the Erie L1 Mallets were considered "unsuccessful".
.

.

15.2 - Subsequent Compound Mallet orders

Furthermore, if the Erie L1 design was "not successful" (and no one has quite yet said specifically or conclusively stated what was wrong with the L1 design...), then why did American Locomotive see an ever increasing amount of orders for articulated Compound Mallets, built on the same principal design, beginning a year after the three L1's were built in July 1907?

railroad	quantity	wh. arr.	c/n	date built	rebuilt	retired / scrapped
Denver, North Western & Pacific	one	0-6-6-0	45604	10/1908	rebuilt as a 2-6-6-0	1949
Denver, Rio Grande & Western	two	0-6-6-0	46560, 61	10/1909	rebuilt to 2-6-6-0	12/1947
New York Central	one	2-6-6-2	46714	12/1909		1932
Delaware & Hudson	six	0-8-8-0	46916 - 21	4/1910	rebuilt 1930's	scrapped 1952
West Side Belt	two	0-6-6-0	47113, 14	5/1910	to Pittsburgh & West Virginia, then the Delaware & Hudson	scrapped 1935
Norfolk & Western	five	0-8-8-0	47172 - 176	5/1910
Chicago & Alton	three	2-6-6-2	47539, 40, 41	4/1910	to Chesapeake & Ohio
Chesapeake & Ohio	one	2-6-6-2	48061	7/1910	(ordered to specs above)	scrapped 12/1930
Denver, North Western & Pacific	one	0-6-6-0	48151	7/1910	to add to their first order of 10/1908
Denver, North Western & Pacific	six	0-6-6-0	48230 - 35	7/1910	supplement to above order; went to DRG&W	scrapped 1949
Boston & Maine	five	2-6-6-2	48648 - 51	11/1910		scrapped 1929
St Louis & San Francisco	two	2-8-8-2	48652, 53	10/1910
St Louis & San Francisco	two	2-8-8-2	48734, 35	11/1910
and if those aren't enough, hold on to your socks:
Chicago, Minneapolis & St. Paul	twenty-four	2-6-6-2	48838 - 62	12/1910	rebuilt 1929 - 1931	1950, 1951 and 1952.

This "short list" above excludes those Mallets built for both export, and domestic narrow gauge operations - I restricted the list to standard gauge domestic operations.

Furthermore, this list only pertains to what American Locomotive Company built in the 2-3 years after the L1's were built. I have not even begun to list what Baldwin or Lima built; and I have excluded simple expansion articulated locomotives (not that many were constructed that early).

So, if the design of the Compound Mallet was "unsuccessful"; then why did so many railroads order this type of locomotive, and why did these locomotives live to see the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's?

Because they were successful.

Notice some railroads only ordered one or two units. Some ordered five or six. Did these limited order quantities constitute an unsuccessful design?

No, because a successful design is not proportionate to the quantity of locomotives ordered. If a railroad orders one, it *might* be to see if that design is suitable for their needs. When that railroad orders more of the same type with no modifications, the first was apparently suitable. When a railroad orders three or five or twenty-four, that is because they have passed the testing stage and they order what they need.

The supposedly "small" tenders carried the accepted amount of coal and water, and used them in 10:1 proportion to other locomotives of those type and service assignment.

So the tenders weren't too small to be useful.

And we can see some were scrapped in 1929 (at 19 years old), and others made it to the 1950's.

So longevity / reliability of the L1's at 14 years of service before rebuild, and then 9 additional years after rebuild to retirement is not the reason either.

Erie opted instead for a dedicated locomotive design for helper / pushing service, for the dedicated area of Gulf Summit.

I can keep on going if you need me to, but I think I have made my point that the Erie L1's were in fact successful, reliable, had just the right size of tender, and did what they designed to do, over the course of the normal average lifetime of a locomotive assigned to severe duty service.

So, if after reading any one or all of the preceding chapters; and the light bulb goes on over your head and you say, "Now I understand!"; you have earned my respect and a warm hearty welcome to the club of informed knowledge.

And, now there is one less mis-informed person out there thinking the Erie L1 0-8-8-0's used two fireman or the locomotive were unsuccessful.

That wasn't such a long walk, was it?

.

.

.

Chapter 16:

Placement of the Caboose

16.1 - Before or After the Pusher Locomotive???

Despite the revelations and the vast amount of information that these rule books contain, I can find nothing in either about restrictions regarding the placement of a caboose between the pusher locomotives and the train.

This is a pertinent question, and it is often debated in railfan groups. It is stated by Westing in Stauffer's "Erie Power" on page 180:

"The helpers are NOT PUSHING ON THE CABOOSE - and reasons are obvious. Not all cabin cars (Pennsy term) are build to withstand the unbelievable thrusts with the push-pull effect of engine on each end of the train. the two gargantuan Berks are leaning into the train to the tune of 150,000 lbs. - tractive force delivered by over 7000 cylinder horsepower.

The following is the accompanying image to that caption, with what appears to be a steel caboose behind the two locomotives:

p. 180: two S Class "Berkshire" 2-8-4 pushing, with what appears to be a steel caboose behind the locomotives.
The Berk's entered service in 1927; so this would be towards the very end of L1 service and well into steel caboose era.
If the caboose is steel construction, why is it still placed behind the locomotive?
Granted: each 2-8-4 weighed more than an L1 (443,000 vs. 410,000 lbs), and almost as much tractive effort (82,500 vs 94,070 lbs).
In this photo you are looking at 165,000 pounds of tractive effort pushing on that train.

Yet in direct contradiction, we see in the very same book as well as postcards of the era; many images of a caboose (whether they be wood or steel construction) between the pusher locomotive and train, or a caboose between the two pushers on the end of the train, sometimes with a second caboose behind the second pusher: p. 147, 159, 160; and 180.

Furthermore, a caboose (regardless of construction) in front of the pusher may be unoccupied, but that caboose could just as easily be crushed or derailed with the forces of a pusher engine behind it, as an occupied caboose can be.

Aside of the human safety factor which I completely understand and accept; I have difficulty believing that would be the railroad's sole concern. A caboose may not have been the most technologically advanced or expensive piece of equipment found on a railroad, and it still has a financial value in case of damage or loss.

Not to mention the delays to that and subsequent train movements and the labor in having to remove the wreckage. Especially so if such an occurrence was to take place while traversing over Starrucca Viaduct? It is 110 feet to he bottom and would make for a mess!

So why leave the caboose in front of the pusher engine, irregardless?

Without knowing the construction of the particular models of caboose in the images or locating the legislation in black and white; I regret to say; I just do not know at this time. If you do, please feel free to contribute at bedt14@aol.com


Here we see three locomotives (which appear to be H10 class 2-8-0 Consolidations), pushing against what appears to be a 4 wheel bobber caboose partially obscured by the tree. Each H10 weighed 313,400 lbs. total loaded and developed 37,500 lbs of tractive effort each - so three H10's would total 940,200 lbs in weight and 122,500 lbs in tractive effort. More than a single L1. And all of this against a wood bobber caboose?	While not a true "photograph", most postcards originated from a basic black and white image. Here we have what an L1 pushing against what appears to be a wood caboose.


p. 147: What appears to be a steel caboose between train and N Class "Mikado" #3038, as well as a wood caboose trailing the locomotive, and in almost the same exact location as the image on p. 180.	p. 159: Two R Class "Texas" 2-10-2's pushing loaded coal train. First pusher locomotive & tender pushing on caboose (appears to be steel) - second locomotive & tender trailing what appears to be a wood caboose.
.

p. 160: one R Class "Texas" 2-10-2 and tender with steel caboose; one N Class "Mikado" and tender with steel caboose trailing .

So for the time being, I have nothing concrete in the way of Erie Railroad rules pertaining to placement or position of a caboose, whether it be wood or steel; and whether between a pusher and its train or behind the pusher.

16.2 - A State Regulation?

On the state level, I did locate the following information on the web. It is from the Pennsylvania Utilities Commission, as adopted 1946 which unfortunately is significantly after the usage era of the L1:

§ 33.53. Pusher engines.

All common carrier railroads operating in this Commonwealth shall promulgate or modify existing operating rules and procedures for the government of their respective employes so as to require that the operation of a pusher engine or engines behind an occupied cabin or caboose car, in train, shall be used subject to the following conditions:

   (1) If the horsepower to be used by a pusher engine or engines behind a cabin or caboose exceeds 3,500, the train crew shall, before such a move is made, vacate the cabin car and occupy the pusher engine or a cabin car or caboose behind the pusher engine or engines, and the train shall be brought to a stop before the pusher engine or engines are detached.

   (2) The practice of ‘‘cutting off on the fly’’ pusher engines behind occupied cabin cars shall be limited to those instances in which the horsepower used by the pusher engine does not exceed 3,500.

Source:
   The provisions of this § 33.53 were formerly designated Rule 18 by the Commission.

Unfortunately, this does not shed light on earlier steam operations but does shows there were rules for the occupancy of a caboose when placed in front of a pusher locomotive(s).

What we do know from reading the steam era rulebooks; is "cutting off on the fly" was prohibited. Trains must come to a stop, with the hoses for the air brakes disconnected by hand. So obviously, rules changed between steam and diesel era.

In conclusion; for the era of operations for the L1's (1907-1930) and whether caboose placement was determined by said caboose construction, the tractive effort of pusher(s) locomotive(s) and / or the tonnage of the train being pushed; remains to be re-discovered in official Federal, State or Railroad issued document.

.

.

Chapter 17:

Camelbacks Banned?? Not.

The Much Maligned and Misunderstood Mother Hubbard

It has all to often been stated that the Erie L1 Camelbacks were rebuilt because camelback style locomotives were banned by the (take your pick):

Interstate Commerce Commission,
Federal Government, or the
Union - Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.

17.1 - Not True

Quite frankly, it is also often stated that all Camelbacks were "outlawed" or "banned". However, that is not the case.

Despite being a successful design, there were in fact downsides to the camelback style locomotive.

With the engineers controls and cab being relocated to the middle of the boiler, this had the effect of separating the engineer from the fireman at the rear. Even when automatic stokers were available, the fireman was still separated from the engineer on the other side of the boiler. This prevented regular communication (verbal or visual) between the engineer and the fireman, which was inconvenient to say the least.

Another well known disadvantage about crews operating Camelback locomotives, was that the engineer was subjected to the heat of the boiler in the small cab in summer (no matter how well insulated the boiler jacket was), and the fireman was subjected to cold temperatures and wind in the winter under the simple overhang at the rear of the boiler.

But even this was a bit of hyperbole: the fireman on conventional rear cab locomotives was still exposed to weather shoveling coal. He might have had a seat in a rear cab locomotive in which to rest, but he still had to get up and break the coal up when frozen, rake it down to the deck of the tender, rake the fire, shake the grates, among other physical duties. Granted; on a rear cab locomotive, there might have been a canvas curtain to drawn across the back of the cab in the winter when there finally was time to sit down.

But lack of creature comforts were but a minor inconvenience in railroading; when compared injury or death. Re: "broken rod" accidents on camelbacks. There had been more than one instance where a main rod broke loose of its journal on high speed passenger locomotives, and as this rod began flailing about - it literally sideswiped the cab off that side of the locomotive, and if happened on the engineers side, it more often than not took the engineer with it. It should be noted, these rod failures also happened on conventional rear cab locomotives as well; but as the rods were forward of the cab, the crew was unaffected being in a safer and more survivable position.

Despite these rod failures on camelback locomotive being far and few between, they were very dramatic; made for good copy; and they helped fuel the misguided outrage against camelback locomotives.

This was not the only type of accident that could incur to a crewman operating a camelback. There was an incident on the Lehigh Valley Railroad in Elmira, NY on February 14, 1897 in which the engineer, one William Heckman; who leaned way too far out of the cab window, thereby striking his head on a trackside water crane (standpipe), and subsequently killed. Yet, the locomotive continued along on its route with his body slumped out of the cab window, until the fireman realized the engineer was not slowing down or stopping as scheduled, and thus make his way to the cab via the sideboard to stop the locomotive.

17.2 - All Locomotives Had Accidents

But in comparison, there were other types of accidents that conventional rear cab locomotives suffered from, that were just as dramatic and fatal: crown sheet failures resulting in firebox and boiler explosions was but one. And those accidents injured or killed many more crewmen, than the "cab sideswipe" incidents on camelbacks.

And there were plenty of other types of accidents on the railroads: head on collisions, rear end collisions, bridge collapses, open drawbridge accidents, the list is quite long.

A very good book of photographs on these subjects is "Train Wrecks", by Robert C. Reed; Bonanza Books, 1968.

But, a really great resource on fatalities and injuries incurred by railroad employees is the

US Department of Transportation's "ROSAP" (Repository and Open Science Access Portal) National Transportation Library;
Bureau of Transportation Statistics - Investigations of Railroad Accidents, 1911-1993.

Referencing those reports, will further prove that camelback type locomotives were no more inherently dangerous, than other types of locomotives.

But from a matter of principle, they (government types, labor unions, safety advocates) could not ban all locomotives, how could they? So the Camelback was the easiest target and without much room for doubt, singled out.

Despite many attempts and proposals to outlaw them:

no federal legislation was ever enacted or ratified that outright banned camelback style locomotives. Period.

Even I have to admit, I was guilty of this false belief for many years.

That is until being contacted by Dan Cupper, deputy director of the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society. Mr. Cupper graciously forwarded me a back issue of Railroad History, Issue #219 - Fall Winter 2018.

17.3 - Ames Research

In this issue, there is a twenty-three page feature article written by Gregory P. Ames; with no less than 75 separate citations and references to proposed Federal and State Legislative Acts against camelback locomotives, but of which none were never enacted on a Federal level by the Interstate Commerce Commission, or any other federal agency.

Only two provinces in Canada: Saskatchewan in 1906 and Alberta in 1907; actually passed legislation prohibiting new camelbacks from being constructed - but not banning or prohibiting the operation of those already in service. Furthermore, a codicil in those regulations enacted in those two Canadian provinces; for those camelback locomotives in service, allowed for a third crewman in the opposite side of the engineer in case of emergency.

In the United States, Indiana began trying to enact legislation banning camelbacks in 1905; and when this first began, the Erie Railroad in response voluntarily swapped out camelback style locomotives for conventional cab locomotives, or converted those being rebuilt; so when legislation finally was enacted in 1913, the issued was pretty much already resolved. Arkansas' prohibition on camelbacks became effective in 1918.

New Jersey, enacted legislation regulating (but not prohibiting) the use of Camelbacks: "Engineers and firemen - makes it illegal to run what is known as the camelback locomotive on any railroad without an engineer and two firemen. First offense, $100 fine and six months in county jail; for second or other offenses, $1,000 fine and county jail imprisonment not exceeding two years - Assembly Bill 354-307, 792, 794, 811, 954."

To paraphrase the article of Mr. Ames' research, he spent years in attempting to locate the (or any) actual Federal "law". In that time, he contacted and and received the assistance of the following:

George Drury; Kalmbach Librarian and author
James L. Holton; Reading Company historian
David P. Morgan; editor, Trains Magazine
John H. White, Jr.; curator, Smithsonian Institution
and various staff at the archives of Interstate Commerce Commission.

In addition to those mentioned above, archivists of the Library of Congress; and various State Libraries looked. In short - anything - that was actually enacted to federally or on the state level to prohibit the construction or use of camelback locomotives.

But to date, none have been found other than what has been specified above. Yes, there are a lot of newspaper articles, activists and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers union documents calling for their prohibition, but nothing actually was enacted on the federal level.

While the rod failure / cab swipe accidents were dramatic, they were in fact very far and few between. Sort of like commercial aircraft accidents - it is the dramatic ones that make the news, but millions of miles are flown without injury or failure; that is, until an accident occurred.

The uniqueness and visual oddity of the camelback made it stand out. Subsequently, the blame was laid (often erroneously) at the style of locomotive, thanks to often misguided media frenzy. In similarity: the media frenzy of today regarding accidents with self-driving automobiles. Of which following investigation, 98% are attributed to human / operators error. But yet the style of car itself is blamed and not the person who set it on automatic and decided to take a nap.

"If it bleeds - it leads." (And you thought this was recent problem with todays media?)

When specifically referencing to the Erie 0-8-8-0's, of which never operated over 30 mph; they were not subject to the high speed stresses incurred by fast passenger camelback locomotives, and therefore never had a rod failure / cab swipe incident during their career.

Eventually, ways were devised to mount conventional locomotive cabs to the rear of the oversized firebox (very well illustrated by the photo of the 2600 after its rebuilding by Baldwin Locomotive Works), thereby eliminating the need for anthracite burning locomotives with camelback cabs.

But I digress; back to the supposed "outlawing of camelbacks".

It has also been stated from time to time, an ICC ban on camelbacks was enacted in 1918 as well but even here arises a conflict: in 1918 the railroad were under the war time administration of the US Railway Administration! But again as we see, camelbacks were still being built after that date as well.

Builders records and references have it that new camelback locomotives were built right up through 1927: Lehigh & New England Railroad had three 0-8-0 camelbacks built by Baldwin Locomotive Works and delivered in September 1927, the same year this alleged "ICC camelback ban" was supposedly enacted.

Irregardless, there were 154 camelbacks still in service in 1930; and 39 still operating in 1941; with the last camelback in revenue passenger service operating up until 1954 on the Central Railroad of New Jersey.

There is even one camelback locomotive that its operation surpasses those, and you might have heard of it; Colorado Fuel & Iron 4 (ex-Reading 1187) which retired from that assignment in 1962, went to the Strasburg RR (tourist railroad) and ran for 5 more years in tourist service. Not a bad service life for a locomotive that was supposed to have been banned 30 some odd years prior.

So whatever law that supposedly enacted (if said law was actually enacted); did not effect those camelback locomotives already built and operating. Add this to the advent of diesel-electric locomotives, which eventually did away with steam locomotive power altogether.

If you are a fan of camelback locomotives, and / or wish to read the Ames' research about the actual lack of ICC outlaw of camelback for yourself; I highly recommend in obtaining a copy.

Back issues are available for $7.50 for members and $15.00 for non-members
of the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society, and you want Issue 219 - Fall / Winter 2018.

.

.

Chapter 18:

A Comparison to PRR's Allegheny Summit Pusher Operation

Altoona - Gallitzin / Cresson - Johnstown, PA

.
One is left to wonder if some railfans attempt to compare the not-as-widely-known Erie pusher operations over Gulf Summit to the much more observable, publicized and known Pennsylvania RR helper operations over the Allegheny Summit.

While similar in premise, i.e.: helping a train over a steep natural topographical obstacle, there are significant differences.

The PRR operation would have locomotives assist westbound trains up the grade from Altoona, around the majestic Horseshoe Curve and through the Gallitzin Tunnels to then be cutoff at Cresson - 2.8 miles southwest of Gallitzin, and this is the famous "East Slope" - and this was the steeper of the two grades. From here, the locomotives would then be ran "light" (without a train) back downgrade and east to Altoona.

Likewise, eastbound trains would have helpers added at Johnstown for the not as steep or curvaceous climb to Cresson, (known as the "West Slope") to be cut off at Gallitzin, and ran light back to Johnstown. Cresson, which was near the summit, was and remains the location of helper locomotive servicing facility.

The following table shows both the averaged grades as well as the ruling grades for both the Erie section of track as well as the Pennsylvania section of track, over the distances shown between each respective summit to the east and west starting points for that ascension.

Also shown in this table are the sharpest curve radii witnessed on the track maps. One significant difference I can observe between the Erie trackage and the PRR trackage, is that the Erie trackage has way more reversing or "S" curves than the PRR trackage does; i.e. on the Erie trackage, there is a segment of track reverses from 5° 7' to 5° 1' in the opposite direction and back to 4 degrees 43 minutes and all in less than a mile. On the PRR, there is a compound curve (same direction) 9 degree 25 minute curve with 9 degree (this is Horseshoe Curve), but there is tangent track both before and after as well as before and after a lot of the curves..

Gulf Summit (Erie RR)

Allegheny Summit (Pennsylvania RR)

east ▲

elevation

change

averaged grade

ruling grade

tightest curvature

east ▲

elevation

change

averaged grade

ruling grade

tightest curvature

Deposit

990'

Altoona

1178'

(8.5 miles)

385'

.97%

1.08

5° 30'

(12 miles)

1017'

1.70%

2.10

9° 25'

Gulf Summit

1375'

Gallitzin

2195'

(8.5 miles)

430'

2.04%

1.36

6°

(25 miles)

1007'

.76%

1.50

7° 24'

Susquehanna

945'

Johnstown

1188'

west ▼

Distances and elevations are calculated from track charts of the respective railroads.

As we can see; there are significant differences between the Erie RR operation and Pennsylvania RR operation. Not only is the climb to the summit of longer distance for the Pennsylvania RR; but the curves are much more spaced out and with fewer reversing / 'S' curves. This allows for higher track speeds and lengths for trains for the Pennsylvania operation, and the use of multiple long wheelbase locomotives. It could use three 2-10-4 Texas types coupled to the back of the train, and not worry about rail or flange wear as the curves were much shallower.

Also in regard to the PRR trackage, the distances covered between Altoona and Cresson and Cresson and Johnstown are of greater distance, than that of the Erie between Susquehanna and Deposit. This added distance absolutely necessitated carrying more fuel and water, and therefore the PRR used locomotives with larger tenders.

Another significant difference were the established operational practices:

Erie chose Susquehanna at the bottom of the Gulf Summit to service the locomotives, whereas the Pennsylvania chose to service near the top, at Cresson.
Erie chose locomotives specifically built for and dedicated to pushing over Gulf Summit. PRR chose fleets of redundant freight service locomotives.

So in short, while there may be physical similarities to a type of operation, i.e.: pushing locomotives over Gulf Summit vis-à-vis helpers over Allegheny Summit; there is no direct comparison between the accepted practices of those two railroads, and their operational preference were in fact in contradiction to one another.
.

.

.

.

January 1, 1907 Agreement - Effective April 15, 1910; Supplemental December 1, 1910

Imagine if you will, my surprise when looking for rules or regulations on the placement of a caboose in conjunction with pusher locomotives; I happen across an arbitration filing for locomotive engineers for the Erie Railroad.

Further imagine my increased delight to see that the engineers of the L1's had their own specific pay rate; to the tune of $6.00 per day. Allowing for 22 work days per month, that comes to $132 per month.

It should be noted, that these Angus drivers were paid a flat rate for the day (equivalent to 60 cents an hour), and received pro-rated overtime pay after 12 hours of service,to be reduced to 10 hours of service in December 1910. This in comparison to other engineers who were putting in 12-16 hour days and getting paid 3.9 to 4.2 cents per mile.

The average work day for a L1 engineer was 10-12 hours. But an L1 locomotive engineer was not moving for all of the those 10-12 hours, so paying him by the mile was not equitable.

Which is why passenger engineers were paid less per mile, as they accrued more mileage per shift.

Whereas freight engineers were paid more per mile as they had to wait for orders, signals, taking the siding to get out of the way of passenger trains, stopping for coaling and watering. Averaging 30 miles per hour on the Erie, multiplied by 8 hours equals 240 miles. 240 miles traveled multiplied by 4.2 cents per mile = $10.08.

But for Angus engineers; and at that point in time, $6.00 per day is not something to sneeze at either. Adjusting for inflation at the time of writing this in February 2022; that equates to $169 per day, $3,718 per month, or $44,616 per year.

Not bad considering one had set work shift hours, spent some of that time waiting for the freight train that needed help to arrive; never ventured far from home, and got to go home nights. And you were in charge of the largest locomotive in world.

George W. Ball, son of Charles Ball, a mason and contractor of Honesdale, Pa., was born in that city April 23, 1853.

He was an industrious student in the public schools until he was 18 years of age, when, having acquired a good education, he cast about for means to earn a livelihood. The first opening he found was in the capacity of an oiler on the Gravity road for the Delaware & Hudson Coal Company, and he accepted the same, serving them faithfully for one year, when he resigned to take a position as brakeman on the Erie.

For six years he ran between Honesdale and Port Jervis and then was advanced to fireman. Eight years in this capacity fitted him to become an engineer, and in December, 1886, he was promoted to that responsible position. For nine years he ran an engine in the freight department on the Delaware Division, his work demonstrating his entire fitness for the place and winning him the approval of his superiors.

In 1895 he was given a pusher, which he runs between Susquehanna and Gulf Summit, and he is better pleased with this run than with regular road work.

On September 9, 1874, Mr. Ball was united in marriage to Miss Ella Eggleston, daughter of Ensign Eggleston, proprietor of a livery barn in Honesdale. Nine children have been born to them, two of whom, Russell and Ruth, died when quite young. Grace, aged 24, is married; Charles, 22, is a telegraph operator; Lulu, 20, and Mary, 19, both accomplished young ladies, reside at home; James, aged 17, is an apprentice in the Erie machine shop; Frank, ll, is attending school, and Harold Ray, 6, is the baby of the family. Mrs. Ball is a member of the Ladies' Auxiliary Lodge, B. of L. E., and a fine, motherly lady, who takes great pride in her interesting family. Mr. Ball is a very popular man, both among his fellow workmen and acquaintances generally. He is a member of Starrucca Division of 137, B. of L.E.; Susquehanna Lodge No. 246, Order of Red Men, and Canewacta Lodge No. 360, F.&A.M.

Excerpted from: "American Locomotive Engineers, Erie Railway Edition," H.R. Romans Editor; Crawford-Adsit Company Publishers, Chicago, IL 1899.

George Ball, of Engine 2600 fame, absolutely refused to believe the new 5014 had anything on the "Big Ange", until one day he was assigned to the new machine. Now he is willing to trade even.

Mr. George W. Ball, engineer, is back on the "Matt Shay" after several months' illness.

From the Susquehanna Transcript the death of George W. Ball is learned. It stated that he died in St. Augustine, FL, where he went in search of renewed health. He came to Susquehanna 25 years ago and was employed on the Honesdale Branch. He had been formerly employed as engineer in the pusher service out of Susquehanna, running on the Delaware Division for a number of years.

Way back when I was 12 or 13, the family and I made one of our annual jaunts to Strasburg, PA. I went to the National Toy Train Museum there and much to my shock, there was a brass model of an Erie L1 in HO Scale on display.

Despite my asking in my local hobby shop, I was never able to ascertain who manufactured it or where to purchase one (not that I figured I could afford one anyhow!)

Lapse forward 30 years, the advent of the internet and advancements in model making and tooling (and cheaper Asian labor forces!) saw new L1 models being released in limited runs and the advertising to see they sold well.

There are now quite a few commercially produced scale models of this class of locomotive in both HO and O (2 and 3 rail) Scale, and in different configurations: as built 1907, and post-1915 (electric head light middle of smokebox, longer firemans canopy)

.
(And if anyone out there has a non-operating, damaged, or burned out HO and / or O scale model they are willing to sell, please email me.
All I desire are models for static display.)

But alas, all of these commercial releases are cost prohibitive for a casual modeler like myself to own especially as a teen. The brass models then ran in excess of $700, and the O scale ready to run now sell in excess of $1400 retail.

Yes, it's photoshopped!
How else would I have been able to get an Erie L1 on Starrucca Viaduct for the first time in almost 100 years?
My scratchbuilt HO scale model superimposed on a photo I took of the real Starrucca Viaduct in 2012.

I am not the first to scratchbuild an Erie L1; as evidenced by an article by Bill Schopp in the February 1955 issue if Railroad Model Craftsman shows:

My scratchbuilding the Erie L1 would be my third attempt at scratchbuilding any locomotive in any scale. My first "scratchbuilding" attempt (re: cobbing) being a non-prototype RS2 short hood shop switcher on a B chassis; my second attempt being a 0-6-0T BEDT #16 in HO scale (requiring a scratchbuilt saddletank) which came out rather well; and I already had modified ready-to-run locomotives into either BEDT #14 and #15 or converted a rear cab PRR locomotive to a Camelback 4-4-2 Atlantic.

While I am particularly critical of my own creations - I have no patience painting, but will spend hours custom fabricating or modifying frames;, I am quite proud of this attempt.

The locomotive started as an undecorated Mantua HO scale 2-6-6-2 logging loco (catalog #334) and the tender is from the Mantua 4-4-2 #460 "Lindbergh Special" (catalog #460) or PRR #7002 (catalog #336) locomotives (as well as used by other locomotives in the catalog). This tender closely conforms to the silhouette of the tenders used with the L1's.

I purchased super-detailing parts (valves, boiler plugs, handrail standoffs from various vendors in Walthers Catalog and through local fellow modeler Frank Bell as well as Mantua. Frank was also generous enough to lend me his copy of Al Staufer's "Erie Power", and somewhere along the line I had located and acquired HO scale drawings of the Erie L1 class in one of the railroad modeler magazines. At the time, I did not know they were from the February 1955 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman (Carstens Publishing)... Now I do!

The cab is an "as molded" from Mantua, as are the domes and front headlight (which I know is incorrect). Front cylinders are Mantua castings from the 2-6-6-2T Booth Kelly logger, (catalog #326) while rear cylinders were original to this model. Hoses and piping are custom bent brass rod and various diameter solder. The live steam crossover is large diameter solder with heat shrink tubing. The valve in front of the cab is a custom hand filed piece of solder. The reversing bell crank is styrene and bronze phosphor wire, as are the handrails. The firebox is from the shell of a Mantua camelback locomotive (although I can't recall which one though, either a 4-6-2 or 2-8-2). The boiler in front of the cab is from the same Mantua kit. The section of boiler between the firebox and cab is heated and bent styrene sheet, as are the running boards.

The frames are Mantua zamac castings for the 2-6-6-2 locomotive (three axles per frame), which as it turned out driver diameter and axle spacing was close enough to satisfy my needs and I think both were only off by a few scale inches). As I required a four axle per frame arrangement for my 0-8-8-0, I purchased four frames (two front, two rear) from Mantua and proceeded cut the first two of the three axles off the rear frames and the last two of the three axles on the front frames, making a total of four two axle half frames. Then placing them in a jig, I scored the parts with guide lines for alignment, measuring axle spacing, and proceeded to file the mating surfaces with a jewelers file. I bored holes lengthwise on the cut ends of the four pieces, and using solid brass rod as alignment pins and a dot of two part epoxy on the ends of pins, I proceeded to mate the two halves together for each frame and clamped for an hour. Also, the bottom frame covers (which hold the axles in place) were made using the same technique (two each cut in halves), only they are not joined and are four pieces, each held in place by the original screw at each end of the frame.

Once the frame pins cured, I assembled the drive wheels with connecting rods (but not main rods) and checked for alignment and binding movement. Fortunately, the design of the frame has brass 'u' shaped axle bearing sleeves that are the full width of the frame, so I only had to file to "tweak" alignment on one bearing sleeve. Once I was satisfied with the axle alignments, I assembled the sub-chassis and motor drive, lubricated all axle bearing surfaces with graphite and sewing machine oil lubricant of my own concoction, and ran the mechanism for two hours in a vise to break in the mechanisms, rods, pistons and other reciprocating parts.

While this was going on, I finished super-detailing the body and began painting. The smokebox is FloQuil flat black with the rest of the body being FloQuil semigloss black, applied with a sable brush. Like I said, I am not patient when it comes to painting. When the MTH O Scale models came out, they had Russian Iron sheet metal from the smokebox back. I really don't know if this was prototypical. I can't see Erie dressing up a mundane pusher locomotive like some crack passenger locomotive. Even if they did, it could not have stayed clean and shiny for long. My personal philosophy has always been that freight and industrial engines were for the most part grimy and dented and a shiny, perfect paint job just doesn't capture the "grit and use" of a freight engine.

While I used the cast zamac boiler weights from the original model, I added a substantial amount of lead weight to fill in the remainder of the open space within the body shell. I then test assembled the body and chassis for fit, and tweaked accordingly.

Upon completion and my satisfaction of fit, I took the locomotive to the Catskill Mountain Model Railroaders club (then located in Kelly Corners, NY in the Hubble Brothers building), I test ran the locomotive on an actual layout with various radius curves and grades.. After some minor tweaking of the articulating frames, I operated the locomotive at various speeds, loads and direction for several hours. It ran flawlessly.

The next operating day of the Catskill Model Railroaders Club, I unveiled #2601 in front of the other members. Frank Bell, (who supplied some of the parts and Erie fan) was so totally taken aback by the locomotive, he immediately offered me a substantial amount of money for it. As much as I liked Frank, I just couldn't bear to part with "my 2601". We held a little contest on the layout, pitting #2601 against the other locos. For starters, 2601 out-pulled every other single locomotive in presence. Then we did a "load test".

Other members tried pulling the same train with one, or in some cases two or three locomotives, and failed. In one case, another member had two diesel locomotives with six powered axles attempting to pull the 49 car train, but stalled just past the double 's' turn (point of maximum resistance both on grade and lateral). I ran 2601 up behind the train, and shoved, "pushing" the train just like the prototype would in 1907 (albeit this with steam locomotives on the head end)!

I never got around to installing DCC into the locomotive, or finishing the superdetailing, so for the most part, 2601 now sits on a piece of panel track in my china cabinet on display. Every so often I take it out, put in locomotive cradle and run it to keep the mechanism in working order. Someday, I hope to take a trip over to Starrucca Viaduct and take better images with Starrucca as a back drop. (You'd think I would have already done so, as Starrucca is only about an hour and half away from me!)

If any interested readers would like to submit images of their L1 models, please feel free to submit them to me. I would be honored to include them here.

It was inevitable. In March 2024, I made acquaintances with Adam Hofmann on Facebook, who was looking for erecting drawings for a Delaware & Hudson Camelback. I gave him a lead, and in conversation he mentioned he executed a kitbash of an Erie L1 in N scale, so I invited him to send a picture for inclusion here.

20 November 2024:	Chapters added	"They were too big -
12 November 2024:	Firemans Canopy / Shelter profile changed ca. 1915	Modifications & Differences
31 October 2024:	Mallet Compounding and Articulated chapters, w/ drawings added	What is Compounding? Why the need for Articulation?
25 October 2024:	2600 Christening at ALCo print added	Memorabilia & Photographs
16 August 2024:	2600 Christening at ALCo postcard added	Memorabilia & Photographs

Specifications of the L1 Class	Preface	Who's who	Why The Cab In The Middle? The Wootten Firebox
What is Compounding? If once is good, twice is better.	Why the need for Articulation? "It don't mean thing, if you don't have that swing - doo wah, doo wah, doo wah!	Pushers and Helpers	History of the L1
Real Facts - not Railfan Fiction:
"It wasn't the biggest - the Big Boy was"	"They were too big - the cabs struck each other killing engineers and fireman."	Reliability & Longevity: 23 years at 1,700 miles per month in 8.5 mile increments!	They only built three - because it wasn't successful." Because three were only what Erie needed.
"They Used Two Fireman." NO! One Fireman! and Dual Firebox Doors	"That Small Tender - it coudn't have been that useful." Because it only had to go so far.	1=2 or 1=3 or 3=6 or 3=9 No, it isn't Enron math	Unsuccessful? Not in the least. Let's add up the numbers..
Placement of the Caboose Before or after the pusher locomotive?	"Camelbacks Were Banned in the U.S." No they weren't. More bad myth.	Gulf Summit vs. Allegheny Divide: a skewed comparison

Erie RR Track Chart - 1929 Delaware Division - Susquehanna to Deposit	Technical Journals & Publications Railroad Gazette - Nov 2, 1906 Railroad Gazette - Aug 16, 1907 Loco Fireman & Engineman's Journal - Oct 1907 Engineering News - October 3, 1907 Locomotive Magazine (UK) - Sept 14, 1907 Paper given to ASME by C. J. Mellin - Dec, 1908	"The Test" - 1907 Dynamometer car - Erie Railroad	"The Thesis" - 1908 C. R. Cullen / S. D. Gridley Cornell University
Erie RR Rule Books & Special Instructions Delaware Division - July 1, 1914 Delaware Division - November 1, 1921	The Baldwin Rebuild - 1921	L1 Mishaps	L1 Engineers Pay Rate - 1910 $6.00 per day
George W. Ball, loco engineer Seniority holder for Pusher Operations on Gulf Summit	E. T. Stotesbury (partner with J. P. Morgan) Trustee, Owner of #2600, #2601, #2602	Modifications & Differences over the years	Memorabilia & Photographs
Modeling	Bibliography	The Author	Guestbook

road:	Erie	cylinders, low pressure (front):	39" bore x 28" stroke (simple)
Erie locomotive class:	L1	cylinders, high pressure (rear):	25" bore x 28" stroke (Mellin compound)
builder:	American Locomotive Co (Schenectady, NY)	valve type, high pressure:	piston
builder class:	0880 C410	valve type, low pressure:	Richardson balanced slide
date built:	July 1907	valve gear:	Walschaerts
number in class:	three	boiler diameter :	84"
Erie road numbers:	2600, 2601, 2602	number of tubes:	404
construction numbers:	42269, 42270, 42271	tube diameter:	2.25"
wheel arrangement:	0-8-8-0 (articulated)	tube length:	21'
driver diameter:	51"	steam pressure:	215 p.s.i.
total locomotive wheelbase:	39' 2"	grate area:	100 sq. ft.
engine wheelbase (individual):	14' 3"	firebox area:	343.2 sq ft
total wheelbase locomotive & tender:	70' 5"	evaporative heating surface (total):	5313.7 sq. ft. (5666 sq. ft. after rebuilding)
total length, locomotive & tender:	84' 9¾" (coupler face to face)	superheating surface:	(1170 sq. ft after rebuilding)
minimum curve radius:	16 degrees	total heating surface:	6,108 sq. ft
locomotive weight (on drivers):	410,000 lbs.	tractive force:	94,070 lbs. @ 90% cutoff; 89,000lbs. @ 85% cutoff
locomotive weight (total):	410,000 lbs. (441,660 lbs. after rebuilding)	axle loading:	54,100 lbs.
tender weight (loaded):	167,700 lbs.	factor of adhesion:	4.32
total weight locomotive & tender:	577,700 lbs. (609,360 lbs. after rebuilding)	indicated horsepower @ 5.0-6.5 mph:	800 - 1141
tender capacity (water):	8,500 gallons	delivered horsepower @ 5.0-6.5 mph:	584 - 999
tender capacity (coal):	16 tons	date rebuilt:	1921
fuel:	soft (bituminous) or hard coal (culm anthracite)	rebuilder:	Baldwin Locomotive Works (Eddystone, PA)
			to 2-8-8-2, cab moved to rear, installation of: Elasco feedwater heaters, Schmidt superheater Ragonnet Type B Power Reverse Gear Standard "Dupont" automatic stokers Security Sectional Brick Arch

all scrapped: December 1930

Railroad Gazette - November 2, 1906 Locomotive Order Announcement	Railroad Gazette - August 16, 1907 Delivery of Order	Locomotive Firemans & Engineman's Journal - 1907
Locomotive Magazine (UK) - September 14, 1907	Engineering News - October 3, 1907	American Locomotive Co., Articulated Compound Locomotives Paper before the American Society of Mechanical Engineers by Carl J. Mellin, consulting engineer, ALCo New York City, December 1908

unknown publisher, unknown date authors collection
. .
M. F. Kotowski - 1986 authors collection
. .
AZO Real Photo Post Card divided back postally unused authors collection	Locomotive Publishing Ltd., 3, Amen Corner, London, E.C., Real Photo Post Card note this card has person posing by tender steps (believed to be E. T. Stotesbury, trustee - see large photo in Stotesbury chapter) undivided back postally unused authors collection
.
Burton, Pub'r, Lanesboro, PA divided back postally unused authors collection	C. D. Burton, Lanesboro, PA divided back postmarked Callicoon, NY - August 26, 1912 authors collection
.
pub. by Albany News Company divided back postally unused authors collection	Hugh C. Leighton, Portland, ME #27053 Made in Germany divided back postally unused authors collection
.
The Valentine & Sons Publishing Co, Ltd. New York printed in Great Britain divided back postmarked Matamoras, PA - August 19, 1910 authors collection	Leighton & Valentine Co, N. Y. City. #204840 Printing in United States divided back postally unused authors collection
.
no publisher info divided back postally unused authors collection	AZO rppc - divided back postmarked Union Grove, NY - October 15, 1907 authors collection
.
Published by J. J. Cunningham, Schenectady, NY undivided back addressed but postally unused authors collection	intentionally left blank
.
Herald Post Cards, Hallstead, PA divided back postally unused authors collection	Baker Brothers Elmira, N.Y. #2123 divided back - printed in Germany postally unused authors collection
.
No. 2600 Art Tone Series by C. D. Burton, Lanesboro, PA divided back - printed in Germany postmarked Susquehanna, PA - July 21, 1910 authors collection	Herald Post Cards, Hallstead, PA divided back postally unused authors collection
. .
Christening of #2600 - July 1907 American Locomotive Company, Schenectady, NY All I can say about this image is "wow." One of the highest resolution digital prints I have ever encountered (or purchased), and historically significant. In this image we have easily identifiable persons of both the Erie Railroad and American Locomotive Co, christening Locomotive #2600: Angus Sinclair Bent over, breaking a bottle of champagne on the top of the cylinder (note foil wrapped neck of bottle in hand). Sinclair was a Erie Railroad special instructor, locomotive engineering, and publisher of "Railway & Locomotive Engineering" technical journal. Sinclair's other "contribution" to the Erie L1, was that he is believed to have stated before the L1's were completed, that the L1 would "dry up the country's canals and make water transportation obsolete". While this was clearly hyperbole, it is understood that the Erie RR saw fit to honor this statement by assigning Sinclairs' name to the class of locomotive: "Angus" Carl J. Mellin Supervising engineer for American Locomotive Company when the Erie L1's were designed and built, and he developed and patented the specific compound cylinder system used on the Erie L1 design. Edward T. Stotesbury Owner and trustee of this locomotive at the time it was constructed. Stotesbury was a partner at J. P. Morgan and railroad investor. Fredrick D. Underwood President, Erie Railroad (with rolled umbrella) T. Rumney Mechanical Superintendent, American Locomotive (formerly Master Mechanic, Erie RR) I would also like to identify other gentlemen in the image, so if you can furnish identification, please contact me at bedt14@aol.com I even located the following description accompanying the image: CEREMONY OF CHRISTENING THE ANGUS ARTICULATED MALLET COMPOUND FOR THE ERIE. T. Rumney, Mechanical Superintendent. American Locomotive Company, Builders. When the party of newspaper men had satisfied their curiosity and loaded their note books with particulars about the engine, some one proposed that the largest member of the railroad motive power family should be christened. Angus Sinclair was chosen to do the christening. A variety of names was suggested, but none of them was considered satisfactory till Harry Vought exclaimed: What's the matter with Angus? All agreed that Angus was a good locomotive name, and that was bestowed upon the engine, in our official records as the Angus Type Articulated Compounds. This is but a faint recognition of the obligations the railroad companies are under to you for things too numerous to mention. not to be reused or reproduced without consent. added 25 October 2024
. .
Starrucca Viaduct - unknown date This image is a first generation high resolution scan of Everett DeGolyer's original negative. crop and zoom below. authors collection Southern Methodist University - DeGolyer Library not to be reused or reproduced without SMU consent. added 28 February 2022 Note the marker lamp to right of tender light and on tender tank. The placement of a red flag or red marker light was specified to be placed on the rear of tender when locomotive was pushing. This was so ordered in the rule books. Locomotive is definitely pushing.
	. .
#2601 - Port Jervis, June 1911 authors collection
. .
. #2601 - builders photo? E. S. Evans, Jr. collection authors collection added 31 October 2024
. .
enlargement of cab writing: 2602 ANGUS SINCLAIR TYPE ARTICULATED COMPOUND
. .
#2602 - unknown location (believed to be Gulf Summit, NY) - 1915 unknown photographer "American Locomotives" by E. P. Alexander, (Bonanza Books, 1950)
. .
#2602 - unknown location (believed to be Gulf Summit, NY) - 1915 unknown photographer stamp on back of photo: C. T. Andrews, 4231 S. W. 38th St. W. Hollywood, Fla. this first generation darkroom print is identical to the image in Alexander's book, therefore it appears to have been commercially produced.
. .
#2602 - unknown date - Gulf Summit, PA - unknown photographer from the 1979 Erie Railfan Calendar authors collection added 2021
. .

#2602 - unknown date - Gulf Summit, PA - unknown photographer This particular image is quite an exciting addition to my collection. Just when you think all that is already out there is all that exists, something new turns up. It is a dark room print from a glass plate negative and this particular image has been unknown until now, as I never seen it published in any historical accounts, industrial journals or railfan books or websites. The back of the image is marked: New Jersey Industrial Photographers - P. O. Box 64, Carlstadt, NY 07072 authors collection added 27 April 2023
. .
#2601 - unknown date (assumed to be 1921) - Baldwin Locomotive Co, Eddystone, PA Note that the main rods are removed and the head & backup lights have already been changed from kerosene to electric and repositioned; firemans canopy extended. unknown photographer authors collection added 31 August 2014
. .
#2602 - unknown date (assumed to be 1921) - Baldwin Locomotive Co, Eddystone, PA Note that the main rods are removed and the head and backup lights have already been changed from kerosene to electric and repositioned. firemans canopy extended. unknown photographer authors collection added 31 August 2014
. .
American Locomotive Works erecting drawing unknown provenance
. .
unknown publication If any reader knows what publication this is from, please let me know at bedt14@aol.com
. .

American Locomotive Builders Card for 0880 C410 Type - Erie L1 class of particular note is the listing under "fuel": soft coal. Thanks to the Cullen / Gridley Thesis of 1908, we can now confirm that bituminous coal was used in the Erie L1's. image from internet added 01 January 2022
. .
from The National Geographic Magazine October 1909 - Vol... XX, No. 10 courtesy of J. Wanzyck added 13 January 2013
. .

This painting sold at a recent auction (NOT eBay) and as my luck would have it, a year before I located it. It was painted by John Wallace Elder, a professional artist who lived from 1872 through 1954, and created many detailed paintings of locomotives. The drawing is dedicated to the memory of James Millholland (1812–1875). Millholland was an American railway master mechanic who is particularly well known for his invention of many railway mechanisms. Millholland's inventions and contributions include the cast-iron crank axle, wooden spring, plate girder bridge, poppet throttle, anthracite firebox, water grate, drop frame, and steel tires. He was also an early user and advocate of the superheater, the feedwater heater, and the injector. Several of his innovations were adopted as standard practice by the railroad industry. Dimensions of the painting are 20 1/2" tall x 56 1/2" wide. Estimated sale price: $1,500 to $2,500. Closing price: $1,400 plus buyers premium of 26%, and shipping. As I stated, I found this item after the auction took place and closed; but I would have loved to at least partaken in the quest to own it personally. That being said, I respectfully request that the fortunate person who does now own it would be kind enough to furnish better images of it, for inclusion here. It would be most sincerely appreciated, and if you so wish to be recognized - your name listed here as well. image from internet added 01 January 2022
. .
This ladies and gentlemen, is the real deal. Sent to me by a fan of this website and of whom owns this astounding artifact. This image was offered to be shared here, but the owner wishes to remain anonymous and I will honor his wish; on the proviso that if and when the time comes, and this thing of beauty needs a new home; that I be thought of. The line forms behind me! added 11 January 2022


Edward T. Stotesbury (standing by tender steps)	American Locomotive Company 42269 builders plate E. T. Stotesbury Trustee, Owner Plate

distributor	manufacturer	item number	scale	material	issue era	prices seen	notes
NJ Custom Brass	Daiyoung	ST 222 / ST 227	HO	brass	ca. 1970's?	$1750 - 2095
Overland	Ajin Precision	OMI 1548.1	HO	brass	1993	$3500 - 3900	post 1915 headlights, firemans canopy

Sunset / 3rd Rail Models	(Korea)		O (2 rail)	brass	5/2001
Sunset / 3rd Rail Models	(Korea)		O (3 rail)	brass	2001	$899-1600	only 170 issued

MTH - (Russian Iron) #2600	(China)	20-3852-1	O (3 rail)	die cast	2023	$1600	locomotive only
MTH - (Russian Iron) #2601	(China)	20-3118-1	O (3 rail)	die cast	2005	$1300	locomotive only
MTH - (Black) #2601	(China)	20-3853-1	O (3 rail)	die cast	2023	$1600	locomotive only
MTH - (Russian Iron) #2602	(China)	20-3441-1	O (3 rail)	die cast	2005	$1399	locomotive, 5 hoppers & caboose set
MTH - (Russian Iron) #2602	(China)	20-3854-1	O (3 rail)	die cast	2023	$1600	locomotive only
MTH - (Black) #2601	(China)	20-3442-1	O (3 rail)	die cast	2005, 2023	$1399	locomotive, 5 hoppers & caboose set


.

Railroad Model Craftsman (Carstens Publishing) - Volume 23, No. 9, February 1955 authors collection added 13 January 2013 rescanned 22 January 2022

Ames, Gregory P. "Mother Hubbards' Bone of Contention" Railroad History #219 - Fall Winter 2018 (Railway & Locomotive Historical Society; 2018)		Westing, Frederick Erie Power Erie Mallets, p. 198-215 Alvin Stauffer Publishing; 1970
Best, George M.; Armstrong, G. W.; Edson, William D. All Time Erie Locomotive roster" Railroad History #131 - Autumn 1974, p. 22-113 (Railway & Locomotive Historical Society; 1974)		White, John H. James Millholland and Early Railroad Engineering United States National Museum Bulletin 252; The Museum of History & Technology; Paper 69 (Smithsonian Press, Washington DC; 1967)
Charles R. Cullen & Sidney D. Gridley Test of Mallet Articulated Compound Locomotive on Erie Railroad Cornell University (Senior Thesis); 1908		Railroad Gazette November 2, 1906 August 16, 1907
Harding, J. W. Firing of Locomotives, Hand Firing, Oil Burning, Type C-2 Boosters International Textbook Co.; 1912, 1920, 1935		Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen Journal October 1907
Hungerford, Edward Men of Erie Random House; 1946		The Locomotive September 14, 1907
Johnson, Ralph P., M .E. The Steam Locomotive - Its Theory, Operation and Economics Simmons-Boardman; 1942, 1944, 1981		American Engineering & Railroad Journal June 1908
Le Massena, Robert A. Erie's Monstrous Mallets Railroad Magazine - June 1970; p. 30-34 (Popular Publications)		Steam Boiler Engineering A Treatise on Steam Boilers and the Design and Operation of Boiler Plants February 16, 1929
Mellin, Carl J. Articulated Compound Locomotives paper read before American Society of Mechanical Engineers American Locomotive Company - December 1908 (reprinted by Periscope Film; 2006)		Erie Railroad (corporate documents as follows) Office of Division Engineer; Track Chart for Eastern District - Delaware Division; 1929 / updated 1933 Special Instructions, Delaware Division; July 1, 1914 Special Instructions, Delaware Division; November 1, 1921
Sinclair, Angus Development of the Locomotive Engine Angus Sinclair Publishing; 1907 / reprint M.I.T. Press		SteamLocomotive.com in depth locomotive specifications
Schopp, Bill Erie Camelback Articulated Railroad Model Craftsman Volume 23, No. 9, February 1955) (Carstens Publishing)		Wikipedia for selected biographical information
Swingle, Calvin F. Modern Locomotive Engineering Frederick J. Drake & Co Publishers; 1908		Google Maps for general cartography