Smoke Lifters
Smoke Lifters
I wonder, why do so few of USA steam locomotives have smoke lifters? Whereas many other nations do have the 'elephant ears'.
Dan Weinhold
Dan Weinhold
Re: Smoke Lifters
Can't say for sure Dan, but it's an interesting question. I know smoke lifters weren't used by the UP until the end of the steam era, so maybe the advent of the diesels taking over eliminated the need for smoke lifters. The UP was one of the few American railroads to use them. They were always experimenting with ways to make steam locos more efficient, faster and ??? I have a book about some of these experiments and I'll pull it out and go through it.
I know diesels came later to most European countries and steam was used though out the 50's and even into the 60's.
Just my thinking and might be totally wrong.
I know diesels came later to most European countries and steam was used though out the 50's and even into the 60's.
Just my thinking and might be totally wrong.
Re: Smoke Lifters
Hmmm, a book about RR experiments. Wonder if it has the NYC experimental RDC powered by 2 jet engines? Loved that one.
Dan Weinhold
Dan Weinhold
Re: Smoke Lifters
Actually it's a UP FEF (4-8-4) book that shows the history, design and operation of all the changes made from the FEF-1 to the FEF-3. There is a chapter dedicated to smoke lifters and triple stacks and other ideas to make the locomotive more efficient.
-
- Posts: 13019
- Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:57 pm
Re: Smoke Lifters
The Kratville book? He was a good guy - helped me with Challenger rods. A good friend of Jim Seacrest.
Re: Smoke Lifters
That's the book Bob. I met Bill Kratville at a KCMO train show back in the 90's. He was selling and autographing his books......fantastic and unassuming guy.
Re: Smoke Lifters
sleepmac wrote:I wonder, why do so few of USA steam locomotives have smoke lifters? Whereas many other nations do have the 'elephant ears'.
Dan Weinhold
Ears on locomotives have an intense and widely shared enthusiasm in Europe and China. The fad is without basis in the object's ability to lift smoke or any other practical properties.
It was tried in the USA and found to be useless.
This engine was built for China but never delivered. It ended up at the Manitoba Paper Co.
The following locomotives are running "at speed," whatever that means. How well do the ears work?
Source for images: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnX1qM5_zJo
http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/i ... allery.htm
----Wayne----
Back when I was growing up, if you didn't start someth'n, there wouldn't be noth'n.
--Merle Haggard
Back when I was growing up, if you didn't start someth'n, there wouldn't be noth'n.
--Merle Haggard
Re: Smoke Lifters
webenda wrote:sleepmac wrote:I wonder, why do so few of USA steam locomotives have smoke lifters? Whereas many other nations do have the 'elephant ears'.
Dan Weinhold
Ears on locomotives have an intense and widely shared enthusiasm in Europe and China. The fad is without basis in the object's ability to lift smoke or any other practical properties.
It was tried in the USA and found to be useless.
Bollocks. You speak very authoritatively on the basis of a layman's interpretation of a couple snaps from Wikipedia?
First, I very much doubt the one view of the train running past platforms is remotely "at speed". Be that as it may, I can see the cab windows in all three shots which is the point of "lifters". What happens behind, above, below, or anywhere else is absolutely moot.
Second, research into and practical application of lifters really is a late 1930s and on bit of engineering. One could reasonably surmise the popularity in Britain (but only to a limited degree) and Continental Europe (also not universal) was simply because of the longevity of steam compared to the US.
US applications were in the main well-researched, individually championed, and class specific. On NYC, for example, the L3 and L4 Mohawks were both initially built without. After the war, Paul Kiefer's motive power department's research and application saw both classes get them and keep them. The same with the prototype Niagara; built without, then added and spec'd for the entire class. Class specific? Hudsons ran at similar speeds, tests were done, and the various designs found not to be worthwhile in practical application. BTW, Paul Kiefer was inarguably at the first rank of motive power engineers in America, was internationally well known in the field, even a member of the Royal Society. I'll believe his conclusions whether a "fad"or not.
I'll also take the BR design committee's use at face value, and one can dig about regarding smokebox, exhaust, and chimney designs which saw successful lifter use even on some slow classes such as 9f, leading one to want to do that digging. Why they work on 9F but not on the NYC J-class would lead one to question whether speed was even germane rather than, say, blast velocity or pressure gradients.
To say they were "useless", a "fad", "without basis", dismisses the experiences of some very capable people in the field of steam locomotive design worldwide. Certainly those who successfully (and very selectively) applied them would have something to say about the statement they were "found to be useless." By whom? The railfan experts?
No-one ever forgets where they buried the hatchet.
Re: Smoke Lifters
sarge wrote:To say they were "useless", a "fad", "without basis", dismisses the experiences of some very capable people in the field of steam locomotive design worldwide. Certainly those who successfully (and very selectively) applied them would have something to say about the statement they were "found to be useless." By whom? The railfan experts?
With ears, the smoke goes up--the smoke goes down.
Without ears, the smoke goes up--the smoke goes down.
The smoke never continues to go up forever, despite the force with which it comes blasting out of the smoke stack. Elephant ears, blinkers, or smoke deflectors cannot change that. That is the bases for not using ears on the vast majority of American locomotives.
You might use this image to prove that ears work.
The ears worked in this case but most American Engines have/had such a powerful exhaust that the smoke is/was blasted high enough to not cause a problem for the crew. That is another answer to why so few American steam locomotives had ears.
I hope a locomotive engineer or fireman sees this thread and speaks with experience on the subject of smoke in the cab.
----Wayne----
Back when I was growing up, if you didn't start someth'n, there wouldn't be noth'n.
--Merle Haggard
Back when I was growing up, if you didn't start someth'n, there wouldn't be noth'n.
--Merle Haggard
Re: Smoke Lifters
I'm not going to argue back and forth for pages, and certainly not without seeing any attempt to hear what's being said, just the repetition an unprovable statement.
Again, suffice to say no company would allow it's CMO to put lifters on an entire class of locos without some basis in improvement, let alone three classes in the case of late NYC steam. They are not mere decoration and they aren't a minor expense.
It appears there is enough research gone in and evidence of improvement coming out that some classes got the money to add them, and some classes did not, whether based on the duty, the design of the exhaust, whatever conditions. Again, the J-classes didn't benefit after experimentation, the late L and the S did, all in similar service.
Instead of waiting for some now dead engineer or fireman to come to your aid, why not get get off your keyboard and get in touch with the NYCSHS and see what has been published by them on Kiefer's conclusions and what they might have on his technical publications for a start rather than just continue to argue your expertise based on weak interp of ropey evidence.
Your evidence does not support any conclusion, let alone one so definitive as they were universally a "fad", "useless", or "without basis". Until you understand the different front end designs, stack velocity variations under load, the effects of throttle, what cut-off is, you just can't say that, not when people who did understand such things chose to act with their employers capital on the idea after they did the practical research and proof of design.
You're just typing any old opinion as fact, typical of forum experts and the internet in general which is the biggest problem with both. In publishing, one's conclusions were subject to peer review before publication. Since anyone can type anything on the net, that doesn't happen unless someone throws the bullshit flag after publication.
Specifically this and no more; you cannot claim something definitively doesn't work, is a fad, or is useless when the historical record clearly shows people who know this field applied that something (at more than a little cost to their employers whilst keeping their jobs and professional reputations) from its introduction through the (in this case) end of steam.
I would not even be bothering with this if you had said you "doubted" their utility or "questioned" their application, all legitimate, but you presented this as a definitive statement of fact and yourself as knowing more than the likes of some of the finer locomotive design engineers in history based on what? Wikipedia, AI, and the writings of the "railfan experts"?
I've made my point so someone reading this years from now won't buy your conclusion as fact, so that being said I need not continue to the point of useless argument.
Again, suffice to say no company would allow it's CMO to put lifters on an entire class of locos without some basis in improvement, let alone three classes in the case of late NYC steam. They are not mere decoration and they aren't a minor expense.
It appears there is enough research gone in and evidence of improvement coming out that some classes got the money to add them, and some classes did not, whether based on the duty, the design of the exhaust, whatever conditions. Again, the J-classes didn't benefit after experimentation, the late L and the S did, all in similar service.
Instead of waiting for some now dead engineer or fireman to come to your aid, why not get get off your keyboard and get in touch with the NYCSHS and see what has been published by them on Kiefer's conclusions and what they might have on his technical publications for a start rather than just continue to argue your expertise based on weak interp of ropey evidence.
Your evidence does not support any conclusion, let alone one so definitive as they were universally a "fad", "useless", or "without basis". Until you understand the different front end designs, stack velocity variations under load, the effects of throttle, what cut-off is, you just can't say that, not when people who did understand such things chose to act with their employers capital on the idea after they did the practical research and proof of design.
You're just typing any old opinion as fact, typical of forum experts and the internet in general which is the biggest problem with both. In publishing, one's conclusions were subject to peer review before publication. Since anyone can type anything on the net, that doesn't happen unless someone throws the bullshit flag after publication.
Specifically this and no more; you cannot claim something definitively doesn't work, is a fad, or is useless when the historical record clearly shows people who know this field applied that something (at more than a little cost to their employers whilst keeping their jobs and professional reputations) from its introduction through the (in this case) end of steam.
I would not even be bothering with this if you had said you "doubted" their utility or "questioned" their application, all legitimate, but you presented this as a definitive statement of fact and yourself as knowing more than the likes of some of the finer locomotive design engineers in history based on what? Wikipedia, AI, and the writings of the "railfan experts"?
I've made my point so someone reading this years from now won't buy your conclusion as fact, so that being said I need not continue to the point of useless argument.
No-one ever forgets where they buried the hatchet.
Re: Smoke Lifters
sarge wrote:I'm not going to argue back and forth for pages...
Thank you.
sarge wrote:Instead of waiting for some now dead engineer or fireman to come to your aid, why not get get off your keyboard and get in touch with the NYCSHS and see what has been published by them on Kiefer's conclusions and what they might have on his technical publications for a start rather than just continue to argue your expertise based on weak interp of ropey evidence.
Now that (NYCSHS) is valuable information. I did not know about NYCSHS. Thank you again.
NYCSHS research has already paid off. I found this...
The so-called smoke lifters or deflectors were not designed to "lift smoke". They were used to neutralize the vacuum effects ahead of the locomotive cab that occurred at speed, thus ensuring better visibility for the engine crew.
--Page 11 of Road Testing of the NIAGARAS by Richard W. Dawson
...the Sl's were equipped with... ...smoke lifters to prevent impairment of the crew's vision by drifting smoke...
--Page 13 of Road Testing of the NIAGARAS by Richard W. Dawson
There! Someone else revealed that smoke lifters do not lift the smoke. They were not designed to lift smoke.
Dick Dawson gave his blessing for NYCSHS to post ROAD TESTING OF THE NIAGARAS on their website.
Here is a link to Mr. Dawson's publication: https://nycshs.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... agaras.pdf
sarge wrote:Specifically this and no more; you cannot claim something definitively doesn't work, is a fad, or is useless when the historical record clearly shows people who know this field applied that something (at more than a little cost to their employers whilst keeping their jobs and professional reputations) from its introduction through the (in this case) end of steam.
Harrumph! Now I am not the only person to claim that smoke lifters do not lift smoke. See the above quotes from Mr. Dawson's publication.
Last edited by webenda on Fri Oct 04, 2024 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
----Wayne----
Back when I was growing up, if you didn't start someth'n, there wouldn't be noth'n.
--Merle Haggard
Back when I was growing up, if you didn't start someth'n, there wouldn't be noth'n.
--Merle Haggard
Re: Smoke Lifters
I'm editing this as I really was far more merciless and rude than propriety calls for. For that, my apologies.
You did not say they didn't lift smoke. You said:
Italics are added for emphasis.
In explaining what they are for:
You are bobbling and weaving. Your statement above about the utility is incorrect. Period.
I'll say it again, and for the last time:
I have to admit I was leading you a bit as to where to look for some primary source info on deflectors and how they work, hints like pressure differential, exhaust design, and the stuff published by the NYCSHS. The article you found is one of several published in the society's journal, the Headlight, back when the NYCSHS was more oriented to the history and engineering technology and less to modelling and general "fandom". There is more material out there beyond the society, some published by Paul Kiefer, worth looking for.
The point of it all was to point out that Wikipedia and other tertiary references are not remotely reliable when attempting to be authoritative on a subject. There are folks on this thread who have vast quantities of knowledge about their railroad history and the history of steam loco design (Bob comes to mind) who clearly state, "I don't know." Going back to primary material is where you find the most reliable information; even secondary source material is a helluva lot safer. Recent train books a la Solomon, fora, and Wikipedia will trip you up every time.
Back to deflectors, in short many applications have had merit once they were worked through, and there are a number of variations; the BR version on 9f is inboard against the smokebox to create pressure differentials above rather than alongside like the NYC/UP styles best performing when placed on the outside of the running board. From primary source reviews, yes, the effectiveness varies as airflow over and around the smokebox varies, as temperatures vary winter and summer, as other atmospheric conditions might vary, and as locomotive condition might deteriorate, just a few variables. In the main, the ones worked through design by design improved crew visibility, which is their only purpose.
Again, my apologies for being as merciless and rude as I became.
You did not say they didn't lift smoke. You said:
webenda wrote:Ears on locomotives have an intense and widely shared enthusiasm in Europe and China. The fad is without basis in the object's ability to lift smoke or any other practical properties.
It was tried in the USA and found to be useless.
Italics are added for emphasis.
In explaining what they are for:
sarge wrote: Be that as it may, I can see the cab windows in all three shots which is the point of "lifters". What happens behind, above, below, or anywhere else is absolutely moot.
You are bobbling and weaving. Your statement above about the utility is incorrect. Period.
I'll say it again, and for the last time:
sarge wrote: I would not even be bothering with this if you had said you "doubted" their utility or "questioned" their application, all legitimate, but you presented this as a definitive statement of fact and yourself as knowing more than the likes of some of the finer locomotive design engineers in history based on what? Wikipedia, AI, and the writings of the "railfan experts"?
I have to admit I was leading you a bit as to where to look for some primary source info on deflectors and how they work, hints like pressure differential, exhaust design, and the stuff published by the NYCSHS. The article you found is one of several published in the society's journal, the Headlight, back when the NYCSHS was more oriented to the history and engineering technology and less to modelling and general "fandom". There is more material out there beyond the society, some published by Paul Kiefer, worth looking for.
The point of it all was to point out that Wikipedia and other tertiary references are not remotely reliable when attempting to be authoritative on a subject. There are folks on this thread who have vast quantities of knowledge about their railroad history and the history of steam loco design (Bob comes to mind) who clearly state, "I don't know." Going back to primary material is where you find the most reliable information; even secondary source material is a helluva lot safer. Recent train books a la Solomon, fora, and Wikipedia will trip you up every time.
Back to deflectors, in short many applications have had merit once they were worked through, and there are a number of variations; the BR version on 9f is inboard against the smokebox to create pressure differentials above rather than alongside like the NYC/UP styles best performing when placed on the outside of the running board. From primary source reviews, yes, the effectiveness varies as airflow over and around the smokebox varies, as temperatures vary winter and summer, as other atmospheric conditions might vary, and as locomotive condition might deteriorate, just a few variables. In the main, the ones worked through design by design improved crew visibility, which is their only purpose.
Again, my apologies for being as merciless and rude as I became.
No-one ever forgets where they buried the hatchet.
Re: Smoke Lifters
Well, I learned something from Wayne's last post, but back to the original question, why were so few of these used in the USA? Any definitive answer about that?
Re: Smoke Lifters
sarge wrote:I'm editing this as I really was far more merciless and rude than propriety calls for. For that, my apologies.
In the main, the ones worked through design by design improved crew visibility, which is their only purpose.
Again, my apologies for being as merciless and rude as I became.[/i]
Apology accepted, Sarge.
I did not need an apology because I ignored your rudeness and only listened to your helpful advice (for which I thank you again.)
Your apology may be important to others on this forum as I did get a letter from one person expressing concern about how I felt about it.
I assured him that I was fine with the way you presented useful information to me.
Regarding Wikipedia, I had not looked into Wikipedia until you suggested that it was where I got my information. After you mentioned it I looked and found nothing useful.
I have continued my research into "smoke deflectors" and found what you said about their only purpose. I will post my findings and sources later. What I found also answers sleepmac's initial question (the answer happens to be from UP itself.)
----Wayne----
Back when I was growing up, if you didn't start someth'n, there wouldn't be noth'n.
--Merle Haggard
Back when I was growing up, if you didn't start someth'n, there wouldn't be noth'n.
--Merle Haggard
Re: Smoke Lifters
Butch, regarding how few in the US, one could surmise:
1) They are a late application, and loco development after the late 1930s pretty much was restricted by WWII and curtailed with dieselisation in the US, far earlier than in, say, Europe. I'm not trusting to memory, but it might have been the Germans who actually started serious research and application on the subject, and that particular body of research probably wasn't available until after the war.
2) Success varied. Some railroads just didn't bother and those that did (NYC for example) found them effective enough only on select classes and applications. As an example, justifiable on L3, L4, and S on NYC, but not on Hudsons in like service.
3) Much like here, there was certainly debate as to how useful they actually were, and each company made their own decision as to whether they were worth the money to even pursue, given the general poverty of the railroads in the US then and the fact they were not public/government owned as in Europe. Given the tightness of funds and the fact steam was considered obsolete, one could believe there wasn't the interest or resources for such things.
Most of the material I had is now in the hands of the NYCSHS, but I remember a fair bit from Central's research people at Collinwood, from Purdue, and some from Alco, all a qualified yay. In the "ain't worth it" column was PRR Altoona research establishment and Baldwin. A good contemporary secondary resource will be Railway Age and other industry journals. I honestly don't remember if the Locomotive Cyclopedia ever had anything in it one way or the other.
I shall now be quiet and see what Wayne digs up, now that he's on it. Grin!
1) They are a late application, and loco development after the late 1930s pretty much was restricted by WWII and curtailed with dieselisation in the US, far earlier than in, say, Europe. I'm not trusting to memory, but it might have been the Germans who actually started serious research and application on the subject, and that particular body of research probably wasn't available until after the war.
2) Success varied. Some railroads just didn't bother and those that did (NYC for example) found them effective enough only on select classes and applications. As an example, justifiable on L3, L4, and S on NYC, but not on Hudsons in like service.
3) Much like here, there was certainly debate as to how useful they actually were, and each company made their own decision as to whether they were worth the money to even pursue, given the general poverty of the railroads in the US then and the fact they were not public/government owned as in Europe. Given the tightness of funds and the fact steam was considered obsolete, one could believe there wasn't the interest or resources for such things.
Most of the material I had is now in the hands of the NYCSHS, but I remember a fair bit from Central's research people at Collinwood, from Purdue, and some from Alco, all a qualified yay. In the "ain't worth it" column was PRR Altoona research establishment and Baldwin. A good contemporary secondary resource will be Railway Age and other industry journals. I honestly don't remember if the Locomotive Cyclopedia ever had anything in it one way or the other.
I shall now be quiet and see what Wayne digs up, now that he's on it. Grin!
No-one ever forgets where they buried the hatchet.
Return to “O-Gauge, 2-Rail, Model Railroading”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests