The C&EI took up with the Twelve-wheeler concept beginning with this class from Pittsburgh. Drury (1993) explains that the front truck (or bogie) offered more stability for road-freight service. All drivers were equalized together, says LE, and the rear equalizer engaged with a double elliptic spring. Moreover, the type often had bigger boilers. LE reported that the goal was to be able to move the same number of cars in winter as in summer. The Consolidations then in use were rated at 47 loads in the summer, but only 35 in the winter. Naturally, the new engines' performance was described as "more than equal to expectations."
Soon, however, the 2-8-0 grew into the tractive effort and steam-making size of the 4-8-0 and the somewhat ungainly wheel arrangement faded out of favor. All of this class were renumbered in 1911.
They were converted to 0-6-0 switchers beginning in 1916. This meant the deletion of half the axles under the boiler and Locobase is still searching for an illustration of the result. At the time, the engines renumbered together with the slightly later 141s in a jumbled order.
All were discarded and scrapped in July 1934.
Pittsburgh's second batch of Twelve-wheelers for the C & EI had 8 fewer boiler tubes for some reason (possibly more strength at the tube sheets?). Otherwise they were identical to the 12 that were delivered two years earlier (Locobase 7130) and were also converted to 0-6-0 switchers in 1916 (1718), 1923 (1720), and 1924 (1719, 1721).
This was the last in a series of five Twelve-wheelers (2028-2031) and was obviously an trial horse for compounding. Other than the unusual (for a US engine) 2-cylinder layout, this was a conventional locomotive and gave no hint of the camelback of the same arrangement and from the same builder that followed just a year later (see record #3932).
RG gives a confusing summary of heating surfaces in which they add 192 sq ft of firebox to 2,216.7 sq ft of tube heating surface and come up with 2,216.7 sq ft. Given that the later camelback had more and longer tubes, it seems likely that the stated tube heating surface is actually the total including firebox. Indeed, as the diagrams make clear, that was the case. The specifications show the slightly varied heating surface areas.
Clearly the Chicago & Eastern Illinois was searching for a heavy power formula. The preceding year had seen a two-cylinder compound on the same 4-8-0 arrangement -- see Locobase 3933.
RG discussed these large twelve-wheeler camelbacks, noting that unlike the eastern railroad engines with wide fireboxes, these locomotives burned bituminous run of mine coal. Compared to the earlier compound, they had a larger boilers with more and longer tubes. The C&EI calculated the tractive effort as 34,240 lb (15,531 kg).
|Specifications by Steve Llanso of Sweat House Media|
|Railroad||Chicago & Eastern Illinois (C&EI)||Chicago & Eastern Illinois (C&EI)||Chicago & Eastern Illinois (C&EI)||Chicago & Eastern Illinois (C&EI)|
|Number in Class||12||4||1||7|
|Locomotive Length and Weight|
|Ratio of driving wheelbase to overall engine wheebase||0.61||0.61||0.59||0.59|
|Overall Wheelbase (engine & tender)||53.58'||53.58'||54.50'||51.17'|
|Axle Loading (Maximum Weight per Axle)|
|Weight on Drivers||142000 lbs||142000 lbs||146960 lbs||150000 lbs|
|Engine Weight||172000 lbs||172000 lbs||185948 lbs||189700 lbs|
|Tender Light Weight||100000 lbs||100000 lbs||116800 lbs||98000 lbs|
|Total Engine and Tender Weight||272000 lbs||272000 lbs||302748 lbs||287700 lbs|
|Tender Water Capacity||4500 gals||4500 gals||5800 gals||4500 gals|
|Tender Fuel Capacity (oil/coal)||60 tons||60 tons||13 tons||10 tons|
|Minimum weight of rail (calculated)||59 lb/yard||59 lb/yard||61 lb/yard||63 lb/yard|
|Geometry Relating to Tractive Effort|
|Boiler Pressure||200 psi||200 psi||200 psi||200 psi|
|High Pressure Cylinders (dia x stroke)||21" x 26"||21" x 26"||21.5" x 30"||21.5" x 30"|
|Low Pressure Cylinders (dia x stroke)||33" x 30" (1)||33" x 30" (1)|
|Tractive Effort||36097 lbs||36097 lbs||30648 lbs||30648 lbs|
|Factor of Adhesion (Weight on Drivers/Tractive Effort)||3.93||3.93||4.80||4.89|
|Firebox Area||197 sq. ft||197 sq. ft||197 sq. ft||181.40 sq. ft|
|Grate Area||35.80 sq. ft||35.80 sq. ft||35.80 sq. ft||72 sq. ft|
|Evaporative Heating Surface||2299 sq. ft||2242 sq. ft||2241 sq. ft||2447 sq. ft|
|Combined Heating Surface||2299 sq. ft||2242 sq. ft||2241 sq. ft||2447 sq. ft|
|Evaporative Heating Surface/Cylinder Volume||220.57||215.10||355.55||388.23|
|Computations Relating to Power Output (More Information)|
|Robert LeMassena's Power Computation||7160||7160||7160||14400|
|Same as above plus superheater percentage||7160||7160||7160||14400|
|Same as above but substitute firebox area for grate area||39400||39400||39400||36280|