[neil_s_wood]

I have been wondering why a couple of tenders have a different construction, like on these two shown below, from the regular type. The South African one is referred to as a VanDerBilt Tender. They look like a water tanker with a coal bunker stuck on top. Does any one know any reason for this type of construction? Are there any benefits? Is it because more water is required?

 

[34C]

'Vanderbilt' is the generic name I recognise for a tender where the water tank is cylindrical. Wouldn't be surprised if there was an economic advantage over a cuboid form of water tank: simpler construction, weight saving, reduced maintenance, that sort of thing. Probably worth a Google.

 

[ME 26-06]

Iirc, these Vanderbilt tenders had been derived from actual tank cars. The intention behind these was, like the German "tub-type" tanks, to save weight on the tender construction itself which would be available for the ballast.

 

[Richard Johnson]

All previous comments are spot on - Economy, weight, structural strength etc etc...

Also important with the use of oil fired loco's as the gross weight of the oil per cubic meter/foot is much heavier than the equivalent in coal so the lighter Vanderbuilt tender construction + Weight of Oil is no heavier than conventional tender + coal.

I suspect maintenance was also pretty efficient - a cylinder is very stress resistant, so with the constant joggling around, no corners/edges to crack or stress then corrode & leak....

Richard

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 4 Sep 2007, 23:53) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>All previous comments are spot on - Economy, weight, structural strength etc etc...

Also important with the use of oil fired loco's as the gross weight of the oil per cubic meter/foot is much heavier than the equivalent in coal so the lighter Vanderbuilt tender construction + Weight of Oil is no heavier than conventional tender + coal.

I suspect maintenance was also pretty efficient - a cylinder is very stress resistant, so with the constant joggling around, no corners/edges to crack or stress then corrode & leak....

Richard
Given all these advantages, it does raise the question why they were not more popular and widespread?

 

[Richard Johnson]

You asked: "Given all these advantages, it does raise the question why they were not more popular and widespread?"

***Tradition, circumstances and timing I suggest:

Tradition:
For UK railways, length of tender was an issue and almost all designs were rigid wheelbase/without bogies. I suspect too that habit would have seen them shrouded anyway, as visual design was a big issue until post WW2

Circumstances:
A vanderbuillt needs more length than a square water tank tender and therefore its a big change to accommodate them - turntables, engine shed facilities etc....

also: Little use of Oil firing in UK other than during the period of unstable coal supply, so less need/benefit in adopting them

Timing:
I <think> they were a relatively late introduction as a design concept: In UK, tenders <Tender Chassis> always lasted much longer than loco's and reworked tenders were frequently fitted to new loco's. Perhaps there was enough of a pool of conventional tenders to make creation of a new design + all the attendant infrastructure change problems just not worthwhile.

Richard

 

[dwb]

QUOTE reworked tenders were frequently fitted to new loco's.
I have just been reading about the "Jubilees" and their tenders; it's like a game of musical chairs....

David

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 5 Sep 2007, 11:45) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>You asked: "Given all these advantages, it does raise the question why they were not more popular and widespread?"

***Tradition, circumstances and timing I suggest:

Tradition:
For UK railways, length of tender was an issue and almost all designs were rigid wheelbase/without bogies. I suspect too that habit would have seen them shrouded anyway, as visual design was a big issue until post WW2

Circumstances:
A vanderbuillt needs more length than a square water tank tender and therefore its a big change to accommodate them - turntables, engine shed facilities etc....

also: Little use of Oil firing in UK other than during the period of unstable coal supply, so less need/benefit in adopting them

Timing:
I <think> they were a relatively late introduction as a design concept: In UK, tenders <Tender Chassis> always lasted much longer than loco's and reworked tenders were frequently fitted to new loco's. Perhaps there was enough of a pool of conventional tenders to make creation of a new design + all the attendant infrastructure change problems just not worthwhile.

Richard
I would have thought that they could have been more prevalent in countries such as South Africa, Australia, where steam continued for longer. But I guess as you say, it's a big infrastructure change coming late in the day.

 

[10001]

QUOTE (neil_s_wood @ 5 Sep 2007, 22:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I would have thought that they could have been more prevalent in countries such as South Africa, Australia, where steam continued for longer. But I guess as you say, it's a big infrastructure change coming late in the day.

Vanderbuilt tenders may just have been built by Vanderbuilt !!!!!!!
He certainly was not a South African
Perhaps ( like tank wagons) a cylindrical shape was less liable to allow fluids to slosh about making wagons & tenders more
stable. They were not all that modern either .Most newer S,A & USA locos had square tenders.
Tony (10001)

 

[10001]

QUOTE (dwb @ 5 Sep 2007, 14:40) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I have just been reading about the "Jubilees" and their tenders; it's like a game of musical chairs....

David

Not quite sure where this thread came from but it reminded me that when our spotting gang ( all of us in short trousers ,at that time) first noticed a Jube with a "different " tender we were amused how ancient it looked.
It was of course a Fowler tender but we did not know that then. It was on 5586 Mysore so whenever we saw another such tender we refered to it as" my sore tender behind". Must have had something to do with all the caning we got.
10001

 

[10001]

QUOTE (10001 @ 8 Sep 2007, 08:42) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Vanderbuilt tenders may just have been built by Vanderbuilt !!!!!!!
He certainly was not a South African
Perhaps ( like tank wagons) a cylindrical shape was less liable to allow fluids to slosh about making wagons & tenders more
stable. They were not all that modern either .Most newer S,A & USA locos had square tenders.
Tony (10001)

Sorry about the mis-spelling above. I have been looking through my " Boys Own Golden Picture Book of Railways"and have found a bit more info on Vanderbilt tenders.
Cornelius Vanderbilt was granted a patent for a tender with a cylindrical tank on 31/5/1901 so they were not as modern as they look. Mr V was the great grandson of Commodore Vanderbilt who built up an emormous shipping, transport and railroad empire . He started by buying a boat to ferry goods about the Hudson River, eventually owning the largest schooner and earning the nickname "Commodore".He started his railroad empire by buying one line after another and these became the New York Central Railroad. In 1935 the NYC streamlined one of their 4-8-4 naming it "Commodore Vanderbilt"
Many American lines used the tender none more so than the Great Northern , and the Baltimore and Ohio ( on 2-8-8-2 Mallets) A giant 4-12-2 of the Union Pacific had one making it look even longer!
Other countries using them were South Africa, Canada,Norway and New Zealand . I could not find any Australian vdb.
Although Britain did not have any, quite a few were made there . North British made the S.A 2-8-4Class 24 (above picture )
and the N.Z 4-6-2 Ab class built in 1915 and the "steamlined" J class of 1939. Although streamlined they were built for N.Z
branch lines and rarely exceeded 50 mph!
I could not find any reference to them being used in arid regions- usually large tank wagons were coupled up the loco even the huge S.A Garretts.That leads me to a question - can any one tell me which Garrett loco ran with a Vanderbilt tender.

Tony (10001)

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (10001 @ 10 Sep 2007, 20:16) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I could not find any reference to them being used in arid regions- usually large tank wagons were coupled up the loco even the huge S.A Garretts.That leads me to a question - can any one tell me which Garrett loco ran with a Vanderbilt tender.

Tony (10001)

It's not this is it. I'm not sure if it's a Vanderbilt tender but kind of looks like it fronm this angle.

 

[10001]

QUOTE (neil_s_wood @ 11 Sep 2007, 05:37) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not this is it. I'm not sure if it's a Vanderbilt tender but kind of looks like it fronm this angle.

Hi Neil ,
I'm affraid that is not the one I have in mind. Yours was a model of a proposed loco only.
My question is a lot more devious than that .
Please try again.
Tony

 

[neil_s_wood]

I am guessing the clue's in the devious part.

Could you mean this?

SAR 19D & GMAM Garratt

 

[10001]

QUOTE (neil_s_wood @ 14 Sep 2007, 00:58) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I am guessing the clue's in the devious part.

Could you mean this?

SAR 19D & GMAM Garratt

Thanks for the link Neil The SAR 19D class certainly had a Vanderbilt tender but it was I think a 2-8-4 like the class 24 in your initial posting .
The video of the GMAM was great, but no , it is not the answer either. The vehicle immediately behind the loco is an auxiliary water tanker probably of 6750 gallons capacity.
Answer:-
NZR ordered 3 G class Garretts (4-6-2+2-6-4) from Peacocks in 1928 but unfortunately put too much input into their design and in service here were not successful:-
Too powerful for the draw gear on wagons etc ( TE 51580 lb)
Could not be put to full use anyway because passing loops were not long enough to hold their trains
The mechanical stokers could not cope with NZ coal
Gresley's conjugated valve gear gave problems
Not popular with the Union ( one crew two engines)
In 1937 they were scrapped . The 6 engines were retained on which 6 'G' class 4-6-2 locos were built in NZR Hillside workshops complete with Vanderbilt tenders . the rebuilt engines were not popular with their crews either and suffered from many shortcomings and were withdrawn in 1955-6.
The G Class Garretts were fine looking locos and were unusual in having the coal bunker on the boiler cradle behind the cab instead of the usual position on the rear engine.
I hope I havn't bored you.
Regards Tony(10001)

 

[pedromorgan]

QUOTE (10001 @ 13 Sep 2007, 09:14) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hi Neil ,
I'm affraid that is not the one I have in mind. Yours was a model of a proposed loco only.
My question is a lot more devious than that .
Please try again.
Tony

I dont think it was just proposed. i am 99.9% sure it was built and i have seen some very poor pictures of it. but also i am sure it was not NZ. i think it was an eastern country. it was a garrett built for high speed passenger work but proved unsucessfull.
I have a feeling it was romania or Czech or somehwere like that?

Peter

 

[Colombo]

Vanderbilt tenders are wasteful in using the space available in the cross section of the loading gauge and so the equivalent capacity tender would be longer than a conventional tender in the UK. But if you always turned on triangles or had huge turntables, this was not a problem.

In locations where there was lots of cheap land available, locos were often turned on triangles because they were easier to build and maintain than turntables. Land in the UK is costly, so there were mostly turntables and relatively few triangles: one at Doncaster MPD comes to mind. The area around the triangle was given over to allotment gardens. The first time I saw a Gresley pacific backing through the vegetable plots, I must say that I was very surprised to say the least. Sometimes a loco was turned at a nearby junction, for example I believe pacifics were sometimes turned at Seamer Junction outside Scarborough which was triangular at one time.

In British practise we usually turned steam locos on turntables. When a new steam loco was designed there was always pressure to avoid unneccessay expenditure: it had to be fit within the existing infrastructure in terms of loading gauge, axle loading and maintenance facilities. Tenders on large locos were therefore as efficient as possible in terms of length to avoid building an overlong loco that would require new turntables to be installed.

But sometimes there was a step change in loco design: The new LMS and LNER Pacifics introduced in the 1920s and 30s required new 70 foot turntables at each end of every route that they ran on, and also wherever they were scheduled to change engines.

It is correct that some Jubilees had the shorter Fowler tenders fitted because the routes they worked on had a servicing facility at the end with a turntabe too short for a Jube with a normal Stanier tender. The same applied to certain Gresley B17s with short GER tenders that ran on routes in East Anglia.

Colombo

 

[10001]

QUOTE (pedromorgan @ 17 Sep 2007, 12:18) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I dont think it was just proposed. i am 99.9% sure it was built and i have seen some very poor pictures of it. but also i am sure it was not NZ. i think it was an eastern country. it was a garrett built for high speed passenger work but proved unsucessfull.
I have a feeling it was romania or Czech or somehwere like that?

Peter

Hi Peter,
I'm affraid the green Garratt in Niel's post WAS only a model of a proposed New South Wales Government Railways loco.
You can some more details on page 2 of this forum just down from the top of the page under title ' NSWGR AC 38 4-6-4+4-6-4'.
I think the poor pictures you have seen may have been the Algerian semi-streamlined Garratt and in post No.5 there is a link where there is a picture of that loco. I find Garratt engines fascinating machines .Some years ago I had a footplate ride on a Rhodesia Railways 20 th class 4-8-2+2-8-4 an experience never to be forgotten
Regards Tony (10001)

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (10001 @ 17 Sep 2007, 19:34) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Thanks for the link Neil The SAR 19D class certainly had a Vanderbilt tender but it was I think a 2-8-4 like the class 24 in your initial posting .
The video of the GMAM was great, but no , it is not the answer either. The vehicle immediately behind the loco is an auxiliary water tanker probably of 6750 gallons capacity.
Answer:-
NZR ordered 3 G class Garretts (4-6-2+2-6-4) from Peacocks in 1928 but unfortunately put too much input into their design and in service here were not successful:-
Too powerful for the draw gear on wagons etc ( TE 51580 lb)
Could not be put to full use anyway because passing loops were not long enough to hold their trains
The mechanical stokers could not cope with NZ coal
Gresley's conjugated valve gear gave problems
Not popular with the Union ( one crew two engines)
In 1937 they were scrapped . The 6 engines were retained on which 6 'G' class 4-6-2 locos were built in NZR Hillside workshops complete with Vanderbilt tenders . the rebuilt engines were not popular with their crews either and suffered from many shortcomings and were withdrawn in 1955-6.
The G Class Garretts were fine looking locos and were unusual in having the coal bunker on the boiler cradle behind the cab instead of the usual position on the rear engine.
I hope I havn't bored you.
Regards Tony(10001)
Not at all Tony,

I thought you were being devious in the sense that the 19D with it's tender was in a consist with the GMA/M.

The Algerian stream lined Garratt is a beauty, would love to see a model of that.

 

[pedromorgan]

QUOTE (10001)Hi Peter,
I'm affraid the green Garratt in Niel's post WAS only a model of a proposed New South Wales Government Railways loco.
You can some more details on page 2 of this forum just down from the top of the page under title ' NSWGR AC 38 4-6-4+4-6-4'.
I think the poor pictures you have seen may have been the Algerian semi-streamlined Garratt and in post No.5 there is a link where there is a picture of that loco.

yep thats the one.

I came across some drawings when i was looking for stuff on the iraqi streamlined pacific. i think it was railway gazette.

Peter