The 1860s Camelback project

robsmorgan

Registered
Thought I should post this as a progress report for anyone with an interest in old US kit. I did post last October when I was looking for images to work from. Very happy to post details of the alterations I made if wanted... otherwise I can confirm that, although there is more to do including weathering, 'she' is now up and running.

I bought a tatty Bachmann Big Hauler from ebay for £50 (sorry about the picture quality but my screen grab software had gone bonkers so I just photographed the monitor......
9641898a0c70492382808bee50280e67.jpg


And this is how 'she' looks now..... hope you like her:nail:

090ec4e15353426a8fad235441f42bc3.jpg



Regards
Rob
 
its mind boggling! great conversion.. :thumbup:
 
What a fantastic looking loco great work Rob :thumbup:
 
kimbrit said:
Looking good that is, must have been a funny old beast to drive back in the day.
Agreed, it's an imposing model of what IMHO is a rather odd looking prototype.
As to the drivers (engineers) I read somewhere that the Camelbacks weren't that popular as the drivers were even more vulnerable than usual to injury or worse in the event of drive rod failure.
 
Looks great Rob. I wouldn't mind a few more pics having enjoyed your original posts on the subject:thumbup:
 
As robsmorgan was told, but probably forgot. These things were properly called 'Camels'. The only thing they really shared with the later 'Camelbacks' or 'Mother Hubbards' was the location of the cab. It's a common mistake, and mostly only early Baltimore & Ohio RR fans or Ross Winans and Samuel Hayes historians probably actually care. 8|

The original Winans 1848 design Camels were all 0-8-0s. (and came in several firebox lengths!)
WINANS5.JPG

WINANS4.JPG

Cameldrawing.jpg

The 4-6-0s were designed by B&O master mechanic Hayes as an adaptation of Winans' design in 1853. The 0-8-0 camels were used in freight service, while the 4-6-0s were primarily passenger locomotives.
ross-winans.jpg

If that wasn't bad enough, Winans' 'Centepede' 4-8-0 of 1855 (bottom) was also rebuilt as a 'Camel' in 1864 (top), giving us crazy model builders yet another wheel arrangement to contemplate!
800px-Centipede_4-8-0.jpg


The truly interesting thing is, even with their obvious flaws - crew discomfort, hampered communication, etc. These things were still running right up until the turn of the century. ..

And lastly, a vid of the freshly restored Hayes Camel being returned to the B&O Museum in Baltimore. This loco had carried #217 for many years, but was returned her original number during this resto. The paint scheme is period correct, but I can't vouch if it is original to these, or just a modified Baldwin scheme.... and I'm not sure who to ask.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=272MSlvUIpI

There seems to be 2 Hayes Camels remaining. One in Baltimore, one in St Louis. But none of Winans 0-8-0. Possibly because they were used harder.
 
Another great selection of pics Mik. What I'd like to know was how it was fired/stoked - it looks like there is a shute invoved in some pic - and what a job it must have been raking or riddling the grate!

PS - did crew comfort ever really get answered until IC or electric locos?
 
Morning all..... Thanks for the great comments and Mik for adding to my now substantial collection of pictures.
For those who haven't found this link to the Baltimore & Ohio RR Museum footage of the beast..... Camel or Camelback (sorry Mik didn't spot yo had already included this 'Camelback returning...' footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=272MSlvUIpI

As you guessed Greg she is battery & r/c controlled.:thumbup:

I added a Hunter smoke generator and inserted the double pulsed blower fan in the headlamp. Speaking of which that is an amber/yellow 3mm LED from Ross's Emporium with a short length of clear plastic tube pushed over the top to simulate an oil lamp.
1dd45f9deb944c8e99ae2bdd40fd8f5d.jpg


The stories/info I have read during the last few months says that the drivers were particularly susceptible to Civil War sniper fire as well as much too hot whilst the fireman, although 'protected' by a canopy, was subject to the effects of cold.

Carving up the original loco and tender was mostly by the SWAG method (scientific wild-ass guess)
This pic shows the bits I cut away (I made the sloping firebox top from some pine off cuts)

6f5c76dea56f41c69691ee4c9309017e.jpg


Having cut the tender into three pieces I removed the centre section to more closely match the prototye

cadf43c5689746459ff45afdc62fede1.jpg

of course I also needed to shorten the wheelbase to match.

Hoping to get the beasty 'steaming' soon and will add some footage to youtube

Thanks again
Rob
 
I found some camel info posted by a fellow named Bommer that 'splains a few things... maybe - or maybe he's fulla beans, but it sounds pretty good:
"B&O 305 at the museum in Baltimore is named a "camel." This was because the engineer essentially sat on top of the boiler, as though riding on a camel.
The term "camel back" refers instead to the hump-like projection the cab makes when straddeling the middle of a boiler. Here, the engineer sits on one side of the loco. "
"The old B&O camels were built with the cab on top of the boiler primarily to give the engineer the best possible view of the track ahead. That was far more important than one might think, given the kind of rail and roadbed back then. Also no signals - yet.
Both the Winans and Hayes camels were built to burn coal but wood could be used as well. The Winans and similar 'company' locos (i.e., B&O built since Winans at his leased shop also built locomotives for other railroads), were primarily for freight. The later built Hayes camels outshopped at Mount Clare by the B&O generally hauled passenger trains.
B&O used coal for its locomotive fuel of choice quite early, especially since it also carried that commodity. Early tests of steam locomotives when being developed in the 1830s often required that they be able to 'consume their own smoke.' It was recognized even then, that smoke was essentially unburned fuel and wasteful. To get around this, early builders in performing these tests often fired their locos with coke instead of coal. Result: practically no smoke at all even under a heavy load. But coke is not cheap 'every day' fuel! Wood as locomotive fuel was used as the cheapest available alternative during the mad railroad building rage of the mid-to-late 19th century. Still, coal was more efficient as fuel.
There were two types of fireboxes on some Winans camels. One was the "medium furnace" and the other was the "long furnace". Both had that unusual sloped-top firebox, intended to draw flames forward toward the boiler flues. The "long furnace" locos had a second firing door. It was set on top of a chute that could feed coal to the foward part of the grate. The fireman would put several shovels of coal down that chute, then with a fire rake working through end fire box door, spread the coal over the fire bed.
Firing either of the camels was tricky, since the deck was attached to the tender like an extended porch. It was not attached to the locomotive. Of course the top speed of a freight train back then was only about 10 mph. (25-30 MPH for passenger trains). For freight, 10 mph was considered to be the the most efficient speed, in consumption of water and fuel per mile. It remained so even into the 'heavy drag freight' years of the 1920s."

sketch of the original Winans' Camel of 1848-
uss1.jpg


So, from what I've gathered, the medium firebox Winan's engines had one chute, the long firebox version had two, and the short firebox and Hayes ones didn't have any. If you look closely at the sketch I posted last time, It also appears the longer firebox versions were fitted with some form of rocking grates. Another interesting point to note, over 55 or so years of service there are only 2 recorded boiler explosions of the Camel type engines.
Winans143.jpg


This page is filled with detail photos taken during #305s restoration, a lot of them robsmorgan may not have seen...
http://ogsphotography.smugmug.com/B.../4/1320766811_fBBhqbJ#!i=1320766132&k=rqmtxKB < Link To http://ogsphotography.smu...20766132&k=rqmtxKB

The B&O bought either 109 or 119 Camels (depending upon the source quoted!), and half of all locomotives Winans built, before an acrimonious difference of opinion between Hayes and Winans ended the relationship in 1856... The B&O DID eventually purchase 3 or 4 (again depending upon the source) left over Winans engines due to a desperate shortage of motive power in 1863-4! (seems a lot of locomotives had been appropriated by the Confederacy...)
What I find somewhat curious is Winans' Centipede was run on the B&O in 1855-56, but not purchased, and taken back by Winans after the split... but then was still available to be sold to the railroad in 1864..... But then Winans' shop was right beside the Mt Clair shops in Baltimore, so maybe it isn't?

And I found this a bit ago on Wiki... nice since it gives dimensions, and hints at the color scheme.
"The majority of the Winans engines were burden (freight) as opposed to passenger type. Engines delivered after June 1848 are almost all of the Camel 0-8-0 type, favored by Winans. The early models are sometimes referred to as the Baltimore engines. The Camel name derives from the first of class of that name, delivered to the B&O in 1848. All Camel engines were of the 0-8-0 wheel arrangement. Winans did not believe in the use of leading (pony) trucks.
The Camel engines were all low-speed, heavy haul units. The speed was limited to 10?15 miles per hour by the steam capacity of the boiler, and the lack of a pilot truck. However, at that speed, a single Camel could haul a 110 car train of loaded coal hoppers on the level. The most distinctive feature of the Camel was the cab atop the boiler. They had a large steam dome, slide valves, and used staybolts in the boiler. More than 100 iron tubes, each over 14 feet (4.3 m) long, were installed in the boiler.
A Camel was about 25 feet (7.6 m) long, with an 11-foot (3.4 m) wheelbase. There were three major variations: the short, medium, and long furnace models. The small units had 17" × 22" cylinders, and the others had 19" × 22" cylinders. The medium unit had about 23 square feet (2.1 m2) of grate area, expanded to more than 28 square feet (2.6 m2) in the large furnace model. The long furnace model had a firebox more than 8 feet (2.4 m) long, requiring lever-operated chutes for the fireman to feed the front of the fire. The fireman worked in the tender, as the firebox was behind the drivers. This design required that the drawbar passed beneath the firebox, and it typically heated to a cherry red color. Even after rebuilds with a more conventional cab design, the fireman worked in the tender. The standard Camel engine had 43" wheels, and was painted green.
Camel tenders were 8-wheeled, generally with brakes on the rear truck only. They held 5 tons of coal, and 81?2 tons (more than 2000 gallons) of water. Fully loaded, the tenders weighted 23 tons, only 4 tons less than the locomotive."

The Pennsylvania RR also had 6 Camels, which they rebuilt as 2-6-0s. bringing the wheel arrangements possibilities to 4
WinansCamelSenecaPRR.jpg


As for the PS, I don't think ergonomics was really studied until the early Superpower era.... people were just replaceable cogs... (a state of affairs we seem doomed to return to....)
 
robsmorgan said:
Camel or Camelback (sorry Mik didn't spot yo had already included this 'Camelback returning...' footage
Camel, camel, C-A-M-E-L....Just because the guy who posted the vid repeated the same old wrong info doesn't make it right... :impatient:
Also note, the guy who wrote the caption for "fig 170" I posted above says 1853 (built) to 1898 (scrapped) is 55 years... and even managed to get it published in a book - does that make it correct - and if so should every primary Mathematics teacher be fired?:rolf:
Other than that, you're doing a really splendid job on an all but forgotten prototype! :thumbup:
 
Nice details Mik (learned a great deal) many thanks, and I look forward to more of your project Rob:thumbup:
 
Camel, camel, C-A-M-E-L....Just because the guy who posted the vid repeated the same old wrong info doesn't make it right... :impatient:
Also note, the guy who wrote the caption for "fig 170" I posted above says 1853 (built) to 1898 (scrapped) is 55 years... and even managed to get it published in a book - does that make it correct - and if so should every primary Mathematics teacher be fired?:rolf:
Other than that, you're doing a really splendid job on an all but forgotten prototype! :thumbup:

Then I'm forgiven Mik ?:bigsmile::nail:
MIK!!!!! just looked at that link to the B&O restoration photos - where were you when I was looking for this....? I had to use that SWAG guesswork and the information was at your fingertips all the time :wits::clown:

p.s. I must remove the loco number disc on the front as these were not used in the early years :Looser:

Rob
 
robsmorgan said:
...Then I'm forgiven Mik ?:bigsmile::nail:
p.s. I must remove the loco number disc on the front as these were not used in the early years :Looser:

Rob
What's to forgive? I'm just twisting your tail a lil bit...

As for that page I only found it about 4 hours ago myself...

On the number plate subject... What year do you model? I'm sure they went through several rebuilds in 45 (or 55 if you must :- ) years.
Besides, you'd still have the 1900ish Baldwin style smokebox door, just now with a large hole innit. Winans smokebox fronts seem to look like a flat bit of sheet iron with a Frisbee or automobile wheelcover bolted to it
 
Mik said:
robsmorgan said:
...Then I'm forgiven Mik ?:bigsmile::nail:
p.s. I must remove the loco number disc on the front as these were not used in the early years :Looser:

Rob
What's to forgive? I'm just twisting your tail a lil bit...
As for the number plate... what year do you model? I'm sure they went through several rebuilds in 45 (or 55 if you must :- ) years.
Besides, you'd still have the 1900ish Baldwin style smokebox door, just now with a large hole innit.
Mostly between April 1st 1850 through April 1st 1870 and around 3 o'clock in the afternoon :rolf::rolf::rolf:

Rob:wave:
 
I really need to thank robsmorgan for making me rethink one of my current projects...

The Vauclain Compound is no more! Introducing the Mini-Camel
P2020009.jpg

In order not to derail his excellent build thread with my mangle, I'll just continue to post my build updates on the ugly duckling thread
http://www.gscalecentral.net/tm?high=&m=189987&mpage=1#192693 < Link To http://www.gscalecentral....987&mpage=1#192693
 
Possibly the last pics of the camel, now the tender looks more prototypical, before I actually run her..... much line clearing to do first.... and disguising the timber trackbed (sorry about that! ) - small consignment of mind-your-own-business due soon to replace the moss which has been decimated by blackbirds :impatient: :bigsmile:
b05846067ff64f28b9469c8c25adaf12.jpg


b4add9894ea8467b8106984182fb8f0a.jpg


Will post a link to any youtube footage a.s.a.p.
Thanks for all the generous comments

Rob
 
Back
Top Bottom