Accessing locomotive from passenger car?

I'm doing research for a project on steam locomotives, and I don't have extensive knowledge on the subject. I have a question. In a passenger train with a steam locomotive, was it possible to access the locomotive (the cab, etc) from the cars which carried the passengers, while the train was in motion? Would the answer be the same for cab-forward locomotives as well? Thanks.

Only engines I know for absolute sure that were setup to do this were LNER Pacifics such as the Flying Scotsman, Mallard and others of the A-3 and A-4 class. They were equiped with what was called corridor tenders so crews could be changed while underway on trains such the non-stop London to Edinburgh express trains. In photos you can see the door and passenger car type diaphram on the rear of the tender. Other photo is of the corridor in the tender itself.

Here is a diagram of a corridor tender. (pdf)

I know it was possible with the Hiawatha A-class locomotives. And while I don't have any proof at the moment, I'm almost positive that the Hiawatha F7's and streamlined NYC J3a's had them also. There might be others that I'm not aware of.

I always wondered something though -- wouldn't corridor tenders seriously hamper fuel capacity?

trainmaster611 wrote:Here is a diagram of a corridor tender. (pdf)

I know it was possible with the Hiawatha A-class locomotives. And while I don't have any proof at the moment, I'm almost positive that the Hiawatha F7's and streamlined NYC J3a's had them also. There might be others that I'm not aware of.

I always wondered something though -- wouldn't corridor tenders seriously hamper fuel capacity?

I would suspect that the F7s did not have that capability, actually. The A-class were oil burners and (according to your picture) had two tanks separated by the corridor, while the F7s were coal-burners and were filled through high-speed coal chutes from the top. It's doubtful that a center corridor would have withstood repeated shock of 50,000 lbs of coal being dumped on it, at nearly a ton per second. I can't say about the J3as - don't know a thing about them.

Interesting thoughts...thank you.

mtuandrew wrote:

trainmaster611 wrote:Here is a diagram of a corridor tender. (pdf)

I know it was possible with the Hiawatha A-class locomotives. And while I don't have any proof at the moment, I'm almost positive that the Hiawatha F7's and streamlined NYC J3a's had them also. There might be others that I'm not aware of.

I always wondered something though -- wouldn't corridor tenders seriously hamper fuel capacity?

I would suspect that the F7s did not have that capability, actually. The A-class were oil burners and (according to your picture) had two tanks separated by the corridor, while the F7s were coal-burners and were filled through high-speed coal chutes from the top. It's doubtful that a center corridor would have withstood repeated shock of 50,000 lbs of coal being dumped on it, at nearly a ton per second. I can't say about the J3as - don't know a thing about them.

Yeah but didn't the LNER locos have coal tenders also?

I found a picture of the rear side of the tender of a model of an F7. It's always possible that the model could be inaccurate so I'm still searching for a picture of the locomotive.

It took forever to find this but it turns out that there was a vestibule on the tender but it was just a dummy.

Scroll down to where it says Page 235.

I don't think the diaphragm on the tender was so much as dummy as an air break (not brake). Vaccum formed in between cars ar high speed is no little amount of drag,perhaps the thought of a diaphram was intended to help reduce this effect somewhat.

Unlikely that any NYC J3s (or other engines, for that matter) had access through the tenders. The J3 tenders were often swapped; for example, the original 12-wheel tenders were swapped for the 4-10-0 PT (pedestal type, or centipede) tenders, and sometimes an engine went through several tenders during its career (e.g. I have seen a photo of a streamlined J3 with a non-streamlined PT tender, which would have been at least its third tender). I have never seen a photo or film of an NYC tender from the rear showing any kind of doorway. Although a limited like the 20th Century had few stops for passengers between Chicago and New York, and could take on water from track pans, the train must have at least stopped at division points for crew change.