Cab forwards

I appreciate the info I received on a previous topic. Now I'd like to ask a question about "cab forward" locomotives. While I understand the concept, and the location of the driver's cab at the front end of the train, I don't fully understand where the fireman was situated in these, or exactly where the tender and firebox were located. If the firebox was behind the cab, then where was the fireman? Separated from the driver's compartment, between the tender and the firebox? Would he have access to the cab? The only information I can find pertains to the Southern Pacific design from the US, which I believe was an oil-burning locomotive. I am looking for more information on the coal-burning design more common to Europe. Thanks for any insight on this.

In the Southern Pacific cab-forwards, the locomotive ran firebox forward, so the cab (housing both engineer and fireman) was as usual at the firebox end. The tender was then coupled to the smokebox end of the locomotive: the arrangement of parts of the locomotive was thus like that on a conventional steam locomotive, but operating backward: hence one of the nick-names for the type "Back-up" locomotives. This arrangement was obviously only possible with liquid fuel: the SP had a small number of coal-fired 2-8-8-4 locomotives (for use outside the Sierra district with its tunnels and snowsheds), and they were set up in the standard way (smokebox at the front of the locomotive, firebox and cab at the rear, and tender behind the locomotive.

I'm not sure what European types you are referring to, though I think the Italian railways may have experimented with something arranged like a Southern Pacific cab forward. The European steam locomotives operated cab forward that I am familiar with were tank locomotives for short-distance service: cab was at the firebox end of the boiler, with the coal bunker on the other side of the cab from the boiler. (These locomotives were typically thought of as bi-directional, and would thus be operated part of the time with the coal bunker ahead of the cab and the boiler behind it, part of the time the other way around. The trick was that the coal bunker was small enough to allow good visibility over or around it when operated that end first.

There were a small number of American coal-fired locomotives with a similar configuration (coal bunker on the same rigid frame as the boiler, with the cab between the bunker and the firebox end of the boiler). The New York Central had a small number of 2-6-6 and 4-6-6 tank locomotives like this for suburban service. And I think the immense steam turbine electric locomotives built for the Chesapeake & Ohio and for the Norfolk & Western were also set up so the cab would be ahead of the boiler in normal frontward operation, with a coal bunker on a frame extension in front of the cab.

Thanks...very helpful info.

On a "camelback," with cab astride the boiler, the fireman was separated from the engineman. (I have often wondered how they communicated with each other.) Also, Bulleid's "Leader" in England had a separate, cramped compartment for the stoker (fireman) at, I believe, the opposite end from the driver, but that was an experimental, one-off locomotive.

R.C.L.--
Thank you for bringing in the Camelback or Mother Hubbard type: it raises some of the same questions that Udpert was wondering about with respect to cab forwards! ... I think the separation of the engineer from the fireman was recognized early on as a safety issue with Camelbacks, and that it was probably part of the reason the ICC banned the construction of further Camelbacks.
---
As for Bulleid's leader... it may have been a one-off in England, but after the nationalization of British Railways he moved to Ireland, where he designed a similar locomotive for C.I.E. (= Irish Railways), of which I think three were built. I don't know if the Irish version had the same separation between driver and fireman.

I seem to have misremembered. Only a single prototype of Bulleid's Irish design was built.
It was designed for bidirectional running, but the operating cabs were set back from the ends (one of the internet sources I found by Googling "Bulleid turf burner" compares the configuration to that of a Pennsylvania Railroad GG-1 electric), and the engineer and fireman could communicate. ... The boiler had two barrels with a central firebox, so the fireman's station was near the center of the locomotive, but on one side of the boiler: one of the operating difficulties was that, in one direction of operation, the engineer and fireman were on the same side of the locomotive, with the result that there was no one on the other side to look for signals!
---
The design had lots of weirdnesses. Fuel was kept in bunkers at the ends of the locomotive (peat was used, hence the name "turf burner") and apparently delivered to the central firebox by screw stokers that must have run under the boiler barrels! It was designed for mainline service at speeds up to 70 m.p.h., but after testing was apparently used only on local freights in the Dublin area, and it was retired a year or two after it was built.

I was aware of Bulleid's Irish "turf burner" but did not know how close its design resembled that of the "Leader" so I didn't mention it. You have provided some interesting information. There's a web site about Bulleid's locomotives here: http://www.bulleidlocos.org.uk/%28S%28y ... index.aspx .

Some of Ireland's narrow gauge "tram railways" required the driver (engineer) to be on the forward end of the locomotive, no matter which way it was facing. These were equipped with throttle and reversing lever on the smokebox end as well as in the cab, out in the open, with no shelter.

Many suburban commuter lines had single-frame tank engines that ran in both directions without turning. Central of New Jersey had 2-6-2 and 4-6-4 "suburban" tank engines in use, more or less being "cab forward" in reverse mode.

Likewise the Boston & Albany 2-6-6T and 4-6-4T and the CNR 4-6-4T. But with the tank still ahead of the cab when running "backwards" these could perhaps more properly be called "centercab" engines, couldn't they?

rlsteam wrote:Likewise the Boston & Albany 2-6-6T and 4-6-4T and the CNR 4-6-4T. But with the tank still ahead of the cab when running "backwards" these could perhaps more properly be called "centercab" engines, couldn't they?

Sure. Why not?