Seeking examples of very small coaling towers

[narrowminded]

Uncanny how timely this thread is.   I was just considering starting a thread about a "small coaling tower" but was going to do some searches first.  Already answered some questions.  

On my last visit to Thurmond I took a LOT of photos of the concrete tower that's still standing.  That tower is much larger than I wanted to use but the gist of the whole structure and how it functioned became more clear.  It was the first I got a true sense of the hopper car dump and coal lift mechanisms.  And this thread has positively answered my concern about the smaller size I was hoping would be appropriate for my need.  This site is so cool!

[Chris333]

If looking for concrete. This one was right off the road I live on. B&O used EM-1's to run up to Fairport Harbor.

The tower was on the straight leg of this wye:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2045484,-80.7910408,281m/data=!3m1!1e3

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Any idea about the arduous task of filling that hoist bucket over and over to lift all that coal up into the tower?  How long did it take them to do this?

Dude, labor used to be CHEAP.
Remember, they used to pay guys to watch grade crossings on branch lines.

[Maletrain]

Dude, labor used to be CHEAP.
Remember, they used to pay guys to watch grade crossings on branch lines.

Branch lines?!  There are pictures in books of crossing watchmen holding their little stop signs on the B&O mainline crossings in Cumberland, as the most modern B&O steamers thundered by with loooooong trains.

But, also remember Tennessee Ernie Ford's song about loading "16 tons of #9 coal" in a day (and only getting "another day older and deeper in debt").  Ernie would have spent an entire day if he had to refill a tender for a modern Consolidation of Mikado.  And it would have taken twice that to fill the 32 ton modified tenders that B&O ran with auxiliary water tanks ("bottles") behind some of the Q-4 Mikes.  (Of course, railroads probably tried to not let the coal get too low in a tender, but there were apparently some references to running out of coal - maybe quite ancient references.)

So, there is a limit to how much physical work you can expect one or a few men to accomplish by turning a crank in a confined space.  It is probably more mechanically efficient than using a shovel, but it is harder work, too. If you have ever hoisted somebody up a sailboat mast using the halyard winch, you will understand what I am saying.  Remember Ernie was only lifting his coal high enough to get it into a mine cart, not nearly as high as the top of a coaling tower.

[JoeD]

LOL

Joe

[Maletrain]

OK, the engineer in me has busted loose, and I did some calcs for loading that coal bin. 
Guesstimating the lift distance from the picture, and assuming the bucket starts below grade to get filled with coal, I guess about 50’ of lift.  So, a single ton of coal being lifted 50’ needs 100,000 foot-pounds of energy (assuming a 100% efficient lifting mechanism).  One horsepower equals 550 foot-pounds per second.  So, that makes it something like 200 horsepower-seconds to lift each ton of coal, assuming a 91% efficient use of the applied energy.  Since a working man can put out only about 1/10 horsepower continuously, that becomes 2,000 manpower-seconds to lift a ton of coal.  So, a single man turning a crank on a highly efficient bucket lift system would need 33 minutes and 20 seconds for each ton.  Assuming an 8 hour work day, that is only 14.4 tons per day, assuming no breaks.  So, a one-man operation would maybe load one modern tender per day by this method.  Working day and night for 3 shifts per day would get maybe 3 tender loads per day.
And, that assumes a continuous belt of bucket going up and down at the same time.  This would be cut by more than half for a system with one bucket that needed to be lowered empty after each lift.
I just don’t see the railroads settling for this kind of labor when they are really all about engineering a way use mechanical power to move bulk goods efficiently.  It would be like the B&O giving men backpacks to get coal up Cranberry grade.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

So... back to pneumatic power as I mentioned before.

I still think the easiest and cheapest way would be to take a steam/air line from the idling engine and toss a few tons into the bunker after refueling.

I am also guessing there would be some sort of counterbalance to reduce the work load like in elevators.

[CNscale]

Fifty-Ton Single Track Coaling Stations -- Canadian Railway & Marine World 1921:  http://www.okthepk.ca/dataCprSiding/articles/201506/month00.htm

The article has a photo of a CPR tower in Guelph, Ontario, where CN also had a smallish tower.

[Maletrain]

I am also guessing there would be some sort of counterbalance to reduce the work load like in elevators.

The problem with a counter-balance is that you can't balance both the bucket+load going up and the empty bucket coming down.  If you balance the load going up, then you have to winch the counter balance weight back up to get the bucket to come down.  You have to pay for lifting the actual load in energy expended, one way or the other.

The more rational approach is the continuous loop with buckets going up on one side and down on the other.  That way, the buckets are counter balancing each other, and you  are only expending energy to lift the actual coal load (and to overcome the friction in the mechanical system).

[mmagliaro]

OK, the engineer in me has busted loose, and I did some calcs for loading that coal bin. 
Guesstimating the lift distance from the picture, and assuming the bucket starts below grade to get filled with coal, I guess about 50’ of lift.  So, a single ton of coal being lifted 50’ needs 100,000 foot-pounds of energy (assuming a 100% efficient lifting mechanism).  One horsepower equals 550 foot-pounds per second.  So, that makes it something like 200 horsepower-seconds to lift each ton of coal, assuming a 91% efficient use of the applied energy.  Since a working man can put out only about 1/10 horsepower continuously, that becomes 2,000 manpower-seconds to lift a ton of coal.  So, a single man turning a crank on a highly efficient bucket lift system would need 33 minutes and 20 seconds for each ton.  Assuming an 8 hour work day, that is only 14.4 tons per day, assuming no breaks.  So, a one-man operation would maybe load one modern tender per day by this method.  Working day and night for 3 shifts per day would get maybe 3 tender loads per day.
And, that assumes a continuous belt of bucket going up and down at the same time.  This would be cut by more than half for a system with one bucket that needed to be lowered empty after each lift.
I just don’t see the railroads settling for this kind of labor when they are really all about engineering a way use mechanical power to move bulk goods efficiently.  It would be like the B&O giving men backpacks to get coal up Cranberry grade.

I have to say, I tend to agree.  And let's consider what happens if you just put a 5 HP electric motor up in the top of that  hoist cavity.  It would only take about 40 seconds to hoist 1 ton of coal up there.  And of course, the motor can work all day without getting tired, stopping for lunch, etc.   So it could do 40 tons in 1/2 hour.  Allowing for the bucket to come back down between loads, and also considering we might want to gear down the motor to help it last longer, etc, etc, sure, it would take longer than this.  But you get the idea.  It would not take a lot of effort to motorize a tower like this and make it way more useful.  And it could be done without a separate building or a more complex steam driven motor.   A 5 HP electric motor and gearbox are certainly within the reach of the technology of the 1940s - 1950s.

[randgust]

I know that I've always been surprised by how little coal a smallish locomotive uses in relationship to water.   We've had 0-4-0t Viscose 6 in my neighborhood for years on excursions and Scott manages to run the thing on coal he loads in the firebox with a fireplace ash shovel because there's just no room in the cab and I've never seen him reload coal in that tiny little bunker.  But water?  He usually has a local volunteer fire company following him with a tanker truck as it has no superheaters and eats water like a sweaty lumberjack.

On my logging prototype, it was all handled manually, shoveled out of gondolas up on a wood deck, piled, and then ramped up with a wheelbarrow, val maps show 'coal dock'.  No coaling facilities other than that deck, and that was for a total of seven coal burners on the property; two 2-6-0's, three shays, a Heisler, and an 0-6-4t.

While darn near everything around here burned coal, there just weren't any minor coaling tower facilities.   None.   One big one on the PRR, but other than that, you'd be hard pressed to find much of anything anywhere.   Everyplace had water though.   

[PGE_Modeller]

Max,
The CPR had a number of small 40 Ton coaling towers throughout British Columbia and other parts of their "Western Lines".  Many years ago, I had access to the CPR drawings for the 40 Ton coaling tower and redrew them in HO scale.  However, the CPR is not my thing and I gave the drawings to a CPR modeller about 15 years ago - I am not sure I can remember who he was!
Cheers,

[mmagliaro]

Max,
The CPR had a number of small 40 Ton coaling towers throughout British Columbia and other parts of their "Western Lines".  Many years ago, I had access to the CPR drawings for the 40 Ton coaling tower and redrew them in HO scale.  However, the CPR is not my thing and I gave the drawings to a CPR modeller about 15 years ago - I am not sure I can remember who he was!
Cheers,

Ack!  So close yet so far!  Ha ha!  Well, if you remember where those drawings are, ping me. 

[mmagliaro]

Fifty-Ton Single Track Coaling Stations -- Canadian Railway & Marine World 1921:  http://www.okthepk.ca/dataCprSiding/articles/201506/month00.htm

The article has a photo of a CPR tower in Guelph, Ontario, where CN also had a smallish tower.

I finally got to investigate this... sorry!

GREAT drawing of the 50 ton tower!  And note this comment on the drawing:
"Where electric power is available, a motor is used for hoisting, and the motor and necessary machinery are housed in the roof of the structure, provision being made for stopping motor on either side of the coal car at track level."

Sounds like my "rationalization" problem is solved.  If there was any doubt about needing power to operate my hoist, I can now say there's an electric motor in the top.   It would make a nice detail for me to have some utility poles and a power line running up to the hoist, now that I think about this.

[nkalanaga]

"A 5 HP electric motor and gearbox are certainly within the reach of the technology of the 1940s - 1950s."

A 5 Hp motor is within the technology of the 1890s.  After all, they had electric streetcars before then.  The real limit was developing generators/alternators to power them.  From Wikipedia:

"The first commutator DC electric motor capable of turning machinery was invented by British scientist William Sturgeon in 1832. ... Several inventors followed Sturgeon in the development of DC motors, but all encountered the same battery cost issues."