# Old Mother Hubbard



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Camelback, or an elephant with a howdah (thanks, Mikey)? Unless you've lived someplace near the anthracite region, you may have never heard of such a weird animal. They were built in almost every wheel arrangement from 0-4-0s to giant Mallets


The theory was simple, anthracite coal needed a LOT of grate area to burn well. Since it's kind of hard to move the firebox, move the engineer.In practice, a broken rod meant the engineer was a bloody smear through what was left of the cab.








































































Just something different to look at on a cold snowy day


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Mik- 

Somewhere on the interwebs is a builder's pic of a narrow gauge one. Popped up on one of the forums a while back.


----------



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

Cool pics, Mik! It's funny, I was just reading about those locos just a couple days ago. Apparently they were designed to burn the waste coal left over from anthracite mining. 

I've never seen an articulated Camelback before. 

I've always wondered if there ever actually was a broken rod incident with one of those engines, or if it was just something they were worried _might_ happen? How common were broken rods on steam locos?


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Never seen anything like those. Great photos.


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

The READING RAILROAD (pronounced "redding") had lots of these, many built in their own shops, some of the largest in the industries. If you think the Reading was just some little short line railroad.. think again, in 1871 they were the "Wealthiest Corporation in the WORLD" They raced those camel backs from Philadelphia to Atlantic City reaching speeds of almost 100 mph. ( note for you book lovers, there is some great local (NE US) history as well as international involvement. in "The Reading Railroad : History of a coal age empire. It is 2 volumes, by James L Holton.


----------



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

Our local multiplex was bought out by the last vestige of the railroad, Reading International, a couple years ago and is now a Reading Cinema. Their logo features railroad tracks morphing into a strip of film.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Ray Dunakin on 04 Jan 2010 06:48 PM 

I've always wondered if there ever actually was a broken rod incident with one of those engines, or if it was just something they were worried _might_ happen? How common were broken rods on steam locos? 

UNDER FAST ENGINE TO SAVE HIS TRAIN; Wheel Rods Broken and Engineer Crushed, Fireman Risks Life to Disconnect Airbrakes. HOLDS ON WITH TORN HANDS Jersey Central Passengers Unconscious of Peril -- Promotion for Peck Woolley -- Death for Engineer De Groff.
NY Times, April 30 1909

If you lay your hands on the book "Train Wrecks" by Robert Reed, there are about half a dozen pictures of Mother Hubbards with shredded cabs. (I can't find mine at the moment)









Answer your question? Contrary to popular belief, however, they were never actually "outlawed", the Interstate Commerce Commission only banned further construction of Camelbacks in 1918. Those already in service continued to run right up until nearly the end of steam. The last revenue run of a Mother Hubbard locomotive on a common carrier was an excursion pulled by Central of New Jersey's 4-6-0 #774 from Jersey City to Jim Thorpe, PA and back on September 24, 1955 (I'm purposely not counting the #4 at Strasburg)


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)




----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

The Central of New Jersey (Jersey Central) also ran quite a few camelbacks back in the day.


----------



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

Interesting article! Thanks Mik.


----------



## Bill C. (Jan 2, 2008)

The Central Railroad of New Jersey "Farewell to Steam" excursion to Bridgeton, New Jersey in April 1955, as photographed in the yard along the Cohansey River by my friend Bob Long.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Seen lots of pics of these locos but never in real life. I believe one could be had in HO. later RJD


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

There was a guy on this forum a couple of months ago that was custom making them to sell, but i dont know what happened to him. Also these loco's were called WIDOW MAKERS..


----------



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

Anyone know if there are any camelbacks still in existence?


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

There are just 3.

Ex Reading 0-4-0 #1187 (Ex Strasburg #4) at the RR Museum of Pa in Strasburg. 










Ex Lackawanna 4-4-0 #952 (ex steamtown collection) at the National Transportation Museum in St Louis










Ex CNJ 4-4-2 #592 at the B&O museum in Baltimore






Please note, pretty much the only thing that 'camelbacks' have in common with the original Winans 'Camels' from the 1850's (beyond being steam locomotives) is the location of the cab.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 04 Jan 2010 09:01 PM 










Not the one I was thinking of, but cool enough Vic!

Any history of this gem known?

Me? Would love it if Piko were to give us a "Gummi" scale "Glaskasten" in their large scale line:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayerische_PtL_2/2

Yes, Marklin did one in I/1:32, but that makes it a bit small for my interest.


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

I see someone doesn't like to play nice with "their" photos. Funny thing is he's not old enough to have taken the photos. Too bad, but you can go to his web site and look at more camelbacks, there are several under the "Atlantic" section.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Since my purpose was only educational, and I made no claims to ownership, it clearly fell under 'fair use'. If the guy wants to be a jerk, so be it. The 'additional bandwidth' MIGHT cost him a whole $5/quarter or $16/year (If he uses the same business hosting as I did) -- The bad press from his notice, and bad attitude will end up costing him that much LOST in one SALE. -- That's his choice. I won't buy ANYTHING from him now, and I'm being polite about it.. They're OK photos, clear, but not really anything very 'artistic'. They are also not the only ones available on the net, and his subjects are on public display. I'm going to stop now before I run out of polite.

Some of these might work instead.CNJ #592to go with the below text










Winans camel picture to go with the text below


----------



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

Cool pics, thanks! 

I don't understand this nonsense about "bandwidth theft". What difference does it make whether someone sees the photo on the original website or via a hotlink on a forum? And how does it "cost" anyone anything? I have a website, I pay a flat fee per year. And I post photos on my site for people to SEE them, regardless of whether they see them here or on my site.


----------



## bvdrr (Jan 3, 2008)

If I remember correctly somebody had one at Marty's Thingy a couple of years ago, Bubba or Sean maybe?Maybe someone has a photo of it?
Fred


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Hotlinking is a legit concern.. 
it really is "bandwidth theft" 
and it really can cost people real money.. 

the "difference" between viewing the photos on that guys site, or viewing them here in this thread, 
is that EVERY time someone opens this thread, that guys photos are "hotlinked" into this thread.. 
his bandwidth is used every time this thread is opened..
even if you have already read this thread, are just reading new replies, and dont even look at his pics..
the photos still load EVERY time.. 
multiply that by many threads, many popular forums, and you are talking many many thousands of "loads"..
each one costing that guy a few fractions of a cent..
even if its a small amount of money for each individual "load", it can really add up over time, just from hotlinking.


But if just a link is provided to the photos, people can click on the link, once, to see the photo, 
but then the photo is not loaded every single time you visit this thread in the future.. 

Its a big deal to some people, and it can cost real money.. 

Also, people make webpages so that people will look at their actual page..not just photos on their server..
small business make money off their webpage by having people go to their page itself..
not just looking at one photo on a forum somewhere..
ideally you should provide to a link to the page the photo is on, not just a link to the photo itself.

Lets say tou had a small business..making and selling G-gauge wheelsets..you have some nice photos,
you pay for your own hosting and bandwidth..
you would be against hotlinking then! 

IMO its actually more impolite to hotlink, than it is to make those "warning! bandwidth theif!" images.. 
the person doing the hotlinking is the person in the wrong..no question about it. 

this has been discussed many times here before..its just wrong to do it, period. 
if you dont own the photo, and its not hosted on a server you pay for yourself, you should only provide a link.. 

some more reading: 

http://altlab.com/hotlinking.html

small webpage hosts can be forced "out of business" because of hotlinking: 

http://www.autumnweb.com/Roxys/directlinking.html

Its not the images themselves that are in question..its just who is paying to host them.. 

its a grey-area when it comes to old photos as to who can claim to "own" them..but that isnt the issue here..
in this case, even though that guy might not "own" the images, he does have the right to protect his own bandwidth and prevent hotlinking.. 
his "replacement" images are totally within his rights..he is saving himself money by doing that.. 

Scot


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

i know and agree, that the guy is legally right. 
but he is not saving money, by replacing the pics by his anouncement. 
everytime someone is opening this thread, his anouncements are loaded and cost him bandwidth...


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 08 Jan 2010 08:46 AM 
i know and agree, that the guy is legally right. 
but he is not saving money, by replacing the pics by his anouncement. 
everytime someone is opening this thread, his anouncements are loaded and cost him bandwidth... 




It *will* work..and it does work..
because I bet those photos will be removed soon! 
they wont be here forever..
while if that guy had *not* made those graphics, the photos would stay hotlinked here..

so yeah, it might seem "rude"..but it works..those images will likely be removed from this thread.

Scot


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I've been thinking for a while about modeling one of those camelbacks. The Reading went through my hometown, and I grew up riding it into Reading terminal in Philly.

But to be honest, I think of what it must have been like to work on one of those and I kind of balk at it. Engineer stuck next to the boiler, in mortal danger from a broken rod. Can't talk to the fireman or even see him. Fireman perched uncomfortably under a half-roof at the back. It just looks like a nasty way to work--lonely, boring, uncomfortable. Every time I ran the thing I'd think of that. 


The Reading later switched to conventional rear-cab locomtives with a wooten firebox--that'd be fun to do. They have a really cool look.











Regarding hot linking, I've got little patience for the objections to it, but then, I'm old enough to have been a pioneer, back in the early 90s, in the use of the internet in my profession. The web was founded on the idea of free exchnage of info, my feeling is if you don't want to share it, don't post it. Others will disagree and of course the trend is towarsd more tighly controlled content.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

That Reading 1187 camelback is stripped down behind the Strasburg Railroad shops. They have announced plans "as funds and time are available" to restore it to operating condition. Being an 0-4-0 goat switcher, I suspect it would be used on a very limited basis. The report I have read of its use on the Strasburg in the 1960s was it wasn't big enough to handle the half hour trains. I'd estimate that the cost to restore that locomotive to operation would be somewhere between $1 and $2 million, but closer to the latter. But then again, we're not talking about a quick shopping, either.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 08 Jan 2010 09:21 AM 



Regarding hot linking, I've got little patience for the objections to it, but then, I'm old enough to have been a pioneer, back in the early 90s, in the use of the internet in my profession. The web was founded on the idea of free exchnage of info, my feeling is if you don't want to share it, don't post it. Others will disagree and of course the trend is towarsd more tighly controlled content.





Thats easy to say when you arent the one paying for it..
I've got little patience for people who justify and defend wrong actions, especially when they know for a fact its wrong.
but of course the trend is toward that kind of behavior.

Scot


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

The "bandwidth theft" argument stems from this scenario:

I pay a webservice provider X amount of dollars to host my website. The web service provider says "for x dollars," you can have this much traffic." I post pictures to my website. People come to my site and look at the pictures. Then they link to them on other sites which are more heavily trafficed. So the bandwidth is exceeded. The guy is pissed because the 3000 people or whatever who look at his picture here are using up his bandwidth without having to come to his site. If the 3000 people came directly to his site, and looked at the image on his web page, he would have _exactly the same problem_. The "bandwidth theft" argument is absurd. If I posted a link saying "hey, check this picture out" and posted the link to his webpage, and the same number of people went and looked, he'd have EXACTLY the same "bandwidth" problem. 


Think of it this way--If I posted a link to his webpage, and 3000 people went and looked, and the bandwidth provider charged him more because he was getting a lot of visits, would I be "stealing bandwidth?" Absolutley not. He would be in the position of having a popular page, and would have to either pay for more bandwidth to restrict access to his page. The Hotlink warning is an attempt to restrict access. 



It's a bit of a fraud, in my opinion, and it stems from the old dial up modem days. Bandwidth and storage space are cheap. It's not about bandwidth, it's about trying to control eyeballs. The guy wants the stuff he posted to be proprietary, and he's using the "bandwidth theft" claim. He should either stop trying to force people to his site, or he should get a new internet service provider. if you think this is some kind of widespread moral problem, ask yourself this--when was the last time you saw a notice like that? Or was this the first? 




If you want an easy way around it, go to the guy's site, copy the picture with a screen capture utility, save it as a j-peg, and post it here. Unless he's claimed copyright and tried to limit acess in that way, it's completely legit to do so. If he's trying to clam ownership, he's on very shaky ground if the image is older than 1928, unless he created it. I'm going to go to his site and see what his claim is.



Ok, I just did. he posted this: "All of the text contained within this page and all of the photographs and videos taken by ToyTrains1 are copyright (c) 2000 - 2009 by ToyTrains1, and may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without the written consent of ToyTrains1." So I would not copy one of his images and repost it. 



It's not about "bandwidth theft," it's about the guy wanting to assert ownership of the images. He's got a picture of himself standing in front of a Big Boy at Steamtown. He wants you to know that he owns that image and you may not reproduce it. So I would not hotlink to it for THAT reason, not because hotlinking constitutes "bandwidth theft."


Scotty, one of the links you posted says this: "A simple analogy for bandwidth theft: Imagine a random stranger plugging into your electrical outlets, using your electricity without your consent, and you paying for it." But that's not a good analogy at all. A better analogy would be if I set up a bank of electric outlets for the use of the general public, then got mad because someone ran an extension cord from one of my outlets into his house. Putting something on the web is not the same as hanging somethign in your living room.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 08 Jan 2010 10:33 AM 
The "bandwidth theft" argument stems from this scenario:

I pay a webservice provider X amount of dollars to host my website. The web service provider says "for x dollars," you can have this much traffic." I post pictures to my website.poepl come to my site and look at the pictures. Then they link to them on other siotes which are more heavily trafficed. So the bandwidth is exceeded. The guy is pissed because the 3000 people or whatever who look at his picture here are using up his bandwidth without having to come to his site. If the 3000 people came directly to his site, and looked at the image on his web page, he would have exactly the same problem. The "bandwidth theft" argument is absurd. If I posted a link saying "he, check this picture out" and posted the link to his webpage, and the same number of people went and looked, he'd have EXACTLY the same "bandwidth" problem. 











Lownote,
your analogy is correct..but incomplete.
the problem here is that 3,000 people are NOT going to his website..but 3,000 people are looking at his photos, because they have been hotlinked.
you are correct that he would still exceed bandwidth if 3,000 people went directly to his page..but thats not how it works..

Hotlinking makes people exceed their bandwidth when they would NOT exceed their bandwidth under normal circumstances, if people were not hotlinking.
thats the problem..

Lets try another analogy. this one is used a lot:

You have a small home-based office, you sell trinkets on ebay.
you have budgeted $100 a month for your home office electricity use.
if you use more electricity, your business will not be profitable, and you will need to shut it down.

Your elecricity bill is $120 dollars..weird..

Your next door neighbor has run an extension cord under the snow, sneaks it into your basement window, and powers some of his stuff with your electricity.
you discover it and confront your neighbor..you are mad.
your neighbor says "hey man..whats the big deal? it only costs you like $20 a month..so what! you can afford that! get over it!"

You think your neighbor is wrong because he literally stole your electricty, and forced you to pay for it.
your neighbor thinks YOU are wrong because you "made a big deal out of it"..

who is *actually* wrong??

Its an imperfect analogy, because many times people hotlink out of honest ignorance..they honesty dont know its wrong..
but if they DO know its wrong, and they still do it anyway, then its a good analogy..
the hotlinker is the neighbor who says "hey man..no big deal.."

Scot


----------



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

Not to get too far off the topic, but I still don't see how the guy is losing money. As I said before, I pay a flat fee for my website and have tons of bandwidth. I don't get charged per view or anything like that. If this guy is having to pay for each viewer/link, than maybe he needs to switch to a better webhosting service. 

My guess is, he probably has ads on his site, and considers the loss of "eyeballs" to be a loss of ad revenue. But that has nothing to do with bandwidth.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Well Scot we will probably just end up respectfully disagreeing here, and I stress the respect part. I don't think a website is like a house. The web was specifically designed to share content freely. "Hotlinking" is built into HTML at the most basic level. The ability to put a URL in an "a href" tag is fundamental to the way the web was designed to work. it's not like a book, or a house or a shop. So using a house as an analogy is off, to me. A house is not a public space; a store is not a public space. A website, unless it's gated, is a public space--anyone can look, any time, for as long or as often as they like. 


If I put a bank of outlets out front of my house, and said "anyone may come and use this bank of outlets any time," I could not reasonably be angry if a guy ran an extension cord from my bank of outlets into his house. I could put restrictions on the use of the bank of outlets--I could say "you can use this, but no extension cords," but then would be upset if the guy plugged in an electric heater right there? Maybe, but I made a public resource--I entered into public space when I put the outlets up, and this guy made it public when he put it on the web: he made it a public resource. I don't think someone who hotlinks can be accused of theft. I think he can ask people not to do it, and they can comply, but if they don't then he needs to gate his site and restrict access.




I think Ray is right that the guy needs a new ISP, and that this is about controlling eyeballs, not theft.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

MY TAKE, 1. If you post something on the internet, then you should EXPECT that people will look at it. 2. Fair use of copyrighted material means that it CAN be used by someone else under certain circumstances, INCLUDING for instructional purposes. 3. Downloading and re-uploading something comes closer to the definition of 'theft' than hotlinking, where it is obvious that you're using someone else's material (hopefully in a 'fair use' manner). 4. If you DON'T want people to look at, or maybe share your stuff (again, in a fair use manner, INCLUDING "Hey, Man! Lookee at this! Ain't this cool?" on a web board) THEN SIMPLY DON'T POST IT!!!! 5. If you are that close to the margin that the $5 or $20 in extra bandwidth is actually going to break you. Then it's probably time to consider getting a real job. 


Maybe I should have driven to St. Louis, Strasburg and Baltimore (in the snow) to take my own pictures to just to answer the question. Maybe I should have written the guy first, and waited a week or two for a response. Or maybe, just maybe HIS action was over the top.... considering how much 2 photos viewed maybe 150 or 200 times total actually consumed of his precious bandwidth. Fine, I won't link to his pictures anymore, but won't be purchasing a single item he sells, EVER, either. So did he win or lose?


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Arrghe double post! The connection hiccupped... maybe I should post a nasty message about copying my posts? Even to reply to them.... and especially of a double post the same drivel without my consent?


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

fine.. 
people can delibrately not get the point.. 
you are still wrong, no matter how you try to justify it.. 

if you steal just 25 cents from your neighbor, its still theft.. 
I guess my Dad shouldnt have explained to me why taking a friends matchbox car was "wrong" when I was 2 years old.. 
no big deal right? everybody does it..if a crime is small enough, its not really a crime.. 

next time someone dents your fender in the parking lot, and doesnt leave a note, you wont be mad, because its just a "little" thing.. 
doesnt really hurt anyone.. 

I have explained it fully.. 
if you choose to "not get it" because it makes you look bad..so be it.. 
nothing I can do about that.. 

Scot


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

So anyway,, 
getting back to Camelbacks.. 
I LOVE the Erie 0-8-8-0 camelbacks! 
there were only 3 of them, largest camelbacks ever built, 
(and largest locomotives in the world..in 1901) 
The only articulated camelbacks ever built, and the only Mallet Camelbacks ever built! 
I would love to build a model of one someday: 










Another future desired modeling project, Lehigh Valley 4-4-2 Atlantic: 

http://gold.mylargescale.com/scotty...index.html

Scot


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I get the point--it's just wrong. Hotlinking is not theft. It's part of what HTML and the internet were designed to do. 

If you put an image up, you make it publicly available. Unless you gate it in some way, you made it available. You could password protect it, you could embed it in a flash move, so it can't be "hotlinked." But otherwise, and image on the net is publically available. It's not theft. 

I'll try again. Say I build a water trough in a public square. That's the same as making a website. I tell people here's my trough, come and use it. The city charges me for the water use. If someone runs a pump to my trough, and uses the water to, say, irrigate his garden or fill his kid's swimming pool, I can't really say that I've been robbed, _because I made the thing publicly available_. That guy with a pump might be a jerk, but I have options--I can take the trough down. I can build a gate around it. But I can't freely choose to pay to make something public, and then, when people use the medium _as it was DESIGNED to be used,_ cry theft. The guy chose to put it the images up, in a public space, not in a private space. 


If the images are copyrighted, and the guy is legitimately asserting copyright, that's another story.


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

I see the post in question has now been deleted but while it was up HE was getting FREE advertising on our MLS band width !


----------



## IllinoisCentral (Jan 2, 2008)

I was just thinking...on every camelback I've seen a photo of, there is always a "full" cab on top of the boiler, implying a spot for not only the engineer, but also the fireman. But, if the fireman is in the rear tending the fire, then what's the point of the fireman's side of the cab on the boiler? It seems too dangerous, if not impossible (on some locomotives) for the fireman to move between the two cabs while the train was moving. Does anyone know?


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By IllinoisCentral on 08 Jan 2010 02:09 PM 
I was just thinking...on every camelback I've seen a photo of, there is always a "full" cab on top of the boiler, implying a spot for not only the engineer, but also the fireman. But, if the fireman is in the rear tending the fire, then what's the point of the fireman's side of the cab on the boiler? It seems too dangerous, if not impossible (on some locomotives) for the fireman to move between the two cabs while the train was moving. Does anyone know? 



hmmm..interesting point! 
I never thought of that..

it was probably just easier to make a "full" cab, rather than design some kind of more complicted "half-cab"..
plus a half-cab would throw off the balance, making one side of the loco heavier..
plus a full cab looks better, aesthetically,,(although camelbacks were seldom known for their good looks!  but still..)

it was probably just a practical consideration to build the full cab..
but Im just guessing..

Scot


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

That Erie camelback is a pretty stunning piece of work!


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

Scott;

Don't know about the other Anthracite roads, but on the Reading that side of the cab was occupied by the front brakeman. Had one brakie tell me that his head knocked the cab window out when the RDG camelback 4-6-0 he was riding slammed into a curve at 80 mph. Those old girls were ugly, but they were not slow!

Hope this helps,
David Meashey


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 08 Jan 2010 01:22 PM 
I get the point--it's just wrong. Hotlinking is not theft. It's part of what HTML and the internet were designed to do. 

If you put an image up, you make it publicly available. 


This is the question I have. Say you go to http://www.images.google.de/

You type in, let's say "franzburger kreisbahn" click Suche....

The first three pix are from the German "Drehscheibe" forum.

Or are they?

They appear to be imageshack hosted photos.....

So is Google hotlinking from Drescheibe, or the imageshack host?

So when you click on the FKB thread on that forum, imageshack gets the "hit".

But which site gets the "traffic" from Google images?

If the photos get on Google Images, somehow they have been identified by the search terms?

So if the photo is linked into a thread via a Google search, and then linked to another thread, who is paying for the bandwidth, or the "guilty" party?

Now....

I had always suspected that the following example of hotlinking, not the above:

Click here:

http://www.trainworld.com/2008%20piko%20g%20scale.htm

Then select 62008....and click. Note the image address.

Interesting???


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 08 Jan 2010 02:23 PM 

I never thought of that..

it was probably just easier to make a "full" cab, rather than design some kind of more complicted "half-cab"..
plus a half-cab would throw off the balance, making one side of the loco heavier..
plus a full cab looks better, aesthetically,,(although camelbacks were seldom known for their good looks!  but still..)

it was probably just a practical consideration to build the full cab..
but Im just guessing..

Scot 



Would the question not be answered in a full set of plans? Someone with a full collection of MR or RMC may be able to answer this. Just look and see what was on that side.

Could have a practical use, or could be like port holes on a Buick.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

This is my absolute LAST post on the bandwidth/hotlink question. A buddy of mine works for an ISP in Cali, he did a quick search. The guy's site is hosted with *Lunarpages*
Their basic hosting includes unlimited bandwidth 

see: http://www.lunarpages.com/basic-hosting/


Sooooo, if the bandwidth in question cost him NOTHING, JACK, NADA, ZIP, but he still has his panties in a bunch about it. Then?

OTOH, if he's still using their "starter service" then he might have a point --- EXCEPT, the $2/month he's "saving" on hosting" he's actually paying out in other fees. PLUS, he can get cheaper packages for that kind of hosting elsewhere... like FREE from his ISP...


If bandwidth is really such a problem for him, then maybe, just maybe, he needs to unlink from everybody so that he doesn't show up 2nd or 3rd on the search engines?


Now, as for that pesky hotlinking "problem". I see 3 solutions: 1. Don't expect message board answers with photos, EVER.(If you get one, good, if not Google it yourself or see #3) 2. Don't expect to see message board posts on any interesting, off the wall or historical subjects with photo documentation, EVER. (Think I'm going to bother, now?) 3. Toss that useless computer in the trash, then go buy stacks of books and magazines hoping to find the answer to your question somewhere there-in....


Not trying to "justify" anything. The whole $%#& point of accumulating information is to share it. Isn't it? If you know something, yet never share or use it, then it's worth WHAT? 


Oh, and 
BTW, I never even SAW his bloody disclaimer buried 30 or so rows of photos further down than the information that I was looking for! PUT IT ON TOP if you want to be a jerk about it!!!!!


----------



## IllinoisCentral (Jan 2, 2008)

it was probably just easier to make a "full" cab, rather than design some kind of more complicted "half-cab".. 
plus a half-cab would throw off the balance, making one side of the loco heavier.. 

Those points crossed my mind too, though I would have thought that in the days before CAD, modifying drawings for a "normal" cab for use on a camelback would be just as involved as designing and drafting an entirely new set of plans for a new cab. Plus a "half" cab would save on material costs. The only way I could see the "half" cab thing being an issue is that it would move the center of gravity towards the engineer's side, thus potentially causing problems when rounding curves. But, I would think that the weight of a fully watered and fueled locomotive would be great enough that the added weight on only one side wouldn't cause a problem. Then again I could be wrong. 

The presence of a front brakeman makes the most sense to me, but then why couldn't the front brakeman ride in back with the fireman instead of building him his own little isolated area? At least then the two of them could complain to each other about their working conditions


----------



## Robbie Hanson (Jan 4, 2008)

The Museum of Transportation here in St. Louis also has another of Winan's Camels--I'll post a pic when I get home. 

The Camelback here has moved from its display track--not sure where it went?


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Why a full cab? Just because it looks better.... While it's hard for today's "form follows function", "least cost", and "disposable everything" mindset to comprehend, there was a time when people DIDN'T think that way.

In short, the designers would have been appalled at the suggestion of producing such an asymmetrical monstrosity just for a minor cost savings. Look to everything else made during the late Victorian, Edwardian, and Art Deco periods. You'll find brick, wood and even marble ornamentation on many, if not most, buildings... even sewerage plants. You'll find excellent workmanship and various degrees of useless styling and ornamentation on the most simple and plebian of everyday items, from kitchen gadgets to light fixtures. -- if you want documenting photos, I guess the only 'proper' thing is to tell you to go find them yourself... 


Personally I'm not so certain that whatever we've 'gained' by our current philosophy is really worth all the things we've lost. But then, I'm one of those Philistines that thinks modern (and post modern) 'art' isn't actually art, either.


----------



## cjwalas (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Robbie Hanson on 08 Jan 2010 04:40 PM 
The Museum of Transportation here in St. Louis also has another of Winan's Camels--I'll post a pic when I get home. 

The Camelback here has moved from its display track--not sure where it went? 

Just for clarification; The Winans Camels have nothing in common with Camelbacks. The cabs are very different. The Camelback cab is a full straddle cab, completely straddling the boiler while the Winans Camels cabs actually sat fully atop the boiler. 

Also the photos of the ten-wheeler Camels in this thread are actually not Winans designs, but a later improvement made by Samuel Hayes of the B&O. These are known as Hayes ten-wheelers. The Hayes engine at the B&O museum is a replica the RR created. The only real camel left in existence is the Hayes ten-wheeler in the 
Museum of Transportation in St. Louis. 

I'm a big fan of Camels, but it's not an easy design to adapt to a narrow-gauge look!
Chris


----------



## Charles M (Jan 2, 2008)

Scot, 

The late great " Bill Schopp" built a model of this locomotive in the February 1955 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman. He has plans and photos of the prototype and his completed model if you are interested. Would make an interesting model in G scale. 
Left side view of # 2602 shows it to be the same as the engineers side , without the injectors however. Had an air pump mounted on the running board at the same location as on the right side. It shows the door to the front of the cab open, so it must have had some usefulness to the crew. 

Charles M SA #74


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

THanks for the pixes, Mik.

Does the third one down have just one axle of drivers? (I hope.)


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Les, the Reading #1200 (if that's the pic you're referring to?) was a class A-4b 0-4-0 built by Baldwin in 1902.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Technically, a "Camelback" locomotive is of the Winnan's design and has the cab completely above the boiler. The name is derived because the crew were riding above the engine in a manner like a person riding a camel. A true camel rider does not straddle the camel like a horseman, but rather sits either cross legged behind the hump (or between them on the double-hump variety) or with their legs extened forward with the feet along side of or nearly around the camels neck.

Most of the photos here are of engines that should technically be called "Mother Hubbard"s. It is only relatively recently (since the Diesel era started) that they became known as Camelbacks. A Mother Hubbard has the cab straddling the boiler and the engineer sits at about the level of the foot board on most other locomotives.

The only question I have about these that I have been trying to find out for several years is why the name Mother Hubbard was given to the design. None of the versions of the Old Mother Hubbard poems that I have come across have given any clue.

Anybody have any ideas about the why of the name or where it came from?


----------



## Les (Feb 11, 2008)

Posted By Mik on 08 Jan 2010 06:57 PM 
Les, the Reading #1200 (if that's the pic you're referring to?) was a class A-4b 0-4-0 built by Baldwin in 1902. 




Mik, Thanks. I went back to look again after I posted. By fiddling with the contrast/brightness on my monitor, I could see it was at least a four-driver engine. Then I got interested in following the thread and you'd replied before I could delete my post. Sorry 'bout that.

Les


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi All;

Sorry to beat a dead iron horse (or perhaps it's an iron camel), but I remembered a couple of other trivia items about camelbacks that I thought might be interesting to everyone.

Mik mentioned that the hogger of a camelback was in mortal danger if a drive rod broke on the right-hand side of the locomotive. I remembered that the railroad jargon for a camelback was "widow-maker."

I also remembered that in his book, Reading Steam Pictorial, Bert Pennypacker related that the Reading's train crews were so used to camelbacks that when the shops started turning out cab-to-the-rear locomotives, the train crews called them "Long Johns!"

Yours,
David Meashey


----------

