SECTION 6A MOSCOW KAZAN RAILWAY Superheater 0-8-0 of 1908

Russian Railways Group

 FIND OUT ABOUT THE BIGGEST RAILWAY SYSTEM IN THE WORLD !

The Moscow-Kazan Railway Superheater 0-8-0s of 1908

By Robert Hendry

A^P class D (0-8-0) No 514, built at Kolomna 1908, and superheated from new,

Kolomna Works photograph, Robert Hendry collection

At the dawn of the 20^th century, under its locomotive engineer E Noltein, the Moscow-Kazan Railway was in the vanguard of locomotive development in Russia, and perhaps in the world, but with the cloud of secrecy which enveloped Russia after 1917, Noltein’s place as one of the innovators at the close of the 19^th and early part of the 20^th centuries is commonly overlooked. Before looking at the A^P class superheater 0-8-0s, a brief review of Noltein’s achievements with the Kazan Railway will help place these engines in context. An early advocate of Water tube fireboxes, in which the conventional firebox was replaced by a box with water tubes, Noltein began experiments in the late 1890s, but the appearance of the Brotan water tube boiler prompted him to advocate fitting Brotan boxes to a number of locomotives as a trial. Brotan was works manager to the Austrian State Railways, and had developed a boiler which combined a conventional smoke tube boiler shell with a revolutionary new type of firebox, in which the copper or steel walls of a conventional firebox were replaced by a row of vertical steel or iron water tubes. Advantages claimed for the Brotan box included a very large water space in contact with the fire itself, good water circulation and the ability to evaporate water very quickly. In theory, this also mimimised build up of scale in the tubes, and reduced the level of repairs.

Noltein wrote “After the many protracted formalities, which in this country obstruct the introduction of anything new, had been overcome, it was possible, in the year 1904, to begin the construction of two experimental boilers for 0-4-0 [UK/US = 0-8-0] goods locomotives, one being intended for locomotive A^H No 447” After two years of trials, Noltein claimed a saving on repairs, which was his primary purpose in advocating water tube fireboxes, whilst coal economies of 14.8% were also recorded. Like most similar projects in other countries, the complexities eventually outweighed the theoretical benefits, and A^H No 447 later received a conventional boiler.

Another line of research pursued by locomotive engineers at this time was superheating. The earliest superheaters or steam driers had appeared in the 1870s, but problems with lubricating cylinders at the higher steam temperatures meant they were before their time. Locomotive engineers differed widely on how to provide adequate superheat in an efficient manner whilst keeping repair costs low. Some devices were placed in the smokebox. Others were in the boiler barrel using heat given off by the smoke tubes, whilst the third approach was to place the superheater in the tubes themselves. Many engineers were worried at the maintenance implications of placing the superheater elements in the tubes, and Noltein was initially attracted to the Clench superheater or separator. The boiler was divided by an intermediate tubeplate about 1 to 1.3 meters from the smokebox tubeplate. The front part of the boiler, instead of containing water, was a large steam drum, through which the smoke tubes passed, heating the steam by about 80 to 100 degrees C. A Henschel-built class B 2-6-0, No 119 was fitted with a Clench separator as an experiment, but the low degree of superheat and the maintenance problems associated with the triple tubeplate boiler militated against success.

In 1899, J Besser, a German engineer, who was the manager of the Kolomna Locomotive works in Russia, discussed the results achieved by W Schmidt at Kassel in Germany with superheated steam. A short while later, Besser who was a friend of Schmidt, introduced the two men, and Schmidt and Noltein became close friends. Schmidt’s earliest superheater design, of 1897, consisted of a battery of superheater tubes contained in one large central smoke tube. It was a low heat system, and Schmidt quickly realized its limitations, and moved to a multi-tube design, which was destined to become one of the most successful of the first generation superheaters.

Prior to this point, Noltein had been a firm advocate of compounding. His best known class was the A^H (also known as A^P class) two cylinder compound 0-8-0 which first appeared in 1893. This had been developed from the unpopular “Government Reserve” simple 0-8-0 of the late 1870s. By 1901, the Moscow-Kazan had acquired 213 of the A^H class. Under the 1912 classification system, they became class CH^N, and whilst the last of the class was withdrawn from main line duties in 1935, many were transferred to shunting duties, and one engine, CH^N 361 was active until 1961.

Noltein quickly recognised the benefits of superheating, and proposed what was to become the B^G class of passenger 2-6-0s. Noltein commented “The first difficulty which had to be overcome was obtaining the ministerial approval to the construction of the first experimental locomotive, for under the laws existing in Russia, even privately owned railways may only construct their rolling stock according to designs approved by the State authorities. Fortunately this part of the matter was comparatively quickly settled, thanks to the enlightened interest which was shown by the president of the commission for approving new rolling stock designs, State Councillor, N A Shchukin. The railway administration was accordingly able to give the order for the locomotive in question to the Kolomna works on 12 October 1901”.

BG 181, which entered traffic in 1902, was the first newly built superheated locomotive in the Russian empire, and in less than 6 months, a further 8 engines were ordered. 4-6-0 passenger classes were also produced which showed significant fuel economies, and from 1906, all new engines were fitted with Schmidt superheaters, including a batch of N class 0-6-6-0 Mallets. At this time, there was a considerable gap in the freight range on the Kazan Railway between the existing small-boilered compound class A^H 0-8-0s, and the much more powerful 0-6-6-0 Mallets.

There was a government sponsored option to fill this gap. This was the Shch 2-8-0, which had been an emergency response to the shortage of large freight engines which became apparent during the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05. It had all the faults of a stopgap measure, but had been approved by the Commission for Rolling Stock and Motive Power of the MPS (the Ministry of Ways of Communications) under the chairmanship of Professor Nikolai Leonidovich Shchukin, and given its class designation in his honour. Government railways were obliged to take the unsatisfactory Shch, and private lines were encouraged to do so. The blame for this is often attributed to Shchukin, but he seems to have been well aware of the shortcomings of the design, and the fault probably lies with the bureaucratic nature of the MPS itself. In the West, there are innumerable examples of government departments defending a mistaken policy fiercely rather than lose face by admitting their error, and in Czarist society this was even more likely. Noltein was unimpressed by the design. It was an opinion that was shared by most senior locomotive engineers in Russia, the most outspoken being G V Lomonosov, perhaps the most celebrated of Russian loco engineers. As Lomonosov detested Shchukin, his remarks on the Shch may have been prejudiced. He said it could “not be considered successful. It is completely useless for heavy freight duties and is too heavy for fast and mixed traffic”.

Shchukin is often accused of deliberately blocking the development of the E class 0-10-0 in favour of “his” 2-8-0, but Noltein was given permission by the MPS to develop a 2 cylinder superheated simple A^H 0-8-0 with a 16 ton axle load as a freight version of the B series 4-6-0s. It would share the same cylinders, superheater, and boiler fittings. The grate area on the 4-6-0s had turned out to be on the small side, and with the smaller diameter wheels of the freight engine, the firebox on the new class could overhang the frames, as is apparent in the Kolomna works photo. Noltein explained the design philosophy “The experience obtained shows that it is better to obtain the increased grate area necessary, not only by making the grate longer but also by making it wider, and this is the reason why the new 2-3-0 and 0-4-0 [ UK/US 4-6-0 and 0-8-0] locomotives have the center line of their boilers rather high. This naturally makes it necessary to provide for the proper stiffening of the frames below the firebox.” The very high Russian loading gauge, which permitted engines 16 feet tall, facilitated such design policies.

A batch of 20 Superheater Class A^P 0-8-0s was ordered from Kolomna, the first engine, 501 entered service in March 1908. The cost per engine was 40,754 roubles (£4,381), which compared very favourably with the cost of the last batch of compound 0-8-0s. The rest of initial order for 20 engines following quite quickly. The final engine, 520 received Stumpf “Uniflow” cylinders, but after a two year trial it was decided that the advantages did not outweigh the higher maintenance required, and the engine received conventional cylinders and Walschaerts motion.

One of the key traffic problems facing the Kazan railway was the fluctuating nature of the traffic. Noltein remarked “the most important requirements of goods locomotives are high power and the possibility of utilizing the existing adhesive weight fully under all conditions, so as to make it possible to deal quickly with the large amount of traffic which is offered in years of rich harvests. As there usually are four to six moderate years between the years of rich harvests, it would be very uneconomical to double the lines of the company, and hence it becomes necessary to operate the traffic with as heavy locomotives as possible.”

Initially only used on some sections of line, due to a number of weak bridges, the new superheater 0-8-0s often replaced 0-6-6-0 Mallets, a design which Noltein had no great love for, due to its complexity and high maintenance costs. On the Rusaewka-Arapowo section, which included several stretches of 1 in 59/61, the 0-6-6-0 Mallets had been handling 1250 ton trains, but the new 0-8-0s were limited to 975 tons. Fuel and water consumption figures compared well with the older non-superheated Mallets, but the smaller train loads were a disadvantage. Noltein remained uncertain which class to multiply, despite his dislike of the Mellets, so hedged his bets. 35 new Mallets were acquired before the Company was engulfed in the 1917 Revolution, whilst 36 of the superheater 0-8-0s were added to stock. The balance could hardly have been closer !

Under the 1912 unified numbering system laid down by the MPS, the engines became Class V. Given classes of several thousand locomotives, a mere 56 engines might suggest serious shortcomings, but as a non-standard type as far as the MPS was concerned, the V was never destined to reach the quantities of the O class 0-8-0, or the celebrated E class 0-10-0. It is also likely that the reduced haulage capacity compared to the Mallets was apparent to the Kazan Railway very quickly. Another factor which militated against the Class V was that train loads were increasing rapidly, and the 10 coupled E class which came into production just 4 years later had a much greater power output.

Surprisingly, the ravages of World War I and the Revolution did not inflict any irreparable casualties on the V class. All 56 were shown as in running order on 1 January 1923, but with the multiplication of the more powerful E class 0-10-0s, they joined the smaller and less powerful O and CH^N types on shunting duties from 1930. A report of 1936 still showed all engines in MPS stock. Given the survival of the older CH^N class until the start of the 1960s, it is probable that the Vs also put in many years in industrial use after their service with the MPS came to an end.

In the table below, I have given dimensions of the Kazan engines and a 1910 batch of the celebrated LNWR Super-D 0-8-0 goods. Widely regarded as the most outstanding of the British 0-8-0s, the LNWR engines had about 2/3rds of the power output of the Kazan engines, due to the lower boiler pressure, smaller cylinders and larger wheels, but the longer wheelbase and larger diameter driving wheels would give better riding characteristics at anything other than a very slow train speed. British freight trains were not renowned for their high speeds, but the routes they ran over were some of the busiest in the world, with frequent fast passenger trains. The impression I gain is that both designs were well suited to the work they were expected to perform, when new, but that the Superheater V fell victim to increasing train loads early in its career.

Dimensions, Moscow-Kazan Superheater 0-8-0 LNWR Class G

Dia of cylinders 575mm 22⁵/₈ ins 19 ½ “

Length of stroke 650mm 25⁵/₈ ins 24”

Driving wheel dia 1,220mm 48 ins 53 ½ “

Boiler tubes 147 276

Length between tubeplates 4,660mm 15ft 3³/₈ ins

Total heating surface 202.38 sq Metres; 2,178.41 sq ft 2043 sq ft

Grate Area 3.03 sq meters 32.61 Sq ft 23.6 sq ft

Boiler pressure 12 atmospheres, 171 lbs per square foot 160 psi

Wheelbase 3,890mm 12 ft 9 ¼ ins 17 ft 3 ins

Weight in running order 64,400 Kgs 141,980 lbs

Tractive Effort 15,884 Kgs 35,018 lbs 24,797 lbs

CLICK Here for Scale Plans & Elevations of the Kazan Class A^P 0-8-0 of 1908.

Group Co-ordinator Robert Hendry, 2 Moultrie Rd, RUGBY, Warwickshire, CV21 3BD, England

(If contacting us by post, please include and SAE or International Reply Coupon).

hendry@hillsidefilms.fsnet.co.uk

RRG Homepage Wagon Photos 3-01; Hillside Publishing Homepage

Book Database Video Database;