|

Czechoslovak 375.007 in National
Technical Museum, Praha, Czech
Republic. July
17, 2003.

Manufacturer’s plate of the 375.007.

Class 310 drawing from EZ vol.2

I hope that these two pictures, taken on June
20, 2009, at the Heizhaus Strasshof, explain why 310 is perhaps the
most beautiful steam locomotive ever built.

310.23 (StEG 3791/1911) is
operational, but rides only on special occasions. I hope I’ll be there in the
right time!

Manufacturer’s plate of the 310.23.
|
Development of steam locomotives
in Austro-Hungary was influenced by two important factors: poor quality of
many tracks and low calorific value of domestic hard coal. The former implied
that axle load should not exceed 14.5 tonne; the latter called for large
fireboxes, in order to achieve sufficient steam flow and parameters. These
factors influenced the so-called Austrian school of locomotive design. Many
achievements of this school are connected with the name of Karl Gölsdorf
(1861-1916).
During the last decade of the XIXth
century there was a considerable tendency to increase speed and quality of
passenger trains, which resulted in many new designs. Austro-Hungarian state
railways (Kaiserlich-königliche
österreichische Staatsbahnen – KkStB) were no exception, although
the above-mentioned factors resulted in rather specific features. These were
clearly seen in the first standard express locomotive used by this service,
designated class 6. Designed by Gölsdorf, it went into production at three
factories in 1894 and during next four years 68 examples were built. This
machine had elevated boiler and large drivers (2140 mm in diameter), which
provided space for a huge firebox. Despite quite good performance, class 6,
with two driven axles, soon became obsolete. It was developed further, into
classes 106 (126 examples), 206 (89 examples) and 306 (only five); while
retaining the same axle arrangement (2-2-0), 2140 mm drivers and general
layout, they differed considerably, but soon it became evident that more
powerful machines were necessary. It was not possible to maintain low axle
load while substantially increasing boiler size and capacity with the 2-2-0
arrangement, so new designs concepts were tried: class 9 (2-3-0), class 108
(2-2-1), class 110 (1-3-1) and class 280 (1-5-0).
In 1906, Gölsdorf began to design
a new express locomotive, intended to haul trains of overall weight 400
tonnes on a 10‰ gradient track at 60 km/h. He decided to place the firebox
behind the drivers, in order to match the ‘wagon-top’ boiler of peculiar
shape and large firebox with 2140 mm drivers. For that purpose, he reverted
the 2-3-1 axle arrangement
(then widely used in the USA
and known there as Pacific).
Rear truck, with two small idle axes, could absorb the weight of the
large firebox without excessive axle load. This arrangement, later named Adriatic,
was never used again in a tender locomotive (it was featured in five tank
engines, rebuilt in Czechoslovakia
from class 354.0, ex KkStB class 229, in 1936 and re-classed 353.1,
and in two DB class 66 tank engines of 1950). Experiments with two rear idle axes,
however, continued in some countries for quite a long time. Very
characteristic boiler shape, large drivers and unique axle arrangement
combined to give a peculiar silhouette. Even today, many fans (including
myself) consider this machine one of the most beautiful steam locomotives
ever built – an almost perfect blend of grace and power – while other (few!)
describe it as simply awkward. De gustibus non est disputandum...
New locomotive, in line with
Gölsdorf’s preference to compounds, was fitted with a four-cylinder compund
steam engine. It went into production for KkStB as class 210 in 1908.
Gölsdorf did not decide to introduce steam reheat, as he was afraid that
high-grade oil, necessary for lubrication with high steam temperature, would
be in short supply in Austria-Hungary.
Steam dryer of the Gölsdorf-Clench type was installed in the smoke box, but
this layout did not prove satisfactory. In the end, advantages of reheat
prevailed. Only eleven class 210 machines had been built (six by Floridsdorf
and five by BMF – the latter factory is also known as PÈM, this
abbreviation being derived from its Czech name) before production switched to
class 310 with steam reheat in 1911. The latter machine could be easily
distinguished by longer smoke box, but otherwise was very similar. Ninety
machines were built between 1911 and 1916 (Floridsdorf – 22, BMF
– 14, Wiener Neustadt – 19, StEG – 32, Breitfeld Danĕk
– 3). They were followed in 1918 by ten engines from Floridsdorf with
Brotan-type boilers (in order to save copper, then in short supply); the
latter were, however, never impressed into service, as during wartime there
was little need for them. Production ended with the disintegration of
Austro-Hungary in 1918. It should be said that, despite beautiful appearance,
these locomotives were not entirely satisfactory. Fuel consumption was higher
than expected and design speed and tractive effort values were not met.
Increased boiler pressure (from 310.29 onwards) gave little improvement.
These shortcomings were in part due to both high-pressure and low-pressure
cylinders on each side being served by a single piston valve, which reduced
weight and simplified the design, but deteriorated performance at high speed.
During WWI, two class 210
machines briefly served in Ukraine
and later were captured by the Russians, but their final fate is unknown;
they are not listed in Rakov’s monograph on Russian and Soviet locomotives (LOZD),
although some sources report they were used for some time and perhaps even
given Russian designations. The rest survived until 1918 and, after prolonged
negotiations, were divided between Austria,
Czechoslovakia
and Poland.
Austrian state railways ÖBB kept 43 class 310 engines; only three were
withdrawn before the Anschluss. Czechoslovak railways took over 35
class 310 machines, designating them class 375; one was lost in an accident
in 1928. Their modernizations included fitting Friedmann-type injectors and
modified, flat smoke box doors. Furthermore, seven locomotives with
Brotan-type boiler were sold directly to Prussian railways, to become class
S11. In one source I found information that several 310s were taken over by Hungary
and Yugoslavia,
to become classes 328.5 and 08, respectively; this is not true, as these were
different 2-3-0 machines
built after WWI.
Poland
took over all nine remaining class 210s (designating them Pn11) and twelve
class 310s, which became class Pn12. Furthermore, three machines with
Brotan-type boilers were purchased directly from the manufacturer in 1919. In
1922, all Prussian S11s were also handed over to Poland
(in accordance with international agreements on Upper Silesia);
older sources give that they were purchased in Germany.
Total number of ex-class 310s in Poland
was thus 22. Ex-Austrian locomotives impressed into the PKP service
after 1922, when final agreements had been signed, were usually in bad
condition and many classes were represented by single examples. Among such
motley collection, Pn11s and Pn12s were considered relatively modern and
valuable. They were used mainly in southern and later eastern Poland,
at first with express trains. With mounting supplies of Os24s and later Pt31s
they were shifted to less prominent routes, but hauled light express trains
until 1939 (except for Pn12-3, crashed and written off in 1931). Pn11s were
later modified and fitted with steam superheaters, but it is not clear if
this was completed before WWII. Although they became similar to Pn12s, their
designation remained unchanged.
In 1939, Germans took over three
Pn11s and four Pn12s; the rest fell into Soviet hands, but they were not
rebuilt for the 1524 mm track and were captured by Germans in 1941 with the
exception of Pn11-1 and Pn11-4 (their fate remains unknown). Together with
ex-Austrian class 310s, they received DRG designation class 16. Quite
logically, they were used mainly in Austria;
it is reported they performed quite well, but were difficult to maintain (due
to four-cylinder compound steam engines) and rather uneconomical.
After 1945, Czechoslovak railways
kept their class 375s in use until 1954. In Austria,
only five machines were restored into service for a short time, the last one
being withdrawn in 1952. Sixteen machines returned to Poland
(six Pn11s and ten Pn12s), but their condition was very bad. Despite being
allocated new serial numbers, none of them was restored in service and all
were subsequently written off until 1950. Unfortunately, all Polish machines
were scrapped, so there are now only two surviving examples of Gölsdorf’s
most famous design: 375.007 (formerly 310.15, BMF 390/1911) in the
Technical Museum in Prague and 310.23 (StEG 3791/1911) in Heizhaus
Strasshof – the latter in working order and sometimes still used with
special trains.
Locomotives with two rear idle
axes never enjoyed much favor in Europe and – apart from these unique
Austrian machines – this layout was used mainly in experimental designs, like
Bavarian record-breaking S2/6 of 1906 (2-2-2). On the contrary, it found
quite widespread use in North America, both in heavy freight machines (1-4-2
or Berkshire – 611 examples and 1-5-2 or Texas – 429 examples)
and in lighter ones of more universal type (2-2-2 or Jubilee – 30
examples, 2-3-2 or Hudson – 487 examples and 2-4-2 or Northern
– 1115 examples; these figures have been taken from Guide to North
American Steam Locomotives by George H.Drury). The reason was the same as
with the Adriatics – sufficient steam generation with not necessarily
high-grade coal.
Main technical data
|
No.
|
Parameter
|
Unit
|
Value
|
|
1.
|
Years
of manufacture
|
-
|
1911 – 1918
|
|
2.
|
Total
built / used in Poland
|
-
|
90 / 22 – 101)
|
|
3.
|
Tender
class
|
-
|
21D11 (27D112))
|
|
4.
|
Axle
arrangement
|
-
|
1-3-2
|
|
5.
|
Design
maximum speed
|
km/h
|
100
|
|
6.
|
Cylinder bore
|
mm
|
2 X 390 /
2 X 6604)
|
|
7.
|
Piston
stroke
|
mm
|
720
|
|
8.
|
Engine
rating
|
kW/hp
|
1324 / 1800
|
|
9.
|
Tractive
force
|
kG
|
9 400
|
|
10.
|
Boiler
pressure
|
MPa
|
1.53 (1.63)3)
|
|
11.
|
Grate
dimensions
|
m X m
|
4.62 m2
|
|
12.
|
Firebox
heating surface
|
m2
|
15.1 (16.39)2)
|
|
13.
|
Distance
between tube plates
|
mm
|
5 150
|
|
14.
|
Number
of flue tubes
|
-
|
170
|
|
15.
|
Heating
surface of flue tubes
|
m2
|
197.8
|
|
16.
|
Number
of smoke tubes
|
-
|
24
|
|
17.
|
Heating
surface of smoke tubes
|
m2
|
|
|
18.
|
Evaporating
surface, total
|
m2
|
212.9 (200.9)5)
|
|
19.
|
Superheater
heating surface
|
m2
|
43.4
|
|
20.
|
Diameter
of drivers
|
mm
|
21006)
|
|
21.
|
Diameter
of idlers front/rear
|
mm
|
995 / 995
|
|
22.
|
Total
weight, empty
|
kg
|
79 200 (77 300)2)
|
|
23.
|
Total
weight, working order
|
kg
|
86 000 (84 820)2)
|
|
24.
|
Weight
on drivers, working order
|
kg
|
44 100 (44 560)2)
|
|
25.
|
Weight
with tender, empty
|
kg
|
102 100
(100 200)2)
|
|
26.
|
Weight
with tender, working order
|
kg
|
138 600
(129 900)2)
|
|
27.
|
Maximum
axle load
|
T
|
14.7 (14.9)2)
|
|
28.
|
Axle
base (with tender)
|
mm
|
18 236
|
|
29.
|
Overall
length (with tender)
|
mm
|
21 386
|
|
30.
|
Brake
type
|
-
|
Hardy / Westinghouse
|
1) Three
erroneously designated as Pn11s.
2) Data
in brackets for machines with Brotan-type boilers. Weight data quoted after KT
vol. 1; data given in various references differ at least by a few percent.
3) From
310.29 onwards (from Pn12–6 before WWII).
4) Some
sources give 650 mm, which is probably an error.
5) Less
reliable sources give 195.1 m2
6) Some
sources give 2140 mm, due to different standards used by KkStB.
References and acknowledgments
-
Monographic
article by Pawe³ Terczyñski (SK vol. 1/2003);
-
KT vol. 1, LP, EZ vol. 2;
-
Dieter Zoubek (www.dampflok.at,
also private communication – thanks a lot!);
-
www.pospichal.net/lokstatistik
(website by Josef Pospichal).
|