Class 136 (Locobase 6793)

Data from the table presented on pages 379, 381 of the Groupe VI. - GTnie civil. - Moyens de transport. DeuxiFme partie. Classes 32 (Tome I), part of the series of Rapports du Jury Internationale of the Exposition Unverselle Internationale de 1900 Paris Exposition, hosted on the website of Le Conservatoire numTrique des Arts & MTtiers ([], Accessed 21 August 2005). See also "Les Locomotives a l'Exposition de 1900", Genie Civil, Volume 38, pp. 377-379.

The Jury report explains that Karl Golsdorf's adoption of a relatively big grate (and consequently big firebox) was necessitated by the railway's use of lignite, which would evaporate at most 4.5-5 kg (10-11 lb) of water for every kg of lignite burned. Instead of the usual dome or domes, the profile featured the long cylinder positioned over the boiler to hold the steam admitted by two small tubes.

Class 36 / 211 (Locobase 4706)

Data from [], accessed 13 August 2006.

Class 36.51 / 109 (Locobase 4701)

Data from [], accessed 14 August 2006 and Maurice Demoulin, Locomotive Actuelle ... (Paris: Librairie Polytechnique Ch.Beranger, 1906), p 254. StEG's works numbers ran 2978-2987 in 1902 followed in 1904 by 3118-3121.

Wikipedia states that this design grew out of an increase in traffic that had forced the railway to double-head its class 26 (later kkStB 406). It was, according to Demoulin, the 4-cylinder compound variant of the Class 9 shown in Locobase 9184 and used the same valve train design as the Class 108 Atlantics described in Locobase 1196.

Obviously a successful design, the class pulled not only expresses from Vienna to Pressburg and Vienna to Brunn but also the famed Orient Express. After World War One, the class remained in Austrian care as the Oesterreichische Bundesbahnen's 109 until the last was retired in 1934.

Class 9 (Locobase 9184)

Data from [], accessed 14 August 2006 and Maurice Demoulin . The two sources disagree on the size of the heating surface, a difference Locobase suspects reflects fire-side measurements in the tube bundle (Wikipedia) versus the water-side square footage (Demoulin). Locobase adopts the latter for its specifications.

Produced by Bÿhmisch-MShrischen Maschinenfabrik (works #13-15, 22-28, 82-83, 103-105, 114-115 in 1898-1903), Floridsdorf (1229-1236 in 1899), and StEG (2621 in 1898, 2712-2722 in 1899, 2816 in 1901).

Wikipedia says that the LP cylinder in this design was the largest-diameter cylinder to be located inside the frame on any locomotive, a position that greatly complicated maintenance. The most obvious visual oddity was the steam reservoir (a 4.4 / 14' 5"-long cylinder carried on short steam pipes), which greatly expanded steam-chamber capacity over two separate domes.

Demoulin describes the service for which this class was designed, a 410-km (255-mile) section between Amstetten & Pontaffel that had ruling grade of 14-19 mm (1.4-1.8%), some as steep as 22 mm, and curves as tight as 206 m radius. The goal was hauling 200 trailing tonnes at 40 km/h (25 mph) up 18-mm.

The fuel used was of "qualite' tres mediocre" and the engine only generated 1,000 hp. In fact, says Wikipedia, the locomotive fell short of expectations, possibly because its drivers didn't understand it, and it was one of Karl Gÿlsdorf's less-successful locomotives. The BB+ brought all 42 (38 to the kKStB, 4 to the Sndbahn from StEG) into its stable and rebuilt 19 with superheaters and redesignated them 409; see Locobase 9185. The others were retired by 1938.

Class IIIc - 808 / 27 (Locobase 7778)

Data from [], accessed 13 August 2006. Works numbers were 4518-4521 in 1903.

Locobase 4707 describes the first seven of this class delivered to the KFNB in 1902-1903. They pulled trains in the PrerauvMShrisch Ostrau corridor. This later quartet had slightly more firebox heating surface area and grates and, consequently, more direct heating surface as well as higher weights. Otherwise, they were essentially identical.

Class IIIc / 27 (Locobase 4707)

Data from [], accessed 13 August 2006. Works numbers were 4480-4486 in 1902.

This is the larger sub-class of this eleven-locomotive class of Ten-wheelers delivered to the KFNB in 1902-1903. They pulled trains in the PrerauvMShrisch Ostrau corridor. After World War One, the CSD designated the class 354.5. One -- 354.507 -- was withdrawn in 1933 while the others went to Hungary's Magyar -llamvasutak as the 331 class.

Over the next few war-torn years, one went to Jugoslavia, one may have gone the Deutsche Reichsbahn, and at least one to the Polish State Railways. The last-described was returned to the CSD, from which it was retired in 1949.

Class IIa / 111 (Locobase 4703)

Data from [], accessed 12 August 2006. (This Wikipedia entry describes these as superheated locomotives, but the data do not include the superheated area. Locobase adopted the rounded figure of 39 sq m shown in Dr Jonathan Smith's table of locomotives found at [] (also accessed 12 August 2006). Works numbers were 4702-4707, 4776-4777 in 1907.

Wikipedia says the design was adopted to take over for the IId class Atlantics, which couldn't handle the increased traffic. Although the design was troubled by the kinds of difficulties adopting new technology can bring, it was a successful entry. Half served trains in Vienna and half operated out of Prerau.

The CSD snapped up the octet on its formation in 1919 and classed them as 365.1. The last wasn't retired from that railway until 1958.

Class IIb / 127 (Locobase 4704)

Data from [], accessed 12 August 2006.

This trio of mixed-service Ten-wheelers went to the CSD in 1919 as class 353.0. The Czech system operated these saturated engines until the mid-1940s.

Class XIVa / 11 (Locobase 4702)

Data from [], accessed 12 August 2006. See also "Six-Coupled Bogie Locomotive, N W Ry of Austria," Locomotive Magazine, Vol IX (18 July 1903), p. 34

From the numbers of simple-expansion and compound-working locomotives purchased by the ONWB for a comparison, the fix in favor of the compound appears to have in from the start. See Locobase 7777 for the compound version.

The boilers were identical and the profiles were no different, their characteristic double-dome connected by a steam pipe that passed through the sandbox set between them (to keep the sand dry).

Although these simples lost the competition, they did benefit as well from Karl Golsdorf's ministrations to their steam passages. In 1902, soon after service entry, they saw a slight diminution in their evaporative heating surface to the figure shown in the specs.

Four of the five remained in service into World War II. By that time, they were operating in the CSD as the Czech railway's class 354.4. When taken over by the Third Reich, they were classed as BR 38.42.

Class XIVb / 11 (Locobase 7777)

Data from [], accessed 12 August 2006.

Locobase 4702 notes that five locomotives were built as simple-expansion engines by the ONWB to compare to the compound-working design shown in this entry.

The boilers were identical and the profiles were no different, their characteristic double-dome connected by a steam pipe that passed through the sandbox set between them (to keep the sand dry).

The competition ended in an easy victory for the compounds and deliveries to the Osterreichische Nordwestbahn amounted to 19 over a 13-year period. The last 6 were delivered with Popp valves, automatic vacuum brake, and grease gun. The locomotives were rated at 250 tons for the Znaim to Iglau trains.

StEG also supplied the Buschtiehrader Eisenbahn (a private Bohemian railway linking Prague and Lana that ultimately boasted 465 km) with 17 Type VIII and the Aussig-Teplitzer Eisenbahn (a northern Bohemian coal road that remained independent until 1924).

All of these compounds remained in service into World War II. By that time, they were operating in the CSD as the Czech railway's class 354.4 (the 4 ATE were classed 344.5) When taken over by the Third Reich, they were classed as BR 38.43. A few continued on after World War II, leaving service in 1949.

Class XIX / 209 (Locobase 4705)

Data from [], accessed 12 August 2006.

Four of these locomotives were procured to run against four class XVIII three-cylinder compound engines; see Locobase 4705. In all respects except the arrangement and number of cylinders, the two quartets were identical.

Like the 3-cylinder XVIIIs, the LP cylinders in the XIX were bigger than what was normally considered the appropriate ratio. The XIXs suffered in comparison with the superheated engines just coming into service, so neither they nor the XVIIIs were reproduced.

On the other hand, they were serviceable enough and, like the XVIIIs, taken into the CSD in 1919 (Class 354.2). And also like the XVIIIs, they were superheated and simpled in the 1930s and reclassified 364.2 (see Locobase 1645).

Class XVIII / 309 (Locobase 1197)

Data from [], accessed 12 August 2006.

Four of these locomotives were procured to run against four class XIX four-cylinder compound engines; see Locobase 4705. In all respects except the arrangement and number of cylinders, the two quartets were identical.

In the XVIIIs, all three axles on this variant drove on the first axle. Although they demonstrated some good qualities, the XVIII couldn't compete with the superheated locomotives. (Locobase notices a relatively large LP volume that the single HP cylinder was called on to supply.)

When the CSD took them over as 354.3, they ultimately decided to convert them to two-cylinder, simple-expansion, superheated engines class 364.2 (see Locobase 1645).