Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Robert Hale

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
1
Work and Events / Re: Trout Brook Bridge - Official Work Thread
« on: August 15, 2018, 04:34:23 PM »
Where is the fishy foreman at?

2
Work and Events / Re: WW&F No. 10 - Official Work Thread
« on: March 13, 2018, 11:07:04 AM »
Is the mud ring solid or hollow? Also, how are the seams/joints sealed against the water and pressure? I ask because I am used to aviation work (planes are pressure vessels as well, just not much pressure). Cold riveting, gaskets and sealant.

Rob

3
It is possible that the local group will not get enough interest (and financing) to perform any substantial restoration work. If that occurs, then Jason S's proposal would have a very good chance.

Honestly that should have been done first before the city drafted bids to have the loco scrapped. They could have mitigated the hazmat issue while they sought out the public's opinion for the preservation of the locomotive, but I can guess how that would have gone when the city said it would have to spend tax dollars to do so before a group took over the project and then everyone would have cried about "their" tax dollars not going to roads/public works ect.

4
Jason's plan is to submit a proposal and see where that goes.  If it is not accepted then they will begin the process of refunding the money.  Not giving up quite yet.

I hope it works out.

5
Update:
The City of Port Arthur canceled their contract with the scrapper and has re-asserted ownership of locomotive #503. They then voted unanimously to turn it over to a yet-to-be-formed group of local citizens for its care within the city.

In short, the locomotive will not be scrapped - this time. However, it will likely just continue to languish and deteriorate, as so many "park engines" have. It has not been announced if Jason S. intends to hold the money raised temporarily to see if the local group fails, or if he is going to submit his own proposal. GoFundMe does have strict disbursement rules, so it is unlikely that he can forward the raised funds to a group whose goal is not operational restoration.

Article from Trains News Wire: (currently does not require a Trains subscription to view)
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/03/06-texas-city-decides-to-sell-troubled-ten-wheeler

Article from the Port Arthur News:
http://m.panews.com/2018/03/06/council-meet-tceq-mandates-seek-new-503-funds/

This sounds like breech of contract to me, since legal purchase papers were signed between the scrapper and Jason with an agreed purchase price of the locomotive then the city does this? I thought the whole reason why this locomotive was to be scrapped was the "environmental" impact due to it being flooded? So how much tax payer money will be used by the city to maintain the environmental issue until this new non-existent citizen group takes control of the site and loco? This seems atypical anymore with these cities and the political nutcases elected to run them. No common sense and no intelligence at the helm.

After re-reading both articles I think that this is a serious issue, because first of all it costs money to do these contracts, and second ownership of the item should have transferred to the company to satisfy the contract. What the contractor does with the item is their business and not the city's. Let's say this was a building instead that needed to be demolished. The physical land still stays the property of the city, but everything in the building is now the property of the demolisher and if they choose to take the building down brick by brick and sell them for a profit, then that is out of the city's hands since they transferred ownership of the item to be "disposed of" off of city land. That includes the contaminated soil.
Also, where were these "concerned" citizens when the city council voted to scrap the engine in the first place? This whole thing smells bad and unfortunately a historic machine is caught in the middle of all of this. Such a shame.

6
Museum Discussion / Re: #9 max steam pressure
« on: March 06, 2018, 07:16:20 PM »
This whole topic begs the question of what plating for the steel used in the boilers could be used to mitigate any corrosion? Zink oxide? Titanium nitrating? Nickel?

Rob

7
52 is not housebroken??? :o

Jeff S.

This is a good time to come up with a new product: The diesel diaper. For those units that are not quite housebroken yet. Fits the model T too.

 :P

8
Work and Events / Re: Box Car 67 - Official Work Thread
« on: February 13, 2018, 01:00:30 PM »
If you keep talking about Fred and his use of a chain saw, he's going to start looking for those different type of tree call a homosapien, it has only Four limbs to cut. You might say I'm branching out in a new direction!!!

So you are saying Fred is "a cut above the rest"?

9
Work and Events / Re: Eames Train Brakes - Official Work Thread
« on: February 08, 2018, 03:01:15 PM »
I'm glued to the forum watching all the friendly bonding going on.  :o

10
Work and Events / Re: What If? Design Project: 1925-1940 2ft Diesel
« on: February 05, 2018, 07:27:28 PM »
Just as a matter of information, as well as a possible assist in the design of a new internal combustion locomotive, the early General electric steeple-cab electric locomotives were fitted with arch-bar trucks. See photo. This particular locomotive was later outfitted with a diesel engine and generator buy its original owner, the Warwick Railway in Rhode Island, and still later purchased and retrofitted with another larger diesel by the Strasburg Rail Road. Unfortunately, it was too small for their needs and scrapped.

I'll keep doing the research on the diesel electric.

11
Work and Events / Re: What If? Design Project: 1925-1940 2ft Diesel
« on: February 05, 2018, 01:11:34 PM »
Robert,

Due to the scaled down size of your proposed engine, I would suggest you look more at a 4BT engine rather than a 6BT.  They are available up to 140HP which is only slightly less than the original engines on a 44 tonner.  There are lots of surplus or re-man engines available for very reasonable prices.  Also I would look at diesel-electric as they would not require transmissions, gearing, etc. They would also be period correct since both GE and I-R were building boxcabs during the 1920's-30s.

The biggest issue I have been running into is finding a suitable generator head to power the electrics. Traction motors and controllers are easy to find, but the generator is the hard part. I'll keep digging unless someone knows of a good DC generator head out there.
4BTs are also a good option but they are pricey to the point of costing more than 6BTs right now.

Rob

Edit: Just found a 26KW diesel DC genset. Now to look up if speed controllers can handle variable voltages to operate electric motors.

Edit 2: HOLY COW! Speed controllers are $$$$$$$, motors are about $4000.00 ea, and that is not including all the wire, relays, fuses ect and the genset is not cheap as well. I think this was why I shied away from diesel-electric.

12
Work and Events / Re: What If? Design Project: 1925-1940 2ft Diesel
« on: February 02, 2018, 11:54:36 AM »
But just to be confusing, the WWI gas-mechanical locos like FR 'Moelwyn' mentioned earlier in the thread really are from the US Baldwin Locomotive Works, not the Australian Baldwin.

I'll try to clarify my position: My plan for #53 & #54 settled on the drive train style of the Baldwin gas-mechanical like the 'Moelwyn' minus the leading non-powered axle and then making a 0-4-0+0-4-0 twin engine center cab engine using Cummins 6BTs with automatic transmissions on both ends. A 100-120 gallon fuel tank and air tanks from a semi-truck. I'm aiming for about 20-25000lbs with a top out of 30000lbs max.

Rob

13
Work and Events / Re: What If? Design Project: 1925-1940 2ft Diesel
« on: February 02, 2018, 12:39:40 AM »
Here are a couple of other Queensland sugar cane locomotives. These are in the 15-20-ton range and about 180 horsepower diesel hydraulics.

http://sa-transport.co.za/trains/sugar_cane_rail/eimco.html
This thing weighs in at 40 tons.

14
Work and Events / Re: What If? Design Project: 1925-1940 2ft Diesel
« on: February 01, 2018, 07:09:43 PM »
South African GE U8: way too heavy, way too wide. I was suggesting something along the lines of the attached photo.
I just read some info on the exact loco last month. It is diesel-hydraulic with a Detroit 12V92 engine and tips the scales at about 40 tons (I need to double check that number).
Rob

15
Work and Events / Re: What If? Design Project: 1925-1940 2ft Diesel
« on: February 01, 2018, 06:29:07 PM »
While the Baldwin trench locomotives are cool in their own right, they would not solve the problem at the WW&F. What is needed is a locomotive with both power and speed, to allow it to be used to rescue a train and bring it home. It might be worthwhile to take a look at some version of the diesel locomotives manufactured in Australia for use on the still-extensive sugar cane network in Queensland. Using already-proven and functional mechanical designs, the sheet metal surrounding it could be customized to look like a 1930's gasoline or diesel unit.

If the museum needs such a locomotive then the South African GE U8 locomotives would fit the bill. Diesel electric with CAT 3208 power plants.
I'll do my best to present the my best design using modern power train components from the light/medium duty trucks of the day with a period correct design for the final drive (with modern parts) and keeping with the 1920-30s styling. The units would be scratch-built using laser/water CNC cut plate, rectangle tube frames, standard wiring, pneumatic brakes and controls, cab heater with a full enclosed cab.

Rob

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13