Messages

1

General Discussion / Re: More fascinating World War I two footers

« on: November 30, 2012, 02:21:04 PM »

15" was used by the British durring WWII.  I would have you take a look at the pictures of the Romney Hythe & Dymchurch light railway coastal armored defense train.  Cool stuff.  They (RH&DC) also had a dedicated military branch.  They played a big role in coastal defense.  

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Romney%2C_Hythe_and_Dymchurch_armoured_train.jpg

http://s134542708.websitehome.co.uk/pillboxes/html/kent2_1.html

http://www.narrow-gauge-pleasure.co.uk/railways/rlyromney.aspx

2

General Discussion / Re: More fascinating World War I two footers

« on: November 30, 2012, 09:24:44 AM »

Something interesting to note, is that there is more CP (Central Powers) equipment here in the US than Allied equipment.  Almost none of it is left here.  We (the 14th Engineers) looked high and low for equipment, and came to the nasty reality that we would have to build all the equipment from scratch.  Kinda put a cramp in starting the unit. 

3

General Discussion / Re: More fascinating World War I two footers

« on: November 29, 2012, 09:24:49 PM »

The systems used in WWI are an amasing thing.  Only one section of the 2' is left.  It's intact and in operation.  If any of you get to Europe, I would recomend a ride.  So much fun.

Anyone who is really interested in this time should get hold of "Narrow Gauge to No Mans Land".   It has drawings and great ideas.  I also have the drawings for these flat cars, tank cars, and box cars.  I was able to get them coppied, and would love to build one some day.  Would be awsome to have a train like this in Alna.  The 14th Engineers was made up of all New England railroaders.  My Avitar is the combat patch off of an orriginal 14th uniform.  Part of the American 2' history that would be amazing to bring back.

4

Maine Narrow Gauge RR Co. & Museum / Re: B&SR 7

« on: November 29, 2012, 07:38:00 PM »

I wish you guys all the best raising the extra $100,000.00 for #7 and the estimated $3,000,000.00 for the move.  I hope that the costs for #7 can be rained in a little bit to help you out.  Congrats on the sucsess of the "polar express" trains, and the reported addition of all the new steam volunteers.  I honestly hope it all works out for the betterment of the collection. 

5

Maine Narrow Gauge RR Co. & Museum / Re: B&SR 7

« on: November 24, 2012, 08:28:43 AM »

Ok, I'm confused......another $100,000.00?  How much was in the original restricted fund?  Where did the $75,000.00 go?  Is that a number that they had on hand?  That would have bought a brand new boiler and then some.  We're getting into "full size" price ranges here, and I'm starting to get very confused.  What if I don't want a donation to go to "general stuff" and the steam crew isn't around?  I guess I have to ask the same question as Terry.  Is there a "restricted" fund for #7?  And are we getting into these prices because she now has to be part #230 compliant and have a full form 4 and 1472? 

6

Maine Narrow Gauge RR Co. & Museum / Re: B&SR 7

« on: November 20, 2012, 10:06:35 AM »

I think the answer about what can/should be done to move the restoration forward has been very well laid out by Rick.  I as well agree with Rick, I have worked with Rick before I left.  Anyone who tries to get rid of the experienced members of the steam crew is doing so at the risk of the steam locomotives, and their preservation.  A lot of us did more than just work on steam.  Mistakes of the past and current administration are what pushed a lot of us away from MNG, and are keeping a lot of us from ever going back.  When I call the Museum and talk to someone who is in charge (I will not say who on here) asking about truck sets that I know are there, and I’m met with the response of “what’s a truck set”….well, that ought to give you an idea where things are.  
  Now to get right to Ed’s question.  What should be done to move the restoration of #7 forward?  Here are a few of the easiest things that can be done.  
1.  Don’t alienate all of your experienced steam guys
2.  Don’t lie to your experienced steam guys
3.  Don’t degrade your volunteer base (or what’s left of it) by telling them that their volunteer interest isn’t valid or needed.  Everything that the organization gets for FREE is something that you don’t have to pay for and is valid (with a very few exceptions)
4.  Encourage the membership to know their bylaws and take responsibility for the organization.
5.  Put operating practices (meaning organizationally) in place that allow for the ease of operation, and allow for growth of the volunteers and the organization.   Taking a totalitarian approach does nothing but drive both tenured and prospective members and volunteers all away.
6.  The views of the membership, and the ENTIRE board have to be taken into consideration, and the president is there to listen, and to moderate.  It is his/her responsibility to think about the end goal of the organization, and not the feelings of just one person.  Now that having been said, if the group is hemorrhaging volunteers, members, and money….there is an issue.  There is a HUGE issue when it is your most senior and loyal volunteers.  That calls for some serious looks in the mirror to see what’s going on.  

Just my two cents, having been there.  I hope that they turn around for the sake of the collection.   It’s too bad that they cannot see past chest thumping and make it about the collection again.  I really hope that it turns around.  It used to be a great place to go.   Most of these questions can be answered by looking at groups like the WW&F who have really figured out how not to alienate people, and to use the abilities that people bring to the best betterment of the group.  This is the first step to getting the restoration of #7 back on track.  

7

Maine Narrow Gauge RR Co. & Museum / Re: B&SR 7

« on: November 16, 2012, 01:30:29 PM »

When Rick Knight throws in the towel, and puts up a post like that, I put that right in the catigory of things that make you go Hmmmmm.  Sad to know that things are going down hill so much there.  I hope that they turn around for the sake of the collection. 

8

General Discussion / Re: Us Army 611

« on: May 31, 2012, 08:47:41 AM »

Stewart, 

  I did miss it.  I answered the question and then went back and read the thread....ooops.  I have a lot of info on the S-160s, and would love to see your slide sometime.  Maybe when I can get over to Alna again. 

 You are very much correct about the engine being 2628 then, as it was not put into the 600 series until final assignment to Ft. Eustis.  I do have a picture of the engine as 2628 in Hanks Yard at Useless....I mean Eustis... in 1952.  Must be that she went to the MA&PA for testing in Late 49 or early 50?  I seem to be narrowing down here conversion date to the 1947-48 timeframe.  I do know for a fact that she was a conventional S-160 from her build date in 43 through 46.  They didn't start the upgrades on the S-160s to the S-160A design until after WWII, and the 610 (the only new build 160A wasn't built until 1952. 

9

General Discussion / Re: Us Army 611

« on: May 30, 2012, 03:37:07 PM »

So, I can fill in a few blanks for you.  Lets start with the 0-6-0.  It was built by Schenectady in November, 1942, #70420, as USA 4038. It was renumbered 618 in 1954 at Ft. Eustis, de-aquisitioned and sold to VBR as their #8 on August 15, 1958. It later became Delaware-Otsego RR 2 and then later Cooperstown & Charlotte Valley 2.  It ran the "Delaware Otsego" excursions out of Oneonta, NY on the old Delware and Ulster branch of the NYC before being transfered to the Cooperstown branch of the D&H (Then owned by Walter Rich).  When excursion service ended on the C&CV, it was moved from the engine house in Miford, NY to the end of track in Cooperstown and "fluffed and stuffed" there.  1974 sounds about right for the engine being taken out of service.....

I have some pictures of #4038 in service if you would like.  P.M. me with your e-mail address and I will scan them and try to get them to you.

On to #611

#611 was built as a standard USATC S-160 2-8-0 by Baldwin as their shop #69865 in 1943.  She was accepted by the army into domestic service and numbered 2628.  I don't have the exact date that she was transfered to the shops and training company at Eustis, but I believe it was in the mid to late 50s. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).  She shows up in photos there at the steam shops in 58ish already converted to the popet gear and tested.  After being fitted with the Franklin gear, she shows up at the M&PA for heavy load testing...but I can't read the exact dates that she was there.  I know it had to be before November 29, 1956 because that was the last day of steam operations on the M&PA.  

I have quite a few pictures of the #611, including the covers you are asking about.  Again, please feel free to e-mail me and I will hook you up with the pictures that I have of her in service.  Have you guys fixed the bent side rod that 611 got falling off the bridge on the James River Sub west of Hanks Yard?  I have a picture of the #612 heading out there to rescue her.  I hope that you are going to paint her back up in the "bumble bee" paint.  I think that was the best Army paint scheme.  I have pictures of that for you as well.

Hope this all helps,

Brett

P.S.  One last thing.  If you guys are restoring it to operation, make sure that you re-look at the axle box grease lubricators as well as the crown stays and syphon tubes.  There were some design flaws in the orriginal design of these that made them a little bit sketchy.  As a matter of fact, 3 of them blew up in England just after being built in the space of ten months starting in Nov of 1943.  Most of the engines were cycled through the shops after the design of the S-160A, but I can't find anything in my notes as to when or if the #611 went through the modifications.  I know that 607 and possibly 609 did not.   

10

General Discussion / Re: Ohh, you're gonna love this...

« on: February 14, 2012, 10:31:54 AM »

Thanks for posting!  That is a good video, and very informative for those of us who like to learn more about the cars.  I don't know about anyone else on here, but I don't have much time on cars.....

11

General Discussion / Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)

« on: February 09, 2012, 12:54:45 PM »

  All right, I invite you to read part 231.15, 231.16, and 231.17.  I have a call into a friend of mine who can put this question to rest once and for all.....He's an FRA Steam inspector, and did the inspection on another locomotive I work on. 

12

General Discussion / Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)

« on: February 09, 2012, 11:04:36 AM »

§ 229.123 Pilots, snowplows, end plates.
After January 1, 1981, each lead locomotive
shall be equipped with an end
plate that extends across both rails, a
pilot, or a snowplow. The minimum
clearance above the rail of the pilot,
snowplow or end plate shall be 3 inches,
and the maximum clearance 6 inches


This says that it has to have one of the three.  Remember, in dealing with the CFR 49, there is more than just the Part 230 that pertains to steam locomotives. 

13

General Discussion / Re: Not Narrow Guage but germain to the WW&F

« on: February 09, 2012, 10:54:48 AM »

Now that's cool stuff!!!!!!!! 

14

US Two Footers / Re: New York 2' Operation

« on: December 09, 2011, 12:32:03 PM »

#2968 came out of the Davenpot Factory as US Army #5245 (Davenport #1700) and was deliverd finished (not just a chasis as home have believed) to the Army in May 1919.  After it's army use it shows at Columbus Ohio suprplus depot in march of 1921....and from there to Byron Hiatt of Martensdale Iowa.  It was highly modified by Byron, to include modifying the chassis and frame to accept a boiler with a biger firebox.  From Byron it is listed as being sold (or transfered who knows with these army records) to the private railroad of George Long in Monroe, Washington.  From there....who knows...but we have discussed that is currently in the possetion of Railstar?  No one seems to know for sure.  
  The other "Byron" locomotive #2967 was also a Davenport, US Army #5240 (Davenport #1695) was also delivered finished in May 1919.  Same line of transfer as #2968.  As of 1990 shows as being Chassis only, but there again.....who knows. 

Brett

15

General Discussion / Re: MEC 470 in better days

« on: December 07, 2011, 12:59:17 PM »

So here's the thought then.

1.  A group of people need to get together as a "Friends of the 470" group for example.  Along with this, a good down to earth proposal for the engine needs to be written (sanz foam) by someone who has knowledge of what has gone on in the past, and also has experience in steam.  
2.  A group of us need to make a commitment to say that we at some point will go up and do an informal survey of the locomotive to come up with a three tiered plan of action for the locomotive.  This three tiered plan should include the following
A.  Cosmetic Restoration
B.  Mobile Restoration
C.  Operational Restoration
  It needs to be in such a way as so the Waterville people will understand the significance of the locomotive and why it should be preserved.  In each of the sections, explain to them exactly how work will be performed, and what needs to be done.  Stress that at the begining, the biggest thing to do is stabilize the locomotive.  Make it about the engine, and sanz Foam.  
  If you go to them with a reasonable set of goals to help the locomotive, and tie it into community develpoment, I would be very shocked if they didn't listen.  The thing that will turn them right off is if people go in there and say "we're going to run your locomotive!".  Even if that is the end goal, and funds are available for that, it will seem out of reach to the town.  

  Just my 2 cents from having gone through this with another locomotive.  Think small, miss small, and the deer you end up hitting may be a trophy buck!