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 - Eric Bolton

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
Work and Events / Re: WW&F No. 9 - Official Work Thread
« on: March 16, 2009, 09:54:58 PM »
You can over treat your water though. I've seen proof. On the NH&I when I fired for a photo charter the engine foamed like a  :-X with the treated water from New Hope but when we threw a load of hydrant water in her at Wycomb she turned into an animal! Steamed completely different and stopped foaming. It wasnt the first time thats happened either.

General Discussion / Re: Museum members & their live steamers *PICS*
« on: March 08, 2009, 10:13:35 AM »
Its not as big as everyone elses but its steam. This is my Accucraft 2-6-0 modeled after Nevada Short Line #1 in the California Railway Museum. Its 1:20.3 scale, butane fired and runs at around 60psi.

Two Footers outside of the US / Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« on: March 04, 2009, 10:20:49 PM »
Eric how many Maine 2' lines had a 15 ton plymouth?

In this day and age you cant run a railroad without a diesel back up as much as I'd love diesels to go away (except my GP-40s at work they can stay  ;D ). Also hundreds of thousands of dollars werent spent to get the 52. With the money that is going to be dished out for a brand new steam locomotive there is absolutly no reason to build locomotive that the original railroad didnt own. To build a 2-4-2 for the WW&F would be like building scaled down replicas of EBT hoppers. It just doesnt fit the mission of the museum.

Two Footers outside of the US / Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« on: March 03, 2009, 09:22:27 PM »
You guys are in a rut your thinking #7 a 2-4-4t. I'm thinking what it said on the posting a 2-4-2 not a tank engine but a cut down Prairie with tender. I think most agree that a full size prairie would be too big for our line. But a Columbia might be more usible so nothing that has already been done would be wasted. All i'm saying is check it out see what the Brits would want to do this and if they are even intereated in doing a joint project. Maybe they won't be interested. But if you don't ask you won't know.

The problem with this is that it gets away from the museums mission. To HISTORICALLY recreate the WW&F Railway. The WW&F never had a 2-4-2 and for that matter no US two footer did. Therefor there is no reason to invest in such a project. Now a 2-4-4 of the design of the #7 is historically correct which is why it was chosen.

Two Footers outside of the US / Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« on: February 26, 2009, 08:23:17 PM »
Yeah but boilers can be built here (#9s boiler) frames can be built here (example is in a thread in Narrow Gauge Discussion) cylinders can be cast here and all for cheaper then it would cost to have it built over seas and shipped here. Things like shoes, wedges, journal boxes ect are no big problem to machine or cast. You really wouldn't be able to use the same parts as the Lyn project because they are two different locomotives so all of the castings are going to be one offs and aren't going to cost any less. If you order a boiler and rolling chassie whats left to build? The cab, tank and domes? How is that going to save us any money? That right there was probable 2 million out of the cost for the Tornado. Again if we are going to build a locomotive from scratch it should be completely built here. I see no gain in have parts manufactured over sees and shipped here when we have the abilities to make everything right here. Below is an example of a new frame that was made for the RGS #20 at the Strasburg Railroad. It is to be welded into the old frame to replace a bent section. WE HAVE THE ABILITIES!

Two Footers outside of the US / Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« on: February 18, 2009, 05:25:09 PM »
I personally feel that if we are going to build a steam locomotive here it should be done in this country with as little outsourcing as possible. Boilers can be built her. Frames can be cut here. Cylinders can be cast here. Everything on a steam locomotive can be manufactured in this country. Plus if you do it here you cut out the shipping costs! With the cost of their newest loco tiping the scales at around $4,000,000 US it doesnt seem like it would be any cheaper.

Museum Discussion / J
« on: February 18, 2009, 05:12:56 PM »
Perhaps before we get into building a new car, we should have everything we've already got in tip top shape.  Like repairing and installing those J&S trucks under coach 8.  I bet she'll ride smoother than a babys bottom with those underneath her!

Not just that. It will just look right. Passenger cars dont ride on arch bars.

Museum Discussion / J
« on: February 17, 2009, 12:05:02 AM »
I believe that they are going to be for coach 8. This would then free up a pair of arch bar trucks.

Museum Discussion / Re: AMTRAK to meet WWF at Waterville?
« on: February 12, 2009, 08:39:16 PM »
You guys will get to Wiscasset before Amtrak ever does.  ;)

Work and Events / Re: WW&F No. 11 - Official Work Thread
« on: February 02, 2009, 12:19:59 AM »
It was for sure not bigger then the 23. 23 was the largest two foot gauge locomotive built for use in the USA. My guess is that the 24 may also be larger as well.

Work and Events / Re: WW&F No. 11 - Official Work Thread
« on: February 01, 2009, 02:22:32 AM »
7 was not the largest. The 6 was which was a 2-6-2. Also the 7 was 28 tons and yes it along with the 6 were caught in the engine house fire at Wiscasset.

General Discussion / Re: Running a GG1
« on: January 30, 2009, 01:46:40 PM »
I suppose a tourist road could put up overhead but as far as I'm concerned....a G just plodding along on a couple miles of shortline is NOT a G! To me they are powerful locomotives travelling at 90 mph with Mail - 9 or heading up the Congressional.

Amen to that. That is if Mail - 9 still ran.

The original WW&F didn't have a baggage car. There wasn't enough passengers to ever warrant one.
Yes technically they did. #1 which came with the the original order of passenger cars was more or less a baggage car. It did have a mail section but there was no passenger section. The car is seen in photos as late as 1934 from what I can see.

At the moment there is no "future" WW&F combined as there are no plans at the moment to build one. The original WW&F had two combineds and a full baggage car at one time. The car mentioned here was the Taconnet. It was a baggage/RPO/passenger car built by the Jackson & Sharp Co. in 1901. It came with a coach named Vassalboro. From what I can tell these cars were shorter in length and taller the the #3. Give me some time and I can come up with a drawing of the car to post.

In all honesty besides having the 9 visit old home rails up in Phillips there is no reason for any of the WW&F locomotives to travel. It costs a lot of money to transport something of that size. The cost of the truck (cant put that on a trailer and tow with your pick up), insurances for the move and someone would have to go with the locomotive. Also something of that size would not be able to travel on just any road. Also as pointed out above the FRA thing at MNG prohibits the 10 (and soon 9) from operating there. Its not that they are unfit for operation its just they dont meet some of the FRA operating requirements.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6