The Franklin, Somerset & Kennebec Railway (FS&K)

[Reuben Bailey]

Here is a link to the files from my guesses on the FS&K route.  The old forum has a good discussion about it.  I can't tell if people are still planning on using the old forum or not, so I figured that I would bring these over here.
Reuben

Link to KMZ file:
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=973924

Link to Google Maps with KMZ file displayed:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=973924&t=k&om=1

[Mike Fox]

Thanks Rueben. I was just looking at my state Delorme yesterday about that area and then I wondered which route they would have taken. Yours seems logical. I only wish there were more evidence to be found.
Mike

[Glenn Byron]

Rereading Jones, 'Two Feet to Tidewater' and see picture p.75 labeled as "spans the Sandy River at New Sharon". I think this is in error.  Sure looks like the abutments we still see today over Muddy Brook along Route 2. Can't find any info on the Sandy River Crossing yet.  Did have a breakfast meeting in Mercer this morning and met a man who says he has picture info on railbed work in the Mile Hill Region of New Sharon.  He is searching now for the pix.  If this is found it may be some original info about work East of the Sandy.  I have now found and purchased a copy of Ben and Natalie Butler's booklet "Farmington Falls-Where Farmington Began" which has a picture of the completed Railway Station at Farmington Falls.  I'm planning to visit the Alna Museum soon and will bring this along.  Maybe we can find a way to make the photos available as there is also a pix of the approach to Farmington at Abbott Hill (near Cumberland Farms location).  I've put out a call to the New Sharon Historical Society for any tidbits they might know of. 

[Mike Fox]

Great news. Please keep us posted.

As far as Jones' pic, you are correct. Pg. 211 in Two Feet Between the Rails has the same shot. But it does not say it crosses the Sandy River. This was taken from the old highway which is now a town road. The Newer Route 2 now passes over the river behind the abuttments.

[Glenn Byron]

Hi, Visited the Museum a couple weeks ago, paid my dues, and left a picture of the newly completed FS&K Railroad Station at Farmington Falls from the Butler book of 1976 along with some other materials.  Been hoping to see the picture on this site, but we may be tangled up with legalities.  Also just purchased "The History of Mercer, Maine 1782-1974" by Harold Owens Smith (1977).  Inside on p. 122-123 is a very detailed description of the surveyed route of the Franklin and Kennebec Rail Road Company done about 1848 by F.W. Lander.  Though this is an earlier company than the FS&K, and it is a route from Augusta to Farmington, it may contain at least some of what was used 50 years later when work was really started.  If there is any interest in seeing the whole surveyed description I'll copy it.  Also there are copies of this book available at Mercer Town Office for $15 paid to Mercer Historical Society. Glenn  Byron

[Glenn Byron]

Hi, Yesterday I went to UMF Library in Farmington where all local newsprint is on microfilm and hit PAYDIRT.  I had previously been searching 1900-1901 for info on FS&K work. Rereading Moody's "Maine Two Footers" It seemed that the work started earlier.  I started in the Farmington Chronicle 1897-98 box and there it is. First item I found was Thursday February 25, 1897.  A full column about the "Proposed Franklin, Somerset and Kennebec Railroad". This is in the pre building stage and trying to drum up interest in the project before town Meetings.  I was able to find about 15 entries in the Chronicle thru July 1, 1897. During this period several towns were asked to approve the idea as well as the Maine Legislature. This is very tedious work as the microfilm is hard to read and the copies I don't believe are scanable. But for a RR history buff, this is the Mother Lode! Not just news items, but local gossip from town corrospondents.  All this gives us a real look at what was going on.  I have never found much previously written history of this ill-fated venture. I can write it, but it will take a while.  We need to continue thru the years 1897-1898 and maybe more.  Town Reports of Waterville, Oakland, Smithfield, Rome, Mercer, New Sharon and Farmington need to be checked. Other newspapers have more, I'm sure. There has to be a lot of info out there if we can find it, but at least now we have a starting point.  My old eyes were toast after four hours, but I've started a folder and will be back for more.  Cost is almost nothing as UMF charges 10 cents a copy, but as I said I don't think they are scanable.  They will have to be retyped and my skills include the Columbus Method.  If anyone else finds this of interest, get with me and let's go for it.

[Matt Latham]

Glenn,
 This is very interesting to me. While I am remote from Maine, (Live in Texas), if there anything I can do to help, please let me know. While I am not a speed typist, I am slightly faster than the Columbus method. Spell-checker lets me type fast and correct the spelling later. 

[Allan Fisher]

Life Member and former WW&F Curator Jim Bergmann's new book on the WW&F and Alna, Maine, which I am now in the process of editing with Jim, has some interesting new info from local newspapers of the time at the WW&F end of this proposed railroad. I am shooting for a publication date before the Annual Picnic in August. Finished Book will be about 100 pages with 70 pages of text and 30 to 40 pages of photos from the WW&F Archives. More later.

[John Kokas]

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't some grading work started on this route?  If so it would be very enlightening to find articles, pictures, or other records detailing this.  Would make a really neat expedition to find remnants of this.

[Mike Fox]

Yes. Several miles were graded and in town Farmington was elevated on trestle work to have minimal street crossings. While this was a great idea at the time, it left no evidence of where the track truly went through Farmington. There used to be a ramp built of dirt at one end but I think by now it is gone. If I recall correctly, there is a picture of the fill, trestle work and a bridge in New Sharon in Jones' book Two Feet Between the Rails.

[Glenn Byron]

Hello again,  I just purchased a second copy of the 1976 book, "The Falls: Where Farmington Began in 1776" by Natalie Butler, which I am donating to the WW&F Museum.  In it, on page 18, is a picture of the trestle over Main Street Farmington on the way to the MCRR/SRRL Rail Yard.  This would be just past the present location of the Cumberland Farms Store.  According to Linwood Moody's first edition book (1959) the problems developed as FS&K tried to get approval to come into the MCRR Yard which would be less than a quarter mile westward where they would connect to the Sandy River and Rangely Lakes Narrow Guage.  MCRR denied access and FS&K Directors did not fight the decision.  Again, as in Burnham, they built railbed before they had permission and effectively killed the whole project.  Moody even wondered why they did not route a little north and connect to SRRR outside the MCRR Yard.  This book has a wonderful biography section on Leonard Atwood, the major player in the ill fated FS&K venture.  Also on page 19 is a copy of a painting of the Farmington Falls Railroad Station, all finished and waiting for the first train (Which never Arrived!).  The original of this painting hangs in The Titcomb House across from the Farmington Public Library and maintained by The Farmington Historical Society.  The Falls Station location was on what is now called the Mason Rd. right near the New Sharon Town Line and maybe a quarter mile from the F. Falls Village.  I'm anxious to get back to the old newspapers for another taste of this.

[Glenn Byron]

Update Again:  I've scanned all 16 Farmington Chronicle articles from Feb. to July 1, 1897 and sent them to Allan Fisher to be sure everything  is included in the new book.  Even though the microfilm copies were of poor quality, the scans are usable.  My computer skills are very limited and this has been a great learning experience.  I hope Allan can find a way to share some of this material and  hope to get back to UMF to get some more.  Today I visited the Oakland Library, but came up empty on FS&K info. They recomended Colby College. I know there is more info available in records of The Maine Legislature who approved the FS&K proposal in the 1897 Session.  It would seem that many organizations such as the Grange would have had speakers in preparation for the Town Meetings in towns along the proposed route.  We need some help here.  DIG, DIG, DIG.  Let's be sure the new book has anything not previously uncovered.  

[Ed Lecuyer]

MODERATORS NOTE:
FS&K Route on GE has been converted from the pre-July 2008 WW&F Discussion Forum.
Some formatting may have been removed or modified from the original postings that appear quoted in this topic.
Information contained within this post may be superseded by more recent postings and conversations.
Reuben Bailey wrote:

Hello everyone.  I've just posted a very preliminary version of where I think the FS&K roadbed might have been from Farmington to New Sharon.  I have been through the area many times, but have not had an eye open for roadbed possibilities, so everything here is pretty much based on the aerial photos and the terrain as GE shows it.  I'd like to hear what everyone thinks, and if they can correct the errors that I am sure exist.  Also, any ideas on how they were going to get from New Sharon to Waterville are welcome - I haven't even started on that, other than to make the end point in Waterville.
All the Best,
Reuben

Link to posted map:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=973924&t=k&om=1

Link to .kmz file (for Google Earth client program):
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=973924

James Patten replied:

I sort of know the lay of the land around the Waterville area, having gone to college there for 5 years.

I believe that stream that empties into the Kennebec is called Messalonskee Stream.  I figured that somehow the railroad first needed to get into Waterville proper, then would likely follow the Messalonskee working its way up and out of the Kennebec river valley.  The Waterville area sits on bluffs of sorts next to the river.  The Messalonskee now has been dammed in a couple of different places, so I would assume the gully was once pretty deep and steep, separating one portion of Waterville from another.

I am much less familiar with the topography west of the interstate.

Stephen Hussar replied:

I sort of know the lay of the land around the Waterville area, having gone to college there for 5 years.

Thanks James, I feel better now, knowing that I wasn't the only one on "the 5 year plan!" 

James Patten replied:

Ah, but for my 5 years in school I got my Bachelor's and Master's degrees at the same time.

BM1455 replied:

Reuben,
I'm fairly sure that your map of the FS&K is off a bit between New Sharon and Farmington.  I believe that you are following the roads too much.  Much of the ROW was out in what is now fields and woods.  I also think that the enterence to Farmington came in more through what is now the fairgraonds- not where the current roads are, and did not snake around so much in town to reach the SR&RL.  The part in New Sharon was closer to the river and behind the cemetary. I have walked it last fall.  That part of the grade is still there and is walkable.
I have a map I made on Google maps as well but I did not know how to save it, so I just printed it off before it got deleted when I left the site.
Eric.

Mike Fox replied:

Not bad. Some places make sense. Next time I am through the area, I'll have to look some more.
Mike

Reuben Bailey replied:

Hello Everyone.
I have updated the file in GE to reflect some of the changes mentioned above.  The links in my first post will show the new file.
Eric, the way that I have been doing this is through the Google Earth client software.  There may be some way to do it in Google Maps, although I don't know.  GE is free to download and has pretty high res pics, sometimes a little higher than the maps.  It is somewhat slow to load pictures over dialup, however.

Dana Deering replied:

You might also get an idea as to where the FS&K route went by looking in the 1896 and 1897 Maine Railroad Commissioner's Reports.  In one of them it lists all the towns in which the FS & K applied for grade crossings.

Dana

glennstin replied:

Hi All, Just joined and this discussion is a frequent coffee shop topic here in Smithfield.  I'll repeat an email sent to the museum and replied to by James:

To my knowledge there is no definitive route known for the route to
Farmington, beyond what was graded from Farmington to New Sharon.  The
Museum does have a discussion forum where we have postulated what the
route might have been.
James Patten
WW&F Railway Museum

Glenn Byron wrote:
> Hello, A group of us here in Smithfield, Maine have been trying to find
> a map of the proposed branch of WW&F which would have linked to the
> SR&RL at Farmington.  We have visited the old trestle site in New Sharon
> and still see some of the bed along the Sandy River.  A near as we can
> tell, the Kennebec River crossing was not finished.  Is there any
> information as to how much of the bed was done and the route it was to
> follow?  An oldtimer here in town claims he heard of someone who "Worked
> on the Railroad in Smithfield."  The route from Waterville might have
> included us in the Belgrade Lakes Region and along the way Mercer thru
> New Sharon then Farmington.  We would like to update our town history if
> there is any info available.  Thanks,  Glenn Byron,  PO Box 113,
> Smithfield,  ME. 04978

Mike Fox replied:

Glenn,
Take a look at Rueben's maps. They make sense. Maybe this will point you to a location you might recognize and can spot some grading that had been done. If you do find anything, please let us know.
Mike

BM1455 replied:

After looking at Reuben's updated maps I beleive his V-2.2 map is the closest.  Mostly dead on from New Sharon to Farmington, untill it gets to the the fair grounds in Farmington....then my hunch is that it would have been a bit more of a staight line than his map shows as there are no reeal topographical obstcles to force the curves that are drawn on his map.  However, this area is so obliterated with developement now it would be hard to ever know by looking at arial photos taken recently.

Reuben Bailey replied:

Hello all,
I just updated the file for the FS&K V2 file to reflect Eric's suggestion - in looking at the ground from a low angle it became apparent that the ground is higher where the line runs now - it could be an old fill, but it is hard to tell.  Before I was trying to follow what appears to be a ravine, thinking that the line would have been climbing from the low area through it.  This way makes more sense, particularly if the low area was bridged by trestle work, which I think I have heard somewhere on these forums.  Anyhow - keep the info and ideas coming.
All the best,
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
Reuben

BM1455 replied:

Reuben,
Again, I beleive that the V2 version is most accurate.  If you ever get a chance to drive along the road - Rt 27 i think - about a mile south east of the fair grounds you will see those fields that V2 goes through.  I real life they look like a RR grade.  They also line up with known ROW points that intersect with some of the side roads off the the north of Rt 27 a little further south east.
On your latest update, I would think that the ROW could have been even more direct than you have shown between the last sharp curve just east of the fiargrounds and where the V2 meets the red line near the stream to the west of the fairgrounds.  That developement was not there in the early 1900's and it appears to be quite a level area.  Why have curves if it is flat?  ...of course this is all speculation as to what it was like in that area 100 years ago but I'll bet it was a straight line coming out of that last turn that cut diagnaly through the extreme lower half of the race track and then crossing the road at a sharp angle - then plowing through those darned houses.  ...OK now I'm getting carried away.

Reuben Bailey replied:

Eric,
it seems unlikely to me that the ROW would cut through the corner of the fairgrounds.  I don't know the age of the building that a straight line would cut through, but it doesn't seem right.  Patterns are often followed once they have been established, and property lines would have been formed by the ROW.  I do not know what level of development there was in this part of Farmington at the time of the railroad, but even if it was farm fields, the ROW would have left traces that may have been followed in later development.  I am open to being persuaded that the line did run straight, but I'm not convinced that it would have been so completely erased by the subsequent "progress."

If anyone is able to look at the tax maps there it may provide some hints.  Also the MRCR that Dana mentioned may prove helpful.  Does anyone know if this is available anywhere other than the State Archives?

I've changed the files on GE again - the links above should still work.
All the best,
Reuben

BM1455 replied:

Reuben,
I am making the assumption that the fairgrounds, or at least the race track was not there durring the FS&K days.  Same for the housing developement, which appears to be from a much latter time.
I could be wrong on that but maybe not.
Eric.

MikeW replied:

There may or may not be tax maps going back that far in Farmington - I have not done work in that town so I don't know.  In addition to these, I would check with the Assessor if there any "Sanborn Maps".  These were created for insurance companies for valuation purposes.  They are a tremendous source of information since they show not only property lines but also structure footprints, number of stories etc.  I have found them to be surprisingly accurate despite when they were created.  Also the town may have street or right of way maps showing the legal boundaries of streets and right of ways under public ownership.  These are usually very early documents and it is possible some clues may be found on them too.

glennstin replied:

Hi All,  The fair dates more than 150 years.  I'm not sure of the dates and whether the location has changed, but it can be checked easily.  I know many fair association members of the Franklin County Agricultural Society and some of them go back several generations, such as The Hall Farms in East Dixfield where I grew up.  Ralph, Charlie, d**k and now his sons have all been heavily involved.  I'll talk this around as others familiar with the Farmington area can to see where it leads us.  We used to ride snowmobiles crossing the Sandy River about where the power line station is today and follow it to gain access to the old high school located on outer Middle St.  Somehow I remember a little Narrow Guage bed being involved, but I may be confusing our use of the old SR&R bed north of town.  As most know much of that bed has been preserved as snowmobile trail all over Franklin County.  Stay tuned, this topic has me wound up!   Glenn  Byron,  Smithfield, ME.

Reuben Bailey replied:

Eric,
I think that the development you are talking about is the trailer park right behind the business that I marked. If that the case, then I would guess that you are right about it not being there then. However, I am guessing that the road between Franklin and Stanley Avenues could be the old road bed.  The other alternative that I posted is just playing around.
Glenn - I've marked where I think you are talking about crossing the river - let me know if I'm right.  It will be interesting to hear what you find out from your friends.
Mike, I'm planning on trying to get a hold of the MRCR at the State Archives, but it will probably be a while before I do.  A trip to Farmington to dig up any maps of any kind will also be in order - it will also be a while before I get to do so.

All the best,
Reuben

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=973924&t=k&om=1

BM1455 replied:

Hey Reuben,
I thinks the three track plans that you have now represent a good range as to what was likely the route.  Without maps, I doubt you will ever know for sure.  The section accross the river/ stream and closer to the SRRR junction is most likely correctly identified by the purple line as you can still see the grade when standing in the street.  This area is behind the icecream shop that we all like to go to when we visit Farmington in the summer time.

glennstin replied:

Hi All,  The best place to research in Farmington is at the Univ. of Maine @ Farmington Library.  All the old newspapers from the whole area are there.  Let me know if anyone is working on this project in the area and maybe we can hook up.  Glenn

glennstin replied:

Hi All,  Been down with the flu, but my buddy brought by a copy of  TWO FEET TO TIDEWATER, expanded and updated version, 2002.  First time I had seen the P. 72 map.  YES! WE came close to having a railroad in Smithfield.  Just imagaine how tiny Rome, Maine might have been the port on Great Pond. Our coffee shop, Sweet Dreams, at the junction of 137 & 225 would have been right there also.  This seems a very feasable route, although Farmington Falls looks a ways off the route.  We have this great discussion of the Falls RR Station going and I bet some photos are going to pop up soon.  I know a bunch of old timers right there and the search is on.  Any way this is the greatest book on WW&F that I've ever seen. I taking dates from here and going to UM@Farmington Library to check the microfilms.  They are the depository for all local newspapers.  That P.75 picture of the nearly completed RR Trestle @ New Sharon just haunts us as we drive Route 2 just west of Tuttle's Auto Sales and still see the ghost like abutments of more than 100 years in the past.  Keep Diggin',  Glenn

DWhittemore replied:

Reuben,
I am making the assumption that the fairgrounds, or at least the race track was not there durring the FS&K days.
Eric.

Without knowing for certain, I would still be willing to bet that the racetrack was definitely in place when the right-of-way was being laid out. Those were the days of harness racing when a champion harness racer was as famous as Elvis and the Beatles put together. So the racetrack at Farmington would have been sacred ground and no sweet talking promoter would win any friends by trying to borrow a piece of it. I have seen several old photos of  turn of the last century races at Farmington, but without dates on them I can't be 100% of the layout.

I sure hope somebody digs up some info on the Farmington Falls station!

-Donovan

James Patten replied:

For those that get the newsletter, Ellis Walker had an article on the FS&K in his Musings.  He used the map of the FS&K found in Two Feet to Tidewater.  The thing I found interesting was the branch lines from New Sharon to Norridgewock, Augusta, and Gardiner.  I'd always thought those were standard gauge railroads that had been already built or were proposed, although I'd never recalled a railroad being built up there.

DWhittemore replied:

Wow, thanks for pointing that out James. I didn't realize that all those branch lines coming out of New Sharon were meant to be part of the 2 foot system. Does anyone know if there is any other record of those proposed branch lines? Looks like some thought went into the routes, like maybe some money people were in West Gardiner or Manchester to explain that odd path to Gardiner. And to think of New Sharon being such a rail hub!

Hope you're all staying warm up there in the wilds.

[Ed Lecuyer]

MODERATORS NOTE:
Franklin, Somerset, and Kennebec Railway has been converted from the pre-July 2008 WW&F Discussion Forum.
Some formatting may have been removed or modified from the original postings that appear quoted in this topic.
Information contained within this post may be superseded by more recent postings and conversations.
Dana Deering wrote:

I know there are a few FS&K afficianados out there.  I would like to start a discussion of this two footer that as Linwood Moody put it "almosted but not quited".  Anyone interested?

Stewart Rhine replied:

Dana,  I think it is a good idea.  The FS&K is an interesting line.  Zack and I have tried to find the grade over the last 5 or 6 years.  We have only see the trestle approaches and piers at New Sharon.  The rest is still a mystery.  I would like to know where the line ran and how much was graded.  There's probably more out there that we have not seen.  If any members know of existing grade in other locations I'd like to hear about it.

Mike Fox replied:

Stewart, in my limited time around the Farmington area, I was able to figure what little grading that was done in town is now long gone. And between New Sharon and Farmington appears to have been taken over in places by Route 2. I would like to get up there sometime and do some scouting myself. And After 100 years, the abutments in New Sharon look the same today as they do in the photos taken back then. Amazing.
Mike

Stewart Rhine replied:

Mike,  I think you are right about Route 2 covering the FS&K grade.  I have been going to Farmington since 1998 and have never found any of it.  I think the grade would have come into town near where the Giffords Ice Cream store (or the road next to it) is.  This idea is based on the location of the original Maine Central Freight house.  This is the long building that houses the "Just Ask" rental store.  The FS&K had a legal appeal with the MCRR over the location of the building.  The FS&K wanted to move it or order to  make a direct connection with the SR&RL at the passenger station.  They lost the appeal and the building remained in it's original spot.  If you look at the allignment of the building it gives you an idea of where the FS&K mainline would have been.  As you know, the passenger station was moved closer to the river so there is no reference to the narrowgauge from it's current location.

Stewart

James Patten replied:

I have moved this thread to the Original WW&F topic.

James

Allan Fisher replied:

Allan Socea drew a map for Zack today that shows the ROW crossing Route 2 and skirting a cemetery and then heading for the proposed bridge crossing the river. Allan says this part of the right of way - (very close to the village of New Sharon) is still easy to find.

Stewart Rhine replied:

I have walked all of the grade that I can find at New Sharon.  One thing to note is how narrow the grade is on top of the high fill at the north end of the bridge.  The track bed on the approach is just 5 feet wide for the entire length of the fill.  This brings some questions.  The most obvious is what size ties were to be used on the FS&K?  Five footers would have been right at the edge of the fill.  The SR&RL had some real heavy power in that era but those engines probably would not have been traveling on such an unstable fill.  The WW&F has nice wide fills in most places.  Some may have been widened with the arrival of engines 6 and 7 but most were probably built that way.  Why wasn't the FS&K built to the same standards?  It may have been the cost factor.  Maybe the idea was to get the line into operation and then upgrade as time and funds allowed.  The bridge seems to have been built to fairly high standards.  One wonders why the approaches were so narrow, even by two foot standards.

If any of you get in that area it is worth the walk to the top of the high fill to see the grade.

Joe Fox replied:

Stewart,

There are some fills along the line North towards the Mountain from end of track that used to be only about five feet wide. Or at least they were only that wide before the excavator went through. I haven't been up there to see how different the fill and grade looks now.

Joe

Stewart Rhine replied:

Joe,  I have walked the WW&F grade from Alna Center north to the 218 crossing 4or 5 times and I know the area you mentioned.  Yes, the high fills are narrow on top but to me the grade at New Sharon looks even narrower.  I may measure them when I go up there next week.  Another question is whether any bridge abutments or piers were built at the crossing of the Sandy River.  Since the bridge contractor completed the span at New Sharon (except for ties and rail) one would think that the next bridge would have at least been started.  I have never seen anything.  Do you know where the line would have crossed the river?

David Johnson replied:

Stewart, it's kind of hard to tell from out here in Kansas, but would the F,S&K need to cross the Sandy River?  As I recall the railroads were on the north side of the river and that the river flowed more southerly while the F,S&K would have gone to the east.  Straighten me out on the geography.  I've seen the piers at New Sharon and Winslow, but couldn't find much else.  The Sandy River book, Two Feet Between the Rails, had a couple of photos in it of low trestles on the grounds of the school or college at Farmington and also of a single span road overpass, so it would seem that the bridge contract must have been completed at least to New Sharon.  I seem to recall that some flat or work cars were delivered to Farmington for rail laying.  Was any rail ever spiked down or am I imagining things?

Joe Fox replied:

oh. My dad might be able to answer that question since he is all over the place driving his flat bed truck. I beleive I have seen a photo of an abutment for the F.S & K. However, I am not sure what bridge it was for.

Stewart Rhine replied:

Joe,  Thanks for the reply.   I'm leaving for the track weekend tomorrow so if you get any info on where the bridge was (or if there was one) you can tell me then.   Each Fall I go to Phillips to check out the SR&RL progress.  I usually stop at New Sharon to look around.  I have been on the old through-truss road bridge (which is now closed to traffic) in town.  I was told the line would have crossed the river west of that bridge.  I can't see any abutments from there so if the line did cross the river, they must be down around the bend.  I plan to look at the map that Allan Socea drew for Zack, showing where FS&K skirted the cemetary, etc.   I'll walk that part if I can find it.

David,  Thanks for your input.  I have both SR&RL books and know of the photos you mentioned.  I was told the the line would have crossed the Sandy River a little west of town.   I would like to see a good map of the line with the existing town roads.  That would show the grade crossings and bridges and help my understanding of where it went.  As you said, it may not have crossed the Sandy River.

David Johnson replied:

Jones wrote that by mid December 1898, the 9.5 miles from Farmington to New Sharon had the grading and trestle work completed.  Photos in Two Feet between the Rails, Vol. I seem to indicate that quite a bit of the work in Farmington may have been trestle work.  Since no grade crossing were allowed at Bridge, Main, and High Streets in Farmington, the line may have been elevated through most of that area.  That would account for the absence of any sign of the grade in Farmington at the present time.  Abbott School in Farmington was where the alignment went through the tennis court and resulted in legal action for damages.  In addition to those court documents, the acquisition of right-of-way should have resulted in filed documents at the courthouses.  The legal descriptions on those documents along with USGS maps should allow the location of the line to be accurately mapped out.  In addition to the line to New Sharon, Jones wrote that the 13 miles east of New Sharon had the right-of-way acquired and clearing and grubbing completed.  Is there anybody up that way that has the time or interest to do courthouse research?  The side view of the New Sharon bridge shows that at least the ties were laid on the bridge.  Jones wrote that the first rails were received in July of 1898, but he doesn't say whether they went to the FS&K or perhaps to the W&W west of Weeks Mills.  Moody in The Maine Two-Footers wrote that miles of rail were laid on the FS&K.  Does anyone know if this is true?

James Patten replied:

It is my understanding that the Farmington trestle work seen in the photo on Two Feet Between the Rails (and possibly Two Feet to Tidewater is where McDonald's is today.

As for the top of fills being not very wide - well, they've had 100 plus or minus years of erosion that's probably worn away at them.

Mike Fox replied:

That would make sense James. McD's is lower than route 2 headed toward New Sharon. I think when that stretch of road was rebuilt in the 50's or 60's, what was left of the grade in town Farmington was erased. I can find sections of old highway roadbed between Farmington and New Sharon but no RR grade to speak of until you get into New Sharon. As for crossing the Sandy river, I have never read about a bridge being built there. But there must have been plans for one at least. And maybe some grading to get ready for it. If no stones were placed, it might be almost impossible to find now. Sandy River in the spring is violent. I know you have seen some of the pictures. not much would stay put with water like that.
Mike

Allan Fisher replied:

Member Gus Pratt (88 years old) visited today and says that the right of way behind the cemetery and the bridge abutments for the Sandy River bridge are easily visible. West and south of there hard to find anything.

Gus road in the cab of #24 the last week of regular train service on the F&M section of the SR&RL, and rode the cab of #18 on the scrap train.

ETSRRCo replied:

WOW he would have been my age when he did that. OOO what I would give to just SEE the 24. Anyway what do you all think would have happened to our beloved two footers if the FS&K had been built. One interesting view I had never thought of before was brought to my attention about a year ago. The three railroads would have become very profitable. The MEC would have moved in, took them over and probable standard gauged them and we wouldn't have anything left. It would have definitely changed the future of the two footers that's for sure.

Mike Fox replied:

If the FS&K would have been completed, it would have been a bridge route. Where they were headed had no industry to aid in income. Would have been a hard life I think.

petecosmob replied:

I was studying online map and photo sites and discovered something quite odd...
there are not one, but TWO WEEKS MILLS!  Miles apart from each other, but if FS&K had been completed, each would have had a 2'er running through it!
What would that have done to passenger schedules?
Would one town have changed it's name, or would the stop at the more northerly Weeks Mills be called something like "West New Sharon?"
One can only ponder!
Cosmo

Dana Deering replied:

No doubt the FS&K would have become an important bridge route but it could have opened up some industry along its proposed trackage.  There was pulp mill at Farmington Falls (where an FS&K station was actually built) that would have provided a source for traffic in both directions.  With the connection to Wiscasset and the waterfront, who knows?  I think it would have been more profitable than the Wiscasset to Albion run.

Dana

Bill Sample replied:

Can you imagine seeing a FS&K train crossing the mighty Kennebec River on what would have been one of the more spectacular 2-footer bridges?
Time for some of our more imaginative artists out there to paint that scene, complete with a MeC train passing beneath.

ETSRRCo replied:

No question it would have been busier then the Albion route I personally think that Weeks Mills to Albion would have been abandoned. Think about it. If the FS&K had been built this would have made a direct connection between the forest lands of Franklin County with a deep water port. This would have made it possible to completely bypass the Maine Central. During the boom years of the SR&RL they hauled thousands of loads of freight (enough to fill 6,000 standard gauge cars in 1919) that probable would have been hauled down the FS&K to the WW&F to Wiscasset. This would have changed Wiscasset to. The port would have been much busier and would have to have been bigger. Now this is just my opinion on it but I think a pretty probable outcome. The FS&K wouldn't have really needed any industries on their line with all the traffic going between the SR&RL and the WW&F.

-Eric

Dana Deering replied:

Hey Guys,

I've been doing a lot of research about the "Old Star", the Mogul that eventually became the SR&RL #16, and what I have found leads me to believe that the FS&K and not the W&Q bought, or at least made attempts to buy, the locomotive and three flatcars from the defunct Laurel River & Hot Springs RR.  There is anectdotal evidence that at least one of the flatcars was used to lay some rail on the FS&K.  The locomotive was stored at Wiscasset for a time but when the FS&K bubble burst it went to the Portland Co. for storage.  This was around 1897 and it was not until 1900 that the Sandy River scooped it up for a song.  Can you imagine that Mogul rolling over the Kennebec River bridge with a freight bound for Wiscasset?  Wow, what we just missed.
Speaking of the bridge it is my understanding that the WWF Railway Museum once owned the orignal drawings for the Kennebec River Bridge and they disappeared.  Any idea what happened to them?

Dana

Stewart Rhine replied:

Mike, Joe and everyone,  The WW&F team made the annual trip to Phillips again this Fall.  This time Zack, Marcel, Eric and I spent more time looking around New Sharon and Farmington.   We discovered a number of places where you can see the grade.  Here's what we found:

(1)Go to the back of the cemetary at New Sharon.  Go to the right corner and walk down over the hill about 50 feet.  You will find the grade running through the woods along the back side of the cemetary.   It continues North about 400 feet until it gets near where it crossed a town road.  In this area the grade has been lost to regrading.  We also tried following the grade going South from the cemetary but it goes into an area where new fill was pushed from the top of the hill covering the grade.

(2) Go to the Giffords Ice Cream store in Farmington.  Park behind the store and walk North on the road towards the location of the former MCRR freight house.  As the road begins to climb, look to your right.  There is a newer building up on the hill.  Where it's driveway comes out is where the grade crossed the road you are standing on.  You can see part of the grade cut into the embankment below this new building.  The grade runs South along side of the hill and goes behind the Cumberland Farms store.  There is probably about 100 feet of the grade in the brush at this location.  Note: that this is a correction from what I said before.  The grade was NOT where the road is next to the McDonalds.  Stand at the location where the grade comes out from the hillside and look North towards the freight house.  You can see the top of the roof in the distance.  You will see that the road is higher and another building has been built where the grade would have been.   We do know that the railroad was being built South from this location but we do not know exactly where the track started.  This is because the MCRR owned the land around the freight house and would not have allowed the FS&K to build on their land.  The station lot would have extended south from the structure aways.

I hope this helps.  Happy hunting and let me know if you guys find bridge abutments at the Sandy River.  You may be able to see more now that  the hardwoods are bare.

Stewart

Mike Fox replied:

My screen saver was just working and one of the photos on the screen was of Farmington Falls. Looked like the mill Dana had spoke of earlier along with the covered bridge that was right next to it. Anyone know of any photos out there of that? I am going to check Images of America to see if they have produced something for that area.
Mike

[Ed Lecuyer]

MODERATORS NOTE:
Porter 2-8-0 for the FS&K/W&W has been converted from the pre-July 2008 WW&F Discussion Forum.
Some formatting may have been removed or modified from the original postings that appear quoted in this topic.
Information contained within this post may be superseded by more recent postings and conversations.
David Johnson wrote:

For the last 35 years I have wondered about the Porter 2-8-0 locomotive the was designed for the extension to Farmington.  Moody wrote that a set of blueprints #9816 were prepared and dated December 5, 1901 for a 2-8-0, Class D-2-T-8, codeword Hatijo for the Franklin Construction Co.  Since the only plausible use for such a locomotive would be line haul work from the Sandy River, the engines were never built.  They were to have 33" drivers, 13x16" cylinders, 55,000lb total, with 48,000lb on the drivers and 29,500lb for the tender.  Has anybody ever seen correspondence on the proposal or the blueprints or does anyone know where they might be located if they still exist?  Other authors have been silent on this subject.  I understand that Moody's photos may be in the DeGolyer library at SMU in Dallas.  Is it possible that there a some Moody files there that may have information?  The 13th edition of Porter's catalogue, which is several years later gives weights for that class as 57,000lb total, 50,000lb on the drivers, and the tender in working order at 38,000lb.  The boiler pressure is 170lbs and the tractive effort is 11,850lbs.  Those numbers are probably for a standard gauge loco and are very close to Moody's weights.  An outside frame 24" gauge locomotive would be only slightly lighter since the difference in frame width and therefore cylinder width and axle length is about 6" less.  An inside frame locomotive would be quite a bit lighter and would probably have less boiler pressure to keep the adhesion to a reasonable number.  Does anyone know if these were to be outside framed?

petecosmob replied:

Well....where to start?
As I must categorize all my research into the "hobby: amature historian" catagory, I can only offer my musings as to what the locomotive would have looked like. I can picture it being quite a beast though! Imagine WW&F #6 with an extra set of drivers, OR #24 with an extra drive axle in leiu of a trailing truck, and we begin to get the picture!
I cannot imagine such a creature being built on anything other than an outside frame. Such eight-coupled outside -framed loco's were not unheard of, case in point; the 3' Mikes that still roam (in heards like the buffalo) out west. One could only imagine, FS&Kor no, what the WW&F would have done with such an engine had it been delivered. One thing's for certain, it would have been the largest (CMIIW) locomotive on a Maine 2'er.
Unfortunately, I don't have access to much as far as research materials go, just the same .www that everyone else has.
I DO seem to recal something about a 2' 2-8-0 or 2-6-2 or the like stored somewhere in NY State. I'll look that up in a bit and see if I can find it again.
Ciao,
Cosmo

petecosmob replied:

Ok,...yeah. I looked for the engine I was thinking of last night and FOUND IT! But then I got busy and forgot to post where it is!
I'm going to look it up again in a bit, but heres what I remember:
There's at least 2 large 2' guage engines hiding out in upstate NY! One, at least, is a 2-6-2, maybe both! They look big! Bigger than ol' 24!
I belive the location is Watertown NY.
I'll look it up again and post a link if I can.
Cosmo

petecosmob replied:

Ok, here's what I found:
(I tried posting the link, but I don't have enough postings yet for the website to let me post url/links!  )
The engines in question are both 2-6-2's, which doesn't  so much help with the subject of this thread, but it does make for interesting discussion.
The one pictured came from Washington State, the other from "Canal Village in Rome, NY."
While the arrangement isn't 2-8-0, it does give an idea what the size of such an engine might be.
A search of "Surviving steam locomotives in NY State"
yeilded the above info. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and look for 24" in the "Guage" column.
Cosmo

Glenn Christensen replied:

Hi Folks,
Rough drawings were created by Porter for the proposed WW&F 2-8-0.  I know this because I have seen copies of them.  I do not recall whether the drawings show the proposed locomotive as inside or outside framed.  While an outside frame locomotive would seem logical, there were a number of inside frame designs that would have been suitable in 2', 30", and 3' gauges.  One of these is shown in the back section of the original version of Moody's "Maine Two Footers".
For a look at some outside framed, 30" gauge Baldwin consols that would look at home in Maine, check out the Cuba section of Rob Dickinson's International Steam pages at URL:
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/steam/
For a look at some dandy (two-footable) 3' gauge, inside frame Vulcans, check out the Lawndale Rwy section at URL:
http://www.tarheelpress.com/index.html
I believe the most modern non-articulated 2' locomotive design from a US builder (Baldwin) may have been the fleet of Baldwin 2-8-2s built for the Scindia and Gwalior lines in India in 1948.  I have a photo of one of these currently on display in Mumbai (Bombay), but don't know how to post it here.  Interestingly, these locomotives were a modernized version of the 25 - 30" gauge 2-8-2s built for the "old Patagonian Express" in Argentina, which were themselves based upon the design for SR&RL #23.  A number of the Patagonian locomotives survive in service to this day.  All major dimensions for these locomotives were nearly identical - including the driving wheel base.  (Picture a #23 with an extra pair of drivers.)  The major difference was the piston valves (as opposed to slide valves) found on the later locomotives.  Check out the attached URL for the Patagonian locos.
http://www.latrochita.org.ar/
For some 30"gauge Baldwin 2-8-0s running today in Brazil, check out URL:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/8579/ingles.htm
Best Regards,
Glenn

pockets replied:

Glenn,
Thanks for the links. For a Mt. Gretna fan those Brazilian 4-4-0's are really sweet.
Greg B.

ETSRRCo replied:

I know this is a little off topic but what railroad in Brazil was it that has locomotives very similar to the 6?

David Johnson replied:

Glenn,
Where did you see a copy of the drawing at and is it possible to get a copy made?

Stephen Hussar replied:

2-foot gauge 0-8-0 (Porter) -- some serious power here...

petecosmob replied:

Ok, yeah, size-wize verry similar to the ones in NY State!

Glenn Christensen replied:

Sorry David,
The drawing is owned by a private collector, who I have not been in touch with for a number of years.
Sincerely,
Glenn

ETSRRCo replied:

Got any specs on that 0-8-0? That would gives us an idea of what size the 2-8-0 might have been. (could help me make a drawing of what it might have looked like). One question. Around what year was this 2-8-0 discussed? O and one more. Are there any examples of outside frame Porters? I cant for the life of me remember EVER seeing an outside frame Porter. Being on the restoration team of a 3ft gauge Porter I have seen that book of the Porter catalogue and I do not remember outside frame locomotives. The 2-8-0 just might have been inside if it was built by Porter!
-Eric

Glenn Christensen replied:

Sorry I don't have the 0-8-0 specs, but the Porter serial number is 7304.
Assuming 20" tender wheels, the drivers look to be between 28 and 30" in diameter.  Based on that dimension, the boiler would be about 42" in diameter.  As they would have been contemporaries, I imagine the smaller details would have been similar to those found on WW&F #4.
The 2-8-0 drawings would have been drafted some time between 1900 and 1902.  As for differences with the 0-8-0, slide valve rather than piston valve cylinders would be a good bet since piston valves weren't common until about 1920 or so.  This would also date the 0-8-0 to 1920 or later
That should be enough to get you started. I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with.
Come to think of it, I don't recall even seeing any outside frame Porters either.  But Alco, Vulcan, Glover and Davenport had them, so I can't imagine Porter not using them if desired.
Best Regards,
Glenn

David Johnson replied:

Eric,
The drawing for the 2-8-0 was dated Dec. 1901 or around the same time proposal were being received for the 2-4-4/0-4-4 passenger locos from Portland and Porter.  Therefore the 2-8-0 would probably have been  built around the same time as the #4 and let us call her #5 as that would probably have been her number if built.  For an outside framed Porter of that time period and roughly same gauge, look at the Coronada #9 & #10 0-4-4 locos.  These 20" gauge engines had 12"x14" cylinders and were built in 1898 & 1899.  The 2-8-0 outside framed loco would have had the counterweights on the drivers and therefore the drivers would have looked like those on the #4 without the crank pin holes.  The outside cranks would have had no counterweights.  The boiler would have been an extended wagon top with either a 40" barrel and 46" butt or a 42" barrel and 48" butt.  The front edge of the steam dome would have been at the top of the taper and the sand dome would have been centered on the bottom of the taper, with the bell at the front of the first course, behind the stack.  This is based on photos of a Mexican 2-8-0 Porter built around 1903 with 12"x16" cylinders.  The stack, smokebox and front would have been like those originally on the #4.  The 2-8-0 would have had slide valves and the 13"x16" cylinders would have had the sides flattened for clearance like those on the WW&F #6 and the Coronada #9 & #10.  The valve gear would have been Stephenson with the rear crosshead guide support and valve rod crank centered between the 1st & 2nd drivers.  The pony truck would be 20" and the drivers were to be 33".  The driver spacing would have been around 42" between the 1st & 2nd axles and between 36" and 39" for the others.  The firebox would have hung behind the rear drivers with the rear frame extension being a bar probably 6" to 7" deep.  Cylinders for steam brakes on the loco would have hung vertically just ahead of the rear beam of the loco and acted on a bell crank lever that pivoted between the front and middle of the firebox.  Vacumn brake pots would have been located the same and it is more likely that is what the 2-8-0 would have had.  Normally Porter would have provided a paneled wood cab, but looking at what was built on #4 and proposed by Portland, it is obvious that the railroad wanted a steel cab.  Whether it would have been some sort of all weather cab or tender arrangement would be interesting to know.  The tender and tank would have been about the same size as those on the WW&F #6 and it would have had a flared top flange, a tool box on the rear beam and probably 20" wheels on about a 42" wheelbase, again from the Mexican loco.  Give her a Russian Iron boiler jacket, paint her gloss black, add a simple gold border around the side of the cab and the tender, add gold lettering and you're ready to go.

David Johnson replied:

Eric,
I forgot to say to run the main rod to the 2nd driver.  Thinking about it, the axle spacing between the 1st & 2nd driver might be closer to 39" and 36" on the other driver spacing.  That would make her a little more compact and would probably be more in line with a 2' gauge locomotive of that size.  Also Porter built quite a number of outside framed locomotives, mostly for export.  The first class of 2-8-2 locomotives on the IRCA were outside framed Porters.  They also built some that way for plantation railroads.

ETSRRCo replied:

Well ok! I'll see what I can come up with. Do you have a picture of the Mexican 2-8-0? So what should I letter the locomotive? WW&F, W&Q or FCC?

ETSRRCo replied:

Ok first rough sketch! I did this in about 20 mins so it is anything BUT perfect. Let me know what you think is good and what needs to be changed. Want to have this right before I go to scale.
http://forums.railfan.net/Images//RRArt/WWF_2-8-0.jpg

pockets replied:

Eric,
I can't wait to see the finished product 
Greg B.

Dana Deering replied:

Eric,
That is a fantastic "rough sketch"!  You have a talent, sir.  Have you seen the tree quarter rear shot of #6 in front of the Wiscasset Car Shop?  It's in Vol 5 (?) of Narrow Gauge in the Sheepscot Valley.  Ever since I saw it, 6 being my favorite, I have thought it would make a great painting.  Keep it up, and come visit us when you can!
Dana

petecosmob replied:

Would it be worth starting a new thread discussing possible locomotives that come close to No. 6 in size and appearance? If so, which catagory should it go under?
Cosmo

ETSRRCo replied:

Dana I am guessing you are referring to the FABULOUS picture of the 6 on page 67 of Vol 5. It is one of my favorite shots. I don't know if I can paint it but a pencil drawing I think I can do. Like the picture I did of the 10. (below) Ok so You like the first draft. I will do a small scaled drawing next.
-Eric

pockets replied:

Nice, Eric. Very, very nice.
Greg B.

James Patten replied:

Discussions of new locomotives should go under Museum Discussion.

Dana Deering replied:

Eric,
I'll bet you could do a painting if you can do a drawing.  I know you're a busy guy but I would sure like to see what you could come up with, at least starting with the drawing.
Dana

David Johnson replied:

Eric,
I just got around to getting back into the forum and saw your sketch of the 2-8-0.  The Colorado Railroad Annual #11 is where I saw the photos of the 12"x16", 36" gauge 2-8-0 Porter. There was a small builders photo but the better shot is a 3/4 front shot of her out of service in the 1950s with the jacket and lagging missing.  On your drawing the things that look like they need a little adjusting are:
The cab looks too tall for its width, it should be around 66" wide.
The firebox might need to be lengthened and maybe the extended wagon top should be slightly longer, say 6".
The boiler taper really did end at the middle of the sand box.  That would seem to be a more difficult casting than needed.
The sand dome might be a little tall, but the steam dome looks right.  Don't forget the slight taper to the domes.
Put a on the top extension of the tender tank sheets.
Dave

ETSRRCo replied:

Ok well this raises some questions. How far back does the firebox go? Does it extend out of the cab, all the way through the cab or does it have a deck? The top extension are there they just aren't flared. I just sketched in the 6s tender real quick. Like I said it took me all of 20 mins to do that sketch. I have the scale one in front of me right now but its not done. I need to know about the firebox.
-Eric

ETSRRCo replied:

Hows this?

The front truck needs to be stretched more and I need more space between the cylinder and front driver. The wheel base of the 2-8-0 is actualy smaller then the 6!
-Eric

Locomotive112 replied:

Glenn Christensen wrote; I believe the most modern non-articulated 2' locomotive design from a US builder (Baldwin) may have been the fleet of Baldwin 2-8-2s built for the Scindia and Gwalior lines in India in 1948.

David Johnson  wrote;Glenn, Where did you see a copy of the drawing at and is it possible to get a copy made?

Glenn Christensen then wrote; Sorry David, The drawing is owned by a private collector, who I have not been in touch with for a number of years. Sincerely, Glenn

Hello WW&F forum members, I am the aforementioned "private collector" That Glen so respectfully kept confidential in this link.
I bought the only set of Baldwin "Original Builder's Drawings" for the "Scindia State Railways" 2' gauge 2-8-2's of 1948 from the Central Railways of India's Gwalior Branch in 1997.   These locomotives were referred to as NH/4 by the Gwalior railway.   I attempted to buy all four of those locomotives in 1997 but I missed inquiring about them by about 2 years as three of them went to the scrapper, the other one Glenn Christensen found a photo of shown stuffed and mounted in an Indian park, to my great surprise as it was reported to me to have been cut up already by a very high ranking official in the Indian CR!   The CR lost track of those locos after the scrapper purchased them and I think the Gwalior Royal family (who owns the RR and only lets the public use it) must have bought one back from Mr. Scrapper for the public's benefit.    I even have the name of "Mr Scrapper" who bought those four locomotives in 1995 and he basically buys metal and cuts big pieces into small ones to sell as scrap, so that one locomotive surviving is miraculous!    I did the best I could and at least purchased and saved the drawings.
If any of you want to build the most modern Baldwin 2'er ever built I will be making the drawings available to you can build one in a smaller scale or in full size if any of you would like to.
Copying and scanning those drawings is huge task, but I am planning to make them available scanned and on DVD.   So if you've ever wanted to build a scale livesteamer and you are a two-foot gauge fan, (and you have some "fun money" saved), you will be able to get copies of that drawing set soon and the cost will be a bargain, probably about $300.00 for the set all scanned and onto a set of full DVD's.
The very  photo that I was going to attach for our forum mebers was graciouly found and atached to his reply inthenext message, by owr own Stephen Hussar.  Thanks Stephen for the heads up search, find, and post. I apprecaite it.
The locos (four of them) might have been painted "olive green" in this Baldwin builders photo.  The cab was called a "Summer Cab" and you do get used to that sand large combo sand and steam dome after you look at it for a while.  The steam dome does keep that sand hot and dry so it is very functional.
Hope you guys like the loco its my baby now and I sure do.   I took me years to get the drawings for it and it was a huge effort in those early days of the internet. Sorry I missed out on the locomotives!
Loco112 , David, aka; "the Villian"

Stephen Hussar replied:

http://narrowmind.railfan.net/

David Johnson replied:

Now wouldn't that look great with three domes, a wood or boiler tube pilot, a bell, and a US styled cab.  She would be just the thing to haul the heavy freight down to Wiscasset from Farmington or Quebec.  She would also be lighter on her feet than the SR&RL #23.
Count me as interested in the drawings.  They would be a nice compliment to the drawing set for the SR&RL #23 that Jenkins published and to the erection drawings for SR&RL #10 and #24 that have been available.
Dave

tomc replied:

Dave,
Where can one find the drawings for #24?  I would like to get a copy.
Tom C.  future owner of a 3 3/4 scale 24.
_________________
Later;
tom_srclry_com

David Johnson replied:

Tom,
I bought my copies quite a number of years ago from a guy up in  the MA, RI, or somewhere in that area.  They are erection drawings that were a redraw in 1 1/2" scale with an elevation drawing and a drawing with sections.  I believe the guy that redrew and sold them was named Ted J. Stoutenburg or something close to that.  The same drawings were in a Live Steam magazine in about 3/4" scale around 1980 to 1985.  From the drawings that he did, you could tell that he was working from the original 2" scale drawings so those must exist somewhere, maybe Ed Bond.
I got my 2" scale erection drawings of #10 and #23 from Jenkins as well as the Two-Foot Cyclopedia of #23 drawing when he published those.  As I recall half of the #23 detail drawings came from the Phillips Historical Society and the other half from elsewhere.
I'd like to build a 1/2 or 5/8 size version of one of them, but I can't seem to find time run my gas loco more than 3 or 4 times a year or move my steamer to the shop, so for now all I can do is dream.  Good luck on your dreams and plans.
Dave

David Johnson replied:

Tom,
Try contacting Theodore J. Stoutenberg at (860) 482-7997.  His address is Country Lane, New Hartford, CT 06057.  Ted is listed as 68 years old.
Information from the drawing is as follows:
Erecting No. 9527
Class 10-18 1/4 D 35
original drawing by S. B. Clayton 5-16-1919
redrawn by T. J. Stoutenberg 3-1-1976
Scale 1 1/2"
data from collection of Ed Bond
Therefore I believe that Ed Bond has the original 2" scale erection drawings.
Dave

tomc replied:

thanks Dave  i copied your info.
Tom C.
_________________
Later;
tom_srclry_com