WW&F Railway Museum Discussion > Work and Events
WW&F No. 53 - Official Work Thread
Mark Spremulli:
A thought just occured to me, would it be possible to use parts from this engine to get the third ge 23 ton actual two-foot engine running?
Ed Lecuyer:
Acquisition issues aside, *IF* the "third GE 23 ton" locomotive were ever to be rebuilt, it would need a donor unit like this one. And a pile of additional work.
After weighing the options, it was deemed cheaper and easier to cut down a running GE 45 tonner that is in relatively good condition, than to build back the "third" GE 23 tonner.
Mike Fox:
Not knowing exactly what the #3 needed, I can't argue about the cheaper but working with steel and knowing what it takes to rehab things, narrowing will be far from easy. It can be done, but definately would not call it easy.
Jason M Lamontagne:
The operative word in Ed’s message was easier… nothing we do is easy. The point Ed makes is that we considered a number of options- at least 5- including the derelict Edaville GE (presuming it were available), and concluded that the conversion of a GE 45 tonner made the most sense overall. I wouldn’t necessarily use the word “easiest” there because the deduction process also included such factors as acquisition cost, transportation, current condition, parts acquisition (think big things like prime movers, generators, and traction motors with gearbox), body work, end capability, etc. It all ends up being a series of trade offs for which subjective judgment calls had to be made, however what was most attractive about this unit was its completeness, it’s in working order, and it’s low acquisition cost (even with transportation).
The heavy steel work Mike refers to is real work, to be sure, but it’s typical work for any number of heavy fabrication shops anywhere in the country. At the moment we have a sincere interest in hiring out the heavy fab work on these trucks to a local Maine shop according to our specifications. Keeping the nature of the work to what is commonly commercially available was a key point of this plan.
Now that the loco is on site, we can verify and refine our conversion plan. I hope to get conversion specifics with visuals posted within a couple weeks so our members can see the plan. I know there’s a lot of rumblings about how big it is and seemingly impossible the conversion will be- however, like always, we are breaking it down into understandable and manageable chunks. Further- pending a final proposal to the board and subject to their approval- I hope the majority of this project is hired out, so as to keep the project out of the way of projects more core to our mission.
Thanks all,
Jason
Bill Baskerville:
--- Quote from: Jason M Lamontagne on May 20, 2022, 06:44:29 AM ---The operative word in Ed’s message was easier…
...I know there’s a lot of rumblings about how big it is and seemingly impossible the conversion will be- however, like always, we are breaking it down into understandable and manageable chunks...
--- End quote ---
The thing to remember here is that if we can rebuild a steam locomotive (9) build a Dairying Car (65) or a Coach (9) or a steam locomotive from drawings (11), we can downsize a broad gauge diesel to a human sized (2 foot) locomotive. The approach of hiring out the heavy work will reduce the impact on our current projects and our volunteers.
If it was easy there would be tourist railroads all over the place. The commitment of our volunteers makes the difficult look easy. A review of our accomplishments over time makes this project just another necessary step in rebuilding our railroad and expanding our museum.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version