Author Topic: A New Baldwin 2-4-2  (Read 24932 times)

Pete "Cosmo" Barrington

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2009, 01:45:21 PM »
That's not a half bad idea! I could get behind something like that. I like the idea of making it more affordable to everyone.  ;)

Mike Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Empire Builder
  • ********
  • Posts: 5,139
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2009, 08:16:11 PM »
It's always been affordable. Give what you can, and then double it ;D. Just kidding. No matter what the donation, big or small, it helps the museum achieve what ever goals or expenditures it has. Got to pay the bills you know.
   
Mike
Doing way too much to list...

Eric Bolton

  • Switchman
  • **
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2009, 06:25:09 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.
Trainmaster/Designated Supervisor of Locomotive Engineers
Pennsylvania Northeastern Railroad

Vincent "Lightning" LeRow

  • Museum Member
  • Hostler
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2009, 08:15:49 PM »
Pluss by making parts a little at a time, assembling her a little at a time, and always planning far ahead, we can get busineses and individuals more involved.  A small hardware company can donate a bag with a few bolts and fittings, or 1 or 2 small castings much easier than say, every fitting, nut and bolt for the engine.  I can't imagine any museam or preservation org. that could drop $4million for a brand new locomotve.  Especially not us.  I know we're great and well organized, we haven't perfected the art of growing money on trees. The government is really close though, still only getting green leaves with the ocasional splash of color. :P
A spike saved is a spike earned.

John Kokas

  • Museum Member
  • Supervisor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,547
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2009, 01:57:51 PM »
Frank,

Whether we sell "shares" or some other financial vehicle, I can't imagine we would discourage people from donating because of "paperwork".  May I suggest,  just hold a running record and issue a consolidated donation record at the end of the year.  For many of us it's much easier to spend a few bucks monthly than a large chuck once a year. (At least until college tuition payments are over)
Moxie Bootlegger

Paul Horky

  • Museum Member
  • Baggageman
  • **
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2009, 01:47:32 PM »
Yes $4 million usd is alot of money but that is for the whole engine. I'm saying only buy the boiler which would have to be built to FRA standertes and the basic running gear [ frame, drivers and axels, boxes shoses and wedges, lead and trailing trucks, cylenders a rolling chase]. All the rest would be built here. Also since we already have some patterns for like the lead and trailing truck wheel centers and I hear Bernie Perch is working on the driver center pattern if these will work for the Brites then let them be used to make these parts for both them and us. But by no means should we buy a complete engine. At least check the price and if they would even be willing to do this.

Eric Bolton

  • Switchman
  • **
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2009, 09:23:17 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!
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 09:27:35 PM by Eric Bolton »
Trainmaster/Designated Supervisor of Locomotive Engineers
Pennsylvania Northeastern Railroad

Pete "Cosmo" Barrington

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2009, 10:09:05 PM »
Ok, I'm with you on this.
Let's show those Brits how it's done! ;)

Paul Horky

  • Museum Member
  • Baggageman
  • **
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2009, 10:26:58 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.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 10:39:38 PM by Teresa Horky »

Pete "Cosmo" Barrington

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #24 on: February 26, 2009, 10:52:49 PM »
I think the reason for everyone thinking "2-4-4 #7/11" is because that's the agreed upon next project and already has parts fabricated for it. Granted it's a long way to go, but it has been started.
Anything larger than #7/11 is such a long way off, BUT, after building #11 from scratch then the SKILLS as well as the tech needed for such a project will be there on site, so there won't be such a need to go as far as the UK for such a thing.
I think a better idea for "joint project" co-operation would be between the 4 (5 if you count Edaville) New England 2'ers.
The idea of going to such places as Strassburg for contracting/assistance is appealing as well.
I think the goal should be to creat the skill/tech-base here in the US, especially New England to do what needs be done to preserve the M2F  in history AND spirit!

Paul Horky

  • Museum Member
  • Baggageman
  • **
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2009, 04:31:44 PM »
OK lets take a look at this joint coop with the other 2ft's. lets see MNRM they don't know if or for how long they will have a home, plus they have 4 engines they can't afford to keep in service so have leasted one to the Sandy River Group would they be interested I think NOT. Boothbay  would an engine this big fit on their line I don't think so. Yes they can build the boiler but at what kind of cost? I'll bet they are loosing their shirt on the #9's boiler  and the new boiler would have to be totally engineered from the mud ring to the steam dome. Edaville don't know that their finatial situation is. A maybe. The Sandy River group I hear they have friends with deep pockets but I think they would want a Sandy River engine not a WWFRY engine their 2-4-4T's had 36" drivers not 33"s and were bigger like the Bridgton engines interested problely not. So who to link up with? As far as what you have  all you have rigth now could be used on either engine.

Pete "Cosmo" Barrington

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #26 on: February 27, 2009, 06:11:42 PM »
Ok, let's start with the fact that NONE of the afore mentioned RR's have ROOM for anything much bigger than a forney. WW&F will most likely be the first one to reach that point.
Seccond, by "joint venture" I meant a pooling of resources, much like having Boothbay build the boiler for #9. They can easily build one for #7.
If SR&RL wanted to get in on the act, they could likely shoot for a copy of SR&RL#10, or annother similar engine.
(Personally, I'd love to see a #24, but again, where would ANY group put it?)
But as for casting common parts etc, I think some cooperation can and should happen.
But, since you're talking size here, is the British loco you reference anything close in wheel, boiler or cylinder diamiter to anything that ran in Maine? As was mentioned previously, even if you did go to the Brits you'd need a series of "one-off's."
Personally, I'm all for keeping it as American as possible. There's enough good hard US $$ going overseas these days as it is. Let someone HERE benefit AND build up the skills and tech necessary for such projects.

Mike Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Empire Builder
  • ********
  • Posts: 5,139
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #27 on: February 27, 2009, 07:42:13 PM »
Boothbay building the boiler for #9 is not a joint venture. Boothbay was contracted for the boiler. And when finished, Boothbay will get no benefit from the boiler or #9, it will just be another job they have done. Well done at that.
Mike
Doing way too much to list...

Bill Reidy

  • Museum Member
  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,145
  • Life member. Ack.
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2009, 10:33:32 PM »
And I certainly have not heard they are "loosing their shirt", nor have had any difficulty engineering the new boiler.  From all reports I have heard, the team there has been very thorough in their research and construction of the boiler and have made every effort to make it match the original boiler's appearance while meeting all current regulations for FRA compliance.
What–me worry?

John Kokas

  • Museum Member
  • Supervisor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,547
    • View Profile
Re: A New Baldwin 2-4-2
« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2009, 08:18:30 AM »
I've been doing my own estimate for a 2-6-0, just for a point of reference how much is the boiler for #9 costing?  (If that is public information)  If not, could someone just drop me a note (offline).  Thanx
Moxie Bootlegger