Conventional wisdom has it that the water tank legs at Jefferson were splayed:
I believe this is a mis-interpretation of this Dorman image:
which I believe shows the back and middle two bents leaning slightly toward the track, rather than having their outside legs splayed. Note the diagonal props extending out to the track holding the front of the tank back (and the horizontal plank below them attached to the front bent).
Some time after abandonment it would appear that a farmer was using water from the tank. Note the extra pipe to the right of the ladder, and the pipe union a couple of feet off the ground. Bents are still leaning, but the diagonal props have rotted away.
I can't remember where I found this last picture, so I can't say definitively that it's the Jefferson tank. But the background matches Jefferson, the extra water pipe is there, and it has a union a couple of feet off the ground, the horizontal plank mentioned above is there, and the remains of the diagonal props. The outside legs are very much vertical.
A friend says his father worked on the scrapping crew in 1938, and INSISTS
that they hooked a chain from the locomotive to the telegraph poles and ripped
them down. When I went through there for the forst time in 1977, I thought that
much of the line was still up, or perhaps even still in service (?), ... and this has
made for an awkward point of disagreement between us for years.
I did not think to take photos of the telegraph line in 1977. Any idea on the date
of the second photo ?
This much I DO know, .... the line came to be owned by Western Union early on,
and was operated/maintained by them until abandonment and beyond, as a 100-mile
shorter route than running their Salt Lake thru-wires along the D&RG to Pueblo and
back up to Buena Vista. When WU actually gave up on the line, I have never been able
Joe and I had several discussions on this, way back when one drew on paper and wrote letters, so I've had to reconstruct this from memory as to what we worked out in the end.
I don't believe there is any evidence to confirm Batterposts were placed on the opposite end of the original(odd numbered) Bents. There is evidence to show that these Batterposts disappeared along with the Railway in the later views. Sure was a Forest of posts under there.
Is the time line of your model late enough to have that sag in the track opposite the Spout? I bet nobody Highballed through Jefferson in those last days.
Neither Joe's nor Jim's drawings have additional posts; they just have the outer posts splayed. But looking more closely at Chris' annotated "forest of posts" picture it is clear that at least a second set of bents (with 6x12 rather than 12x12 tops) were added at some point. I'm not sure much (if anything) was ever removed: the colour picture from my second post still shows the extra set of bents.
There's some evidence for batter posts being added. Note in particular the top of the centre bent: there's quite a bit of overhang after the outside post in the later pictures, and very little in the forest-of-posts picture.
However, also examine the 3x10 cross braces which go from the outsides of the outer posts of bents 1 and 9 to the insides of the outer posts of bents 3 and 7. In the forest-of-posts picture there doesn't appear to be enough room for both an outside post and a batter post outside the tops of these cross braces. So while there might have been a batter post added to bent 5, I don't think they were added to bents 3 or 7.
While we have no evidence for the sequencing I think the best odds are that the tank went from 5 bents and no batter posts to 9 bents with a batter post on the centre bent and 2 props to the front bent. The Water Board Special picture shows the props, so this transition happened in or before 1929.
Does the general store picture of 1926 show one set of bents or two?
Perhaps the question is what value would giving some of the bents batter achieve. It seems to me that it could be argued that they might better resist lateral or racking forces parallel to the track direction. But where would such forces come from. The whole idea of batter just doesn’t make sense to me for a water tank. Trestle bents yes, water tank bents, no. Vertical makes the most sense to me.
Joe Crea (Gazette article) has the bents at 8'-6"; Jim Haggard (Builders in Scale) has them at 11'.
Dimmler (ICC) shows the eaves of the pump house at 8'-3"; assuming a 12" concrete footing under the bents Crea's dimension would have the tops of the bents some 15" above the eaves of the pump house, which roughly agrees with the pictures.
@Doug, do you have Dimmler's notes for the water tank?
Here's my current take on the bents (using Crea's overall height):
I wish I was producing a kit. I'd love to put on the box "Builds either the early version or the forest of timbers version." ;)
Jefferson Station was mislabeled in the Valuation as "Patterson". Maybe Dimmler couldn't read his own notes.
At any rate, the structures listed in Jefferson were as follows:
1 - Depot
2 - Privy
3 - Coal House
4 - Tool House
5- Section House
6 - Bunk House
7 - Privy
8 - W. Tank
9 - Pump Ho. (shows 1 Horiz Loco boiler. "Mason" with fittings/
Stack 16" dis x 45' ht. riveted, guyed.
But you wanted info on the tank, didn't you?
W. tank 16' ht x 24' dia. Painted on tower.
As as French Gulch - v.s. Colo 18 7'2" posts.
4 sills 12x 12 blkg est. 1000' 6"
frost box 6 - 3 x 7 -2 x 8' ht. painted out
Pit 4 -6 deep, 3" curb.
Jeff, it seems that the French Gulch Tank was the prototype tank that all the others were measured against.
So the Spec's for the French Gulch tank were like this:
w. Tank 16 - 7 " h x 24' diam. tub painted on tower painted.
roof of 1" x 6" battens of 3 x 12 plank. 12" projection
wood tub 3" wood staves oft on grill of
3 x 10 x 16" cc. on 4 -12 x 12 caps. 12 - posts
12 x 12 x 9' 6reg (breg?) of 24-6 x 8 x 8-0
Frost box. 9' x 9' x 9' ht. Painted out. of 1 x 6 T&G
on bldg. paper on double 2 x 8 x 2' cc. walls 24" thick.
old in 1 x 6 T&G. 1 door 3' x 3-8 o s. walls
bott. of grille closed 1 x 6 T&G painted 24" apron
all around of 1 x 6 T&G painted
pit - 5 x 4 - 6 x 5' of 24" rgh rubble
12 piers as w. tank @ mp 147.1
1 - 8" F.M. Trk spout. Ctr. wts.
1 16' ga bd.
1 riser 18" of 4" wi. pipe
1 riser 18" of 3" wi. pipe
1 ladder of 1 x 3 x 2-6 @16' cc. on 2-2 x 6 x 28'
Now for the description of the piers of the tank at 147.1
8 piers 2' x 2' x 16" ht. cap stone on pier
2 -6 x 2 -6 x est. 3' deep tough rubble,
4 sides 1i6 batt. L.R. Exc.
Well, ain't that just beyond spiffy. Even enough detail to see where the NBWs are on the various cross-bracings!
So what I thought were front-facing props turn out to be a trough. Which also means that the trough (which is visible in 1929) can't be used to infer the presence of the extra set of bents. So that pushes their addition out to some time between 1926 and 1937.
Given the mislabelling of the photo as Patterson I think we can assume it's reasonably contemporaneous with Dimmler's report (1918). It also clearly shows that Dimmler's notes regarding the bent sills are correct (they're 12x12, not Joe's and Jim's 6x12).
While the tank floor joists look to me to be on the order of 4x8, I'll probably go with Dimmler's 3x10. (They're certainly not Joe's 4x14 or Jim's 4x12.)
And there are lots of 3x10 cross-braces, even before the forest of posts.
After reading everyone's input. I'm now thinking that number 9 bent doesn't have a Batterpost added, appearing to be still a tad off the plumb.
On close examination of Mac Poor's picture, the outside(original) Posts are still to be seen on bents 3, 5 and 7 inside the added Batterpost.
I'd be of an opinion that the Bents weren't settling consistently over their Sill length but more to one end, closest the Depot, therefore "racking" the stance of the Bents and based that on the images presented above show no Batterpost added on the Kenosha side.
Even though the term Batter is applicable in this arena, the addition of such is more like a Buttress effect as in applied to a Stonewall such as the Como Roundhouse.
My thanks to Jeff for these wonderful threads on a windswept outpost.