a new (old) #59?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
73 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

John Greenly
Hi Jeff,

yes, the dome rings were ornamental.  An epic example of loss and replacement of these was the C&S leased engine D&RGW 346, which lost the rings off its domes in the wreck at Kenosha pass in 1936, and worked the rest of its life without them.  Finally in its retirement they were replaced, with ones salvaged from #345 which was destroyed in a staged collision for a movie in 1951.  

Cheers,
John
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

John Greenly
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Mike Trent
Mike,

thanks so much for this information! This sets me off in the right direction, now I can understand much better what I am seeing in photos.
The cistern I have is 17' 9"  long, I hope that makes a reasonable starting point to accommodate the dimensions you gave.  Here are crops of three of the "Style A" photos  that Jim posted.







I'm looking at the decks, the one on 58's tender extends back beyond the cistern and has a toolbox on it I think, while 65's  and 70's do not extend beyond the cistern, and the toolbox is up top as you described.  I could shorten the tender frame to be like those and move the toolbox up.  Would that make sense with the 17' 9" tank?    I like that idea, as you suggest that it was characteristic.  It looks like 65's tender cistern is longer than 70's, with more length behind the coal bunker.  I don't know which is more like the  cistern I have.  Judging from the trucks and their spacing in the two photos, I suspect what I have is nearer to 65's  --??

I'll be doing some work on the tender frame anyway because the side sills are too narrow, and I want to make the deck right. I see all those shadows along the side sills- is the deck made of boards spaced apart by about their width, with a metal band along the edge?

Oh.  Just now I notice that 70's side sills are narrower, much like those on my model.  complications….

again, very many thanks!
John
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Mike Trent
Administrator
Hi John,

An 18' tank is pretty long, that's what the B-4-F tanks were. But don't worry about that. Any builder can tell you there are always compromises that have to be made on every project. Tenders were often rebuilt, switched, replaced sometimes depending on whatever they had available. You'll find obviously different tanks on most locomotives from pictures taken over a period of years. The only tenders which seem to have been perfectly consistent in later years are the B-4-F's. Each was unique and different from the others. There may be others which had the same tenders as well, but I'm too old to worry about that stuff.  

I would still recommend a 5' rear deck behind the bunker. For comparison, if you want to look at some photos, some engines with a 5' deck are, #74, #76, #71, #72, and #6. #60 has a 4' deck, and so does #75. My #537 has a 5' deck, as I was convinced that was correct, it was #70's tender. PSC's #69 has a 4'6" deck, and it looks correct. If you see a toolbox up there, it's at least a 5' deck.

#73's tender in later years has a 6'3" deck, and so does #8.

Good luck!

 



 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

John Greenly
Mike, excellent, I'll make a 5' deck and put the tool box on it.  I think I'll shorten the frame to eliminate the part past the end of the cistern.

Could I ask you a huge favor-  could you post a photo of a front view of one of your tenders?  I think I understand basically what is there from your description, but seeing it would be really helpful as to how the coal boards were set in, and the boxes connected (did they have a door, and on which side?).  Otherwise, all the posted photos of #60's tender in that thread are a great help, I think I understand how to do the back end well now.

I hope I can do justice to all the great help you, and Jim, and everybody, are giving me!

thanks,
John
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Mike Trent
Administrator
John, this sort of coal gate can be seen, as I recall, in a particular angle of DSP&P Mason Bogie #42. So this goes all the way back on the South Park. Let me know if you'd like any other photos. I'll be glad to help any way I can.

Front view #72, showing upper gate in place:



Upper view #73 showing upper gate loose in bunker:

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Mike Trent
Administrator
John,

A couple of other things yo note from the front view.

Note that the two verticle plates that are mounted to the boxes are both set to the right side. These provide weather buffers for the fireman, and also provide support above for a rack to hold a hook above the gate, as well as an additional plate overhead.

The water valves at the front are located directly above the feed pipes to the engine.

You can use the search engine for Coal Gates which will link to some other discussions on this site. There is a picture of the front of Tim Schreiner's #74 tender, and also one that shows my 74 and 76 tenders side by side. The upper gate on 74 was extended down to cover where the top 2x6 should have been and is the largest upper gate I've seen. One of the cast retainers must have broken. One photo taken from the trailing caboose shows that odd gate loose, so there is no mistaking why it was made like that. 76's boxes are completely different from any others. But all have hinges on doors that provide storage. They probably held tools, marker lights for the tender when traveling light as all helpers did downgrade, and a lantern. A lantern would typically be hung from the engineers side marker bracket which would be handy when taking water at night.

Incidentally, those long hooks were also used to lower spouts on the water tanks. As you work on detailing your locomotives, think of how these little things you see in photos could be used. Anything you see was there for a reason!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Jim Courtney
This post was updated on .
Beautiful models, Mike!

Note that the two vertical plates that are mounted to the boxes are both set to the right side. These provide weather buffers for the fireman, and also provide support above for a rack to hold a hook above the gate, as well as an additional plate overhead.

John, you should note that Mike's modeling C&S power in the 1930s.  The vertical plates with overhead rack didn't come along until the late 1920s, when the "intermediate" tenders had been remodeled to their final form. From the teens to late 1920s, there was nothing in front of the tool boxes except the water valves. The tool boxes were wood on the old flaired collar tenders, sheet metal beginning with the intermediate tenders.

Consider two photos of Mikes number 73:



Denver 1929. Note that the area in front of the tool boxes is wide open.



Denver 1931. Two years later, the vertical panels and racks that Mike discusses have been added. A coal gate has been tossed back to the rear of the coal bunker.


Look at the three tender crops that you posted above (you can see through the cab windows) . . . nothing but tool boxes. Just one more thing that you don't have too model.



Jim Courtney
Poulsbo, WA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Mike Trent
Administrator
Very true, Jim, thanks.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

John Greenly
In reply to this post by Jim Courtney
Mike,

thanks for posting the photos of your superb models!  All the details are wonderful, and for some reason the shovel just sets the whole thing off perfectly.  After all, that humble shovel and the man who wielded it all day made the whole thing go!  I hadn't known what the long rod hanging on the fireman's side was for.  I'm learning a lot about tenders and how they were tended to.  

Jim, yes, I noticed that the extra structure was not in the intermediate phase, so, yes- one less thing to do for my model! I have a question about that structure. In Mike's #72 front view, at the very top front of the crosswise structure is a slat that looks as if it is mounted on a rod that allows it to rotate downward, what does that do, keep the snow out?

Also, I had noticed  the fittings that the bottom coal boards slot into in one of the excellent photos that Doug Heitcamp posted in the #60 tender thread.  It shows that the second board up was set at an angle, as Mike's model also shows. Was that so the fireman could see behind the bottom board, and maybe  poke around in there to loosen up the coal so it would come out properly?

great stuff!!

many thanks
John

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Jeff Young
Beautiful models, Mike!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Keith Hayes
In reply to this post by John Greenly
John, a while back we all started noticing some features peculiar to South Park firemen.

The long rod hanging from the tender is used to clean out clues. When you can hours, perhaps you can put a twist on the end to help real out the crusties?!?



Ahead of the cab is a similar tool, but with the leg bent at a right angle to help wrangle clinkers: I bet this would also be perfect for sharing the rope on a water spout, too.

Mos important,  South Park engines seem to travel with a spare coal scoop (or two!). I don't know if the fireman is working so hard, he is apt to break the scoop?; if they are easy to misplace in the spacious cab-deck area, or in the excitement of scooping coal he is apt to let his scoop go right into the firebox? Anyway we spotted a number of locos with spare scoops ahead of the cab.

And don't forget to have that coal grate on top of the pile: so South Park!
Keith Hayes
Leadville in Sn3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

John Greenly
"spacious cab-deck area"???  I think I must lengthen the drawbar quite a bit on my model ;)

John

The excitement probably wore off after the first few hours on long uphill grades, must have burned up fewer scoops on those runs….

If I get anything right, it'll be that grate on top of the coal, that's the signature item for sure!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Mike Trent
Administrator
Thanks, John and all.

That item you are describing is merely an overhead rack for a hook. Keith is right, that long rod on the side is an auger for boring flues.

Yes, there was always a spare scoop, most likely carried in the fireman side of the cab. A broken handle would be fatal to operations. Sometimes, not often, they were hung on a hook on the side. But you can be sure there was always a spare on board.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

John Greenly
In reply to this post by John Greenly
So, here's my first cut at a new superstructure for my tender.  I just made a cardstock mockup, using the dimensions that Mike suggested.  







 The rear deck of the cistern is 5 feet long from the back of the coal bunker.  The motor sticks up a little under the back of the bunker, easy to change that if I decide to keep it in the tender, or I guess the toolbox would hide it anyway when it goes up there.

Mike, Jim, and anyone, thoughts much appreciated!  I'm getting excited, I like the looks of these proportions!

thanks,
John
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Jim Courtney
Looks good to me, John!

You realize don't you, that you may be the first person in history, in any scale, to build a C&S intermediate tender?

One thing that bugs me, though. Please pick off that bit of green foam on the second journal of the front tender truck.
Jim Courtney
Poulsbo, WA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Mike Trent
Administrator
I agree completely! You are off to a really good start. We'll all be willing to help any way we can. This will be an excellent project for you, and when it's done you will have a lot of new skills and confidence you didn't have before.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

John Greenly
In reply to this post by Jim Courtney
Jim Courtney wrote
Looks good to me, John!

You realize don't you, that you may be the first person in history, in any scale, to build a C&S intermediate tender?

One thing that bugs me, though. Please pick off that bit of green foam on the second journal of the front tender truck.
Sheesh! Now you're making me nervous, I feel the weight of history bearing down.

Believe it or not I hadn't noticed that green journal cover.   It was hard to get it off, had to deploy the fiberglass eraser!

Anyway, thanks Jim and Mike, this is really great fun, the communication as much as the work!!

John  

BTW, I followed Mike's suggestion and searched coal gates here, found the tremendous trove of information, photos etc. on other threads.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

John Greenly
In reply to this post by John Greenly
I've been trying to pin down exactly what I'm going to do for my intermediate tender.  I've settled on trying to reproduce the tender that No. 70 had in the Perry photo of March 1920:



Several observations and questions arise.

It appears to me that the back sheet of the extension goes straight upward at an angle to the center, rather than being a curved arc.

 I can see bolt heads that give some information about how the extension is fastened together and to the existing structure.  The top edge of the extension is not rolled- is it just a raw cut edge?  The best interior detail information that I have seen is in the great photos that Doug posted in the #60 tender thread, though that is not an intermediate version.  I'd be very grateful for any further insight into exactly how the extension is put together.  

This tender frame is intriguing:  The side sill is quite narrow- is it a steel frame?   This frame is certainly not like the (presumably original) tender seen in a 1900 photo  on p. 174 of NG Pict VI.  This frame is, interestingly, very much like the one that No. 59 has in photos from 1923-24, which is also not the same frame it had earlier, for instance in the photo at Breckenridge in 1911 (p. 127) or in 1905 (p.128).   Here's the Perry photo from 1923:



Notice that many features match the No. 70 tender from 1920.  For instance, there is a bracket of some sort projecting from the side sill under the deck just above the front bolster that is identical on the two tenders.  I have also done some careful perspective geometry calculations of dimensions from these photos, and using also the perfectly side-on view of No. 59 with this tender, at Central City in 1924 (p.131, NG Pict. VI) which allows very accurate dimensions to be measured.  Within a tolerance of an inch or two, I believe these two tenders are identical in basic dimensions- cistern length and height, frame length, truck positions.    Could these two actually be the same tender?  I think not, though it's hard to see, and I wish I had good photos of the same side of both,  I think the cistern riveting differs.  

Can someone tell more about the origin of these tender frames?

thanks
John
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

Jim Courtney
John,

The tender frame behind number 70 certainly isn't the original Baldwin frame. They had deep wooden sills with a lot of NBW showing where horizontal frame components attached to the inside of the sills.

This tender has puzzled me since it is one of the shortest of tenders behind the Rhode Island and Baldwin 2-8-0s.  Note the length of the "Colorado & Southern" lettering relative to the cistern length.

Note also the two triangular gussets from frame sill to underside of deck made of steel channel.  These were common on almost all the Cooke 2-6-0 tenders as they were rebuilt into the intermediate versions between 1918 and 1920. Consider:

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/42174/rec/41



http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/42471/rec/27



http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/42210/rec/49



I've tried to believe that the number 70 had been outfitted with one of the Cooke 2-6-0 intermediate tenders from locomotive out of service in 1920, perhaps from number 11 or 12 or 13, given the short cistern length, narrow frame sills and channel gussets. The rebuilt Cookes, numbers 4-10 were all still in service.

It is possible that 70's short tender is rebuilt from a Cooke 2-8-0 tender, as there were still quite a few lying around in the deadline, though I've never seen the narrow sill with gussets on a Cooke 2-8-0 tender. The folio sheets show the original Cooke 2-6-0 and 2-8-0 tenders to have similar dimensions.

Of the two Brooks 2-6-0 tenders, the 21 had a shorter tender with similar under frame and gussets by 1918:

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/p15330coll22/id/42200/rv/singleitem/rec/1



Older photos of number 22 in the 1890s show a different tender, longer with deep wooden sills on the underframe, like that of number 22. Perhaps by 1918, the 21 had acquired a surplus Cooke tender from one of the 2-8-0s as well.

Eventually the larger 2-8-0s that survived seem to acquire tender under frames with shallow steel side sills, with or without gussets, as on number 59's tender.


Any other thoughts??
Jim Courtney
Poulsbo, WA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Intermediate tenders

John Greenly
This post was updated on .
Jim,  yes, you have definitely found similar frames on these later mogul tenders: the shallow sills and the triangular gussets (much better description than my "bracket").  These are indeed similar to the 70 and 59 tenders.  

As to this 70 tender length, I'm not with you exactly.  Here are three photos. The first is the very helpful side-on view of 59 with this shallow-sill tender in 1923 at Central City.  



This photo is excellent for taking measurements.  I find the cistern length is 17' 6", and the overall frame length is 19'.  Notice the truck locations.  The rear truck is much further forward than on the original tenders, so the spacing between the trucks is much reduced.  Compare with the folio sheet from 1903, the spacing shown there is  5'10" between the adjacent wheel centers of the front and rear trucks,  where this photo gives only 4'2".    

Now look at 59 again (with, I am sure, the same tender also in 1923) , seen at an angle, and compare this with the 1920 photo of 70 with the intermediate tender (I've reversed this one to make comparison easier)




The two engines are not at the same angle to the camera, but when you correct for this, the tender cisterns  in fact measure very close to the same size. The measurement uncertainty is less than 2%.   So 70's tender is not a short one, the cistern is between 17' and 17'6" long (my measurement error range), and the truck locations are within 2 inches of identical to 59's.   So at some point before March 1920,  this change was made to the tender 70 has in this photo.  It is too long to be an earlier one from one of the moguls,  but as seen in the photos of moguls 8 and 9 that Jim posted above, their tenders were also changed in this same way somewhere in the same time period.  Their trucks are also, similarly, closer together than the 1903 folio dimensions.

It looks as if this change to the sills and the truck location was a fairly common rebuilding,  carried out, as Jim points out, by the 1918-20 time frame when the intermediate coal bunker versions began to appear.  Why was the rear truck moved forward?  Notice, comparing again with the folio dimensions that the frames have been shortened: the original rear overhang of the frame past the cistern (often with the tool box on it) is gone in the tenders we are considering.  Could it be that the rear truck was moved forward when this was done, to keep the distance from the truck to the coupler about the same?

I'd be very grateful for any comments, questions, corrections on all this!!

John
1234