Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by breezinup:

A big bite to chew off. That big Baldwin is going to take a whole lot more work and money to keep operating than the Consolidation.

 

Watching the video, I wonder how they're going to turn it, given that it isn't going to fit on that turntable.

The table is 100-feet-long, and the 1309 is 98-feet-8-inches coupler to coupler. Its wheelbase is 88 feet-6-inches, 1309 will fit with ease.

Originally Posted by eldodroptop:
Originally Posted by breezinup:

A big bite to chew off. That big Baldwin is going to take a whole lot more work and money to keep operating than the Consolidation.

 

Watching the video, I wonder how they're going to turn it, given that it isn't going to fit on that turntable.

The table is 100-feet-long, and the 1309 is 98-feet-8-inches coupler to coupler. Its wheelbase is 88 feet-6-inches, 1309 will fit with ease.

That's good. When I looked at the video (looks like it's gone now), the Consolidation didn't look like it had all that much room left on the turntable.

Originally Posted by breezinup:
Originally Posted by eldodroptop:
Originally Posted by breezinup:

A big bite to chew off. That big Baldwin is going to take a whole lot more work and money to keep operating than the Consolidation.

 

Watching the video, I wonder how they're going to turn it, given that it isn't going to fit on that turntable.

The table is 100-feet-long, and the 1309 is 98-feet-8-inches coupler to coupler. Its wheelbase is 88 feet-6-inches, 1309 will fit with ease.

That's good. When I looked at the video (looks like it's gone now), the Consolidation didn't look like it had all that much room left on the turntable.

Looks like the 734 has plenty of room to me:

WSM734 on Turntable

Rusty

Attachments

Images (1)
  • WSM734 on Turntable
Last edited by Rusty Traque

Don't you think WMSR thought about the engine fitting on the turntable BEFORE they went to the trouble of acquiring it, transporting it, and restoring it, not to mention the financial investment?

 

It has really baffled me to see so many people saying it won't fit on the turntable or it will barely fit, etc and what are they going to do....it fits. Again, don't you think they thought of that a while ago? 

Last edited by SJC
Originally Posted by SJC:

Don't you think WMSR thought about the engine fitting on the turntable BEFORE they went to the trouble of acquiring it, transporting it, and restoring it, not to mention the financial investment?

 

It has really baffled me to see so many people saying it won't fit on the turntable or it will barely fit, etc and what are they going to do....it fits. Again, don't you think they thought of that a while ago? 

Excellent comment!!!!

 

Note that all those "questing comments" are from toy/model train folks that really have no knowledge of real railroading, let alone steam locomotive operations.

Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Originally Posted by SJC:

Don't you think WMSR thought about the engine fitting on the turntable BEFORE they went to the trouble of acquiring it, transporting it, and restoring it, not to mention the financial investment?

 

It has really baffled me to see so many people saying it won't fit on the turntable or it will barely fit, etc and what are they going to do....it fits. Again, don't you think they thought of that a while ago? 

Excellent comment!!!!

 

Note that all those "questing comments" are from toy/model train folks that really have no knowledge of real railroading, let alone steam locomotive operations.

 

 

How old are you two guys?

 

 

Anyway .... thanks for the info, Borden Tunnel. Is any area of the WMSR shop ever open to visitors? I don't see that it is. I own a little place in south-central  Pennsylvania ... I'd like to take a ride down to Cumberland in November.

 

Matt

 

Last edited by Matt01
Originally Posted by Matt01:
Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Originally Posted by SJC:

Don't you think WMSR thought about the engine fitting on the turntable BEFORE they went to the trouble of acquiring it, transporting it, and restoring it, not to mention the financial investment?

 

It has really baffled me to see so many people saying it won't fit on the turntable or it will barely fit, etc and what are they going to do....it fits. Again, don't you think they thought of that a while ago? 

Excellent comment!!!!

 

Note that all those "questing comments" are from toy/model train folks that really have no knowledge of real railroading, let alone steam locomotive operations.

 

 

How old are you two guys?

 

Don't know what THAT has to do with anything but, SJC is young, and I am old.

 

Matt

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Originally Posted by SJC:

Don't you think WMSR thought about the engine fitting on the turntable BEFORE they went to the trouble of acquiring it, transporting it, and restoring it, not to mention the financial investment?

 

It has really baffled me to see so many people saying it won't fit on the turntable or it will barely fit, etc and what are they going to do....it fits. Again, don't you think they thought of that a while ago? 

Excellent comment!!!!

 

Note that all those "questing comments" are from toy/model train folks that really have no knowledge of real railroading, let alone steam locomotive operations.

Not sure why some folks have to be so critical of comments. If model railroaders want to learn more about real railroads, that should be seen as a good thing. Why discourage them by beating them over the head for asking a question or making a comment? 

 

Sometimes it's amazing what "obvious" questions aren't asked by designers/engineers, etc. Regardless, in this case there may have been consideration given to constructing a wye, for example, but I had no idea and no information about the turntable length was given initially.  Consolidations were obviously much smaller engines - that's the reason for the comment.

 

I'm clearly no expert on the engines specifications, but many Consolidations had wheelbases of 51.68, and certain classes of 2-6-6-2s had wheelbases of 88.56 and 89.42, which obviously are a lot longer. Hence the comment about fitting on the turntable. Eldodroptop above provided a courteous answer and explanation. Thank you.

Originally Posted by breezinup:
Originally Posted by Hot Water:
Originally Posted by SJC:

Don't you think WMSR thought about the engine fitting on the turntable BEFORE they went to the trouble of acquiring it, transporting it, and restoring it, not to mention the financial investment?

 

It has really baffled me to see so many people saying it won't fit on the turntable or it will barely fit, etc and what are they going to do....it fits. Again, don't you think they thought of that a while ago? 

Excellent comment!!!!

 

Note that all those "questing comments" are from toy/model train folks that really have no knowledge of real railroading, let alone steam locomotive operations.

Not sure why some folks have to be so critical of comments. If model railroaders want to learn more about real railroads, that should be seen as a good thing. Why discourage them by beating them over the head for asking a question or making a comment? 

 

Sometimes it's amazing what "obvious" questions aren't asked by designers/engineers, etc. Regardless, in this case there may have been consideration given to constructing a wye, for example, but I had no idea and no information about the turntable length was given initially.  Consolidations were obviously much smaller engines - that's the reason for the comment.

 

I'm clearly no expert on the engines specifications, but many Consolidations had wheelbases of 51.68, and certain classes of 2-6-6-2s had wheelbases of 88.56 and 89.42, which obviously are a lot longer. Hence the comment about fitting on the turntable. Eldodroptop above provided a courteous answer and explanation. Thank you.

Some valid comments. However, I have found that those individuals that do NOT know, get far better results/answers by ASKING questions. The individuals that make close-ended STATEMENTS about subjects they are not knowledgable of, tend to elicit comments such as SJC offered, above.

I always thought the Frostburg turntable to be relatively light, with small structural steel side beams.  While focus is on length, there is an obvious increase in weight that would need some engineering calculations to assure that, yes, it will work on the Frostburg TT and not destroy it.  IMO.  One assumes all that has been done.  

 There would be other considerations concerning the right of way.  This was a 2007 picture of a rail near Brush tunnel. Nothing last for ever. You would assume this has been replaced long ago.  Again IMO.  Keep in mind there is a bike trail along the right-of-way, anyone can access the trail/railroad any time.  Popular event is to load your bike on the baggage car for the ride to Frostburg and bike back to Cumberland. 

Don't know a lot, I just take a lot of pictures.

Mike CT

Last edited by Mike CT
Originally Posted by Matt01:
Originally Posted by Hot Water:
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway .... thanks for the info, Borden Tunnel. Is any area of the WMSR shop ever open to visitors? I don't see that it is. I own a little place in south-central  Pennsylvania ... I'd like to take a ride down to Cumberland in November.

 

Matt

 

WMSR generally only does public shop tours during the Steel Wheels Fest, 2nd weekend of September. Membership in the WMSR Foundation, the volunteer group, does allow for shop access during scheduled work sessions.

Some facts about the Frostburg turntable:
100ft., installed 1935 at Elkins,WV. In use there 1935-1987 then moved to Frostburg.

WM power that used this included the H-9 2-8-0 Consolidations, which weighed 595, 500 pounds, carrying 23 tons/coal and 15,000 gallons of water.

C&O 1309 weighs 643,000 pounds, and carries 15 tons/coal, and 12,000 gallons/water.

Some trackwork will be done at Frostburg, including a longer passing siding, and realigned turntable leads.

Here are some pics from the latest Steel Wheels Fest shop tours.

12038788_10153596342272970_951005074278986422_o

11145101_10153596342827970_1037393278297109911_o

12027202_10153596342422970_1228705380683250606_o

12004116_10153596342687970_3928990359564009873_n

12027537_10153596342562970_2124488390857980607_n

Attachments

Images (5)
  • 12038788_10153596342272970_951005074278986422_o
  • 11145101_10153596342827970_1037393278297109911_o
  • 12027202_10153596342422970_1228705380683250606_o
  • 12004116_10153596342687970_3928990359564009873_n
  • 12027537_10153596342562970_2124488390857980607_n

Greetings all;

Without trying to rehash what has been discussed here in past discussion threads, let me quickly answer some questions for those who may not have been able to discover the previous threads.  

 

RE: Will 1309 fit on the turntable?  Yes, numbers previously stated in this thread.    

 

RE: Won't it cost a lot more to operate #1309 than #734?  No, #1309 being a compound is actually expected to provide lower operating expenses overall.  Currently, WMSR uses a help approximately 40% of the time.  This reduction in operating, labor and maintenance costs of the helper alone would offset any higher operating costs from #1309.  #1309's grate area is approximately 20% larger than #734's, so one would expect higher fuel burn , but with compound operation, the efficiency gained should keep operating costs nearly the same.  Add in the fact that #1309 will be easier on the track (shorter wheelbase, articulation), and you have a locomotive that should provide us a very efficient operating ratio.  

 

RE: Won't #1309 be much more expensive than #734 to rebuild?  No--in fact, just the opposite.  We are finding that #1309 is in very good condition.  Of course, the locomotive was used, and used hard by the C&O but it was also well maintained.  As a result, the #1309 has a lower total rebuild cost than excepted for #734.  #734 was worked extremely hard over the past 15 years with relatively little maintenance, and is going to take a lot of work to restore.  

 

RE: Won't #1309 be harder on the track and bridges?  No--while #1309 is heavier than #734, the weight is spread across more axles giving nearly the same axle loading as #734.  WMSR's bridges are in very good condition (we inspected the major bridges three weeks ago), although they can use cosmetic work which we are working on to correct over the next year to two years.  

 

RE: Will it be done in time for 2016?  I can't promise at this time, but I fully expect #1309 will be ready for the beginning of our season in 2016.  The boiler should be finished with sandblasting this afternoon (in preparation for ultrasonic testing), and painted tomorrow.  We project starting boiler work on the 12th with UT beginning on the 17th. Tubes and flues should be delivered around the end of the month.  As you can see, we are progressing on the rebuild.  Unfortunately, I am in Jacksonville, FL with CSX at moment, or I would try to post some pictures with this thread.  No, this is not a return to steam on CSX--we are coordinating on other issues.  

 

RE:  Do you give shop tours?  On occasion, but not frequently.  We plan them as part of select special events, such as photo shoots and as part of our Steel Wheels Festival.  Some groups (such as historical societies) and tour companies (such as Smithsonian Tours) do request tours and we try to honor those as well.  However, as a working railroad shop, it is difficult to stop work and provide tours on a frequent basis for the individual person or a small group.  

 

Thank you for your interest, and we look forward to seeing you on-board!

 

M. Gresham

General Superintendent 

Western Maryland Scenic Railroad

Last edited by WMSR1

I was curious about that term, "Last Baldwin Steam Engine."  I looked up www.steamlocomotive.com http://www.steamlocomotive.com/2-6-6-2/?page=co to find out what that actually meant.  Here is the way it is phrased.

"The Baldwin Locomotive Works built #1309 in September of 1949 as its last Class 1 mainline domestic steam locomotive and the last to be commercially built by Baldwin for use by a railroad in the USA. The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. became the last railroad to purchase a steam locomotive built by the Baldwin Locomotive for use in service in America when they ordered 25 2-6-6-2, mallet type locomotive in 1948."  

I know that 610 at the Tennessee Valley Railway Museum is a BLH steam engine and was built later.  It also has a claim to being "the last Baldwin," but it may tbe that it was a US Army loco that it does not count in the same way as 1309 does in being built for a railroad.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×