Air tank placement on the Moguls.

[Fred52]

Hi everyone!

As I still am rather new to this Railroad system and I am always having these questions, I am going to ask this one because I am getting two more Bachmann Moguls to visually 'kitbash' into proper C& S motive power. So here goes.
In Mallory Hope Ferrell's book, 'C&Sng, he has an excellent roster of all the motive power the power that the RR and it predecessors had during the course of it's history. My question is this: Did any of the Moguls other than #'s 21& 22 have their air tanks place on top of their boilers? #'s 21 & 22 do and that is a rather distinctive part of the C&S look along with the Ridgway arrestors. I can get either the models with or without the tank. I need to know this before going on Ebay and plunking down money on them. I am modeling a period stretching from 1920-1930. So can anybody guide me in this quest?
Thanks
Fred Cotterell.

[Jim Courtney]

Not sure about C&S number 11, but C&S 12 and 13 did:


http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/42198/rec/1





From Doug Heitkamp collection.



Volrath collection, in Grandt's Narrow Gauge Pictorial VI.


The middle photo is circa 1910, the top and bottom are from 1921; it's not clear if numbers 12 and 13 saw much service after that date.

So you see, Fred, you can easily justify buying two more moguls . . .

[Keith Hayes]

I always found it odd that PFM--and later Bachman--chose to model a mogul with the airtank on the boiler, rather than the longer serving Cooke locomotives. Mr. Poole also found it odd, and it is unfortunate we do not have the benefit of his contribution of his research of the C&S locomotive modernization program. Fred, 9th Street pursued a deliberate, thoughtful plan modernizing the C&S fleet after 1900. If I recall, they started with the moguls and worked their way up, and the resulting appearance we all love (spark arrestors, pilots, air tank, compressor, generator, headlamp) results from this combination of need, dollars available, technology, time and testing.

For example, Jim posts a photo of 13 with the McConnal (sp?) stack and the air tank on the boiler, plus an arc head lamp (no generator). The next image has the Ridgeway spark arrestor and a generator appears behind the head lamp (note the neat exhaust routed up next to the stack). From this we can infer that the airt ank placement was an early strategy that predates the Ridgeway spark arrestor. 9th Street tried the McConnal design, and they still got fires, so the Ridgeway was implemented. If you are modeling the period between 1900 and 1925 or so, these detail combinations can very precisely date your model.

[Fred52]

Jim and Keith:

Thanks guys for your excellent responses.

Jim: those pictures are great aids for me. I noticed something about #13. In one picture, there seems to be a divider between the glass in the window of the fireman's side. (The one with the McConnel stack.) in the second picture of that same engine of a later view, on the engineer's side they are missing. Could it be my eyes or was there some sort of change during the rebuilds?
Thanks
Fred Cotterell.

P. S. My wife is buying me two more moguls. Both #22.

[Fred52]

Okay let's take this to another level. I model in ON thirty. (Auto correct is keeping me from typing a 30 after the ON.)
There is a good chance my son will pay for a Broadway Limited C-19. Do you fellas think it is a good candidate to turn into something from the C&S roster?
Fred Cotterell

On Dec 3, 2017 6:19 PM, "Fred52 [via C&Sng Discussion Forum]" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Jim and Keith:

Thanks guys for your excellent responses.

Jim: those pictures are great aids for me. I noticed something about #13. In one picture, there seems to be a divider between the glass in the window of the fireman's side. (The one with the McConnel stack.) in the second picture of that same engine of a later view, on the engineer's side they are missing. Could it be my eyes or was there some sort of change during the rebuilds?
Thanks
Fred Cotterell.

P. S. My wife is buying me two more moguls. Both #22.

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/Air-tank-placement-on-the-Moguls-tp10271p10276.html

To start a new topic under C&Sng Discussion Forum, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from Air tank placement on the Moguls., click here.
NAML

[Jim Courtney]

 . . . a Broadway Limited C-19. Do you fellas think it is a good candidate to turn into something from the C&S roster?

Fred, I dunno,

The Broadway Limited model is a D&RGW C-16 (my brother has a couple) based on number 278.

The only similar C&S locomotive was old Baldwin C&S number 30, pretty similar to the class 56 and class 60 locomotives of the D&RG, built in 1880-1881:



Image courtesy of Chris Walker


Both number 30 and number 13 (above) were outfitted with an experimental diamond stack around 1910-1911, as Keith related, to cut down on fires.

But number 30 was pulled from service when the South Park was ripped apart by the CB&Q management in 1911 and stored, unused, until the mid to late 1920's.

The only other straight boilered C&S 2-8-0s were the Cookes of 1884, later C&S numbers 37-56:

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/p15330coll22/id/42203/rv/singleitem/rec/6

1918, Denver, Otto Perry



1910, Gunnison, in Kindig, et al, The Pictorial Supplement . . . (My very favorite Cooke!)

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/p15330coll22/id/42205/rv/singleitem/rec/15

1918, Denver, Otto Perry


Most of the light Cookes (less tractive effort than a C-16, in D&RGW speak closer to a class C-14) were also pulled from service in 1911 and stored with number 30. A few, like numbers 37 and 51, were used in Clear Creek freight service in the 19teens, but were pretty much pulled from the roster by 1920. I've never seen a photo of a Cooke with a Ridgeway stack (at least some got the cool "Como" stack).

All the other C&S 2-8-0's used from 1920-1938 were wagon topped boilered locomotives, with two courses.

I believe Bob Stears commented here that he converted a BL C-16 into an On3 C&S Cooke -- maybe he could post a photo or tell how he did the conversion.

Hope this helps . . .

[Fred52]

Thanks Jim.  Once again you answered with more photos. I tyink that #37 might be a good one to try. Later I'll look at Ferrell's book again to see how long it hung around.
Fred Cotterell.

On Dec 3, 2017 8:40 PM, "Jim Courtney [via C&Sng Discussion Forum]" <[hidden email]> wrote:

 . . . a Broadway Limited C-19. Do you fellas think it is a good candidate to turn into something from the C&S roster?

Fred, I dunno,

The Broadway Limited model is a D&RGW C-16 (my brother has a couple) based on number 278.

The only similar C&S locomotive was old Baldwin C&S number 30, pretty similar to the class 56 and class 60 locomotives of the D&RG, built in 1880-1881:



Image courtesy of Chris Walker


Both number 30 and number 13 (above) were outfitted with an experimental diamond stack around 1910-1911, as Keith related, to cut down on fires.

But number 30 was pulled from service when the South Park was ripped apart by the CB&Q management in 1911 and stored, unused, until the mid to late 1920's.

The only other straight boilered C&S 2-8-0s were the Cookes of 1884, later C&S numbers 37-56:

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/p15330coll22/id/42203/rv/singleitem/rec/6

1918, Denver, Otto Perry



1910, Gunnison, in Kindig, et al, The Pictorial Supplement . . . (My very favorite Cooke!)

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/p15330coll22/id/42205/rv/singleitem/rec/15

1918, Denver, Otto Perry


Most of the light Cookes (less tractive effort than a C-16, in D&RGW speak closer to a class C-14) were also pulled from service in 1911 and stored with number 30. A few, like numbers 37 and 51, were used in Clear Creek freight service in the 19teens, but were pretty much pulled from the roster by 1920. I've never seen a photo of a Cooke with a Ridgeway stack (at least some got the cool "Como" stack).

All the other C&S 2-8-0's used from 1920-1938 were wagon topped boilered locomotives, with two courses.

I believe Bob Stears commented here that he converted a BL C-16 into an On3 C&S Cooke -- maybe he could post a photo or tell how he did the conversion.

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/Air-tank-placement-on-the-Moguls-tp10271p10278.html

To start a new topic under C&Sng Discussion Forum, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from Air tank placement on the Moguls., click here.
NAML

[Fred52]

Btw, in the 2006 On 30 annual there is an article about doing the kitbash on a BLI loco. I'll dig out my copy and see who did it. The only reason I asked about that was to get some positive feedback.
Fred cotterell

On Dec 3, 2017 9:13 PM, "Fred Cotterell" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks Jim.  Once again you answered with more photos. I tyink that #37 might be a good one to try. Later I'll look at Ferrell's book again to see how long it hung around.
Fred Cotterell.

On Dec 3, 2017 8:40 PM, "Jim Courtney [via C&Sng Discussion Forum]" <[hidden email]> wrote:

 . . . a Broadway Limited C-19. Do you fellas think it is a good candidate to turn into something from the C&S roster?

Fred, I dunno,

The Broadway Limited model is a D&RGW C-16 (my brother has a couple) based on number 278.

The only similar C&S locomotive was old Baldwin C&S number 30, pretty similar to the class 56 and class 60 locomotives of the D&RG, built in 1880-1881:



Image courtesy of Chris Walker


Both number 30 and number 13 (above) were outfitted with an experimental diamond stack around 1910-1911, as Keith related, to cut down on fires.

But number 30 was pulled from service when the South Park was ripped apart by the CB&Q management in 1911 and stored, unused, until the mid to late 1920's.

The only other straight boilered C&S 2-8-0s were the Cookes of 1884, later C&S numbers 37-56:

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/p15330coll22/id/42203/rv/singleitem/rec/6

1918, Denver, Otto Perry



1910, Gunnison, in Kindig, et al, The Pictorial Supplement . . . (My very favorite Cooke!)

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/p15330coll22/id/42205/rv/singleitem/rec/15

1918, Denver, Otto Perry


Most of the light Cookes (less tractive effort than a C-16, in D&RGW speak closer to a class C-14) were also pulled from service in 1911 and stored with number 30. A few, like numbers 37 and 51, were used in Clear Creek freight service in the 19teens, but were pretty much pulled from the roster by 1920. I've never seen a photo of a Cooke with a Ridgeway stack (at least some got the cool "Como" stack).

All the other C&S 2-8-0's used from 1920-1938 were wagon topped boilered locomotives, with two courses.

I believe Bob Stears commented here that he converted a BL C-16 into an On3 C&S Cooke -- maybe he could post a photo or tell how he did the conversion.

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/Air-tank-placement-on-the-Moguls-tp10271p10278.html

To start a new topic under C&Sng Discussion Forum, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from Air tank placement on the Moguls., click here.
NAML

[skip]

Jim Courtney wrote

Not sure about C&S number 11, but C&S 12 and 13 did:
...
So you see, Fred, you can easily justify buying two more moguls . . .

All three of the B3As had the tank. Klinger's Clear Creek District Memories book has a wonderful picture of the #11 on page 223 showing it's tank.

I did a thread a while ago about my #13 done from a B3B in HOn3. The biggest difference that jumps out from far away is that the B3Bs had the tank forward toward the sand dome with the generator behind next to the steam dome. The B3As have the generator elsewhere and the tank moved back about 2/3 of the way toward the steam dome.

Then the next closer detail seems to be that the number's 12 and 21 had the 3-pane sliding cab windows and the 11,13, and 22 had the two-pane cab windows.

As you look closer, the injectors on the B3As all seemed to be in the cab while the #21 had the injectors on the boiler ahead of the cab. The Bachmann has the feed pipes coming from within the Cab so that matches the B3As.

The tender will need some work. The big things will be tool boxes in the front and an air reservoir and Westinghouse valve on the back of the tank. Mike Trent has some good pictures of the tender tool boxes in other threads here.

These are some of my favorite C&S engines. I am planning another Key #22 kitbash (probably to the #12) in HOn3 and it occurs to me that I do have a Bachmann mogul on the shelf from my On30 days... Hmmm I don't have nearly enough locomotive projects going on right now.

Fred, Thanks for the initial question and please post pictures as you go along! These threads always seem to develop lots of wonderful details for everyone.

Skip Egdorf
Los Alamos, NM

[skip]

Fred52 wrote

Okay let's take this to another level. I model in ON thirty. (Auto correct
is keeping me from typing a 30 after the ON.)
There is a good chance my son will pay for a Broadway Limited C-19. Do you
fellas think it is a good candidate to turn into something from the C&S
roster?
Fred Cotterell

Fred, the B4As (mainly the #30) and the B4Bs were very similar in dimension to the C-16s. The main differences will be the cab sides, headlight brackets, driver counterweight style,  and smoke box fronts. If you really want to get picky with details, the C-16 has a solid one-piece smokebox while most of the C&S engines had a riveted two-piece smoke box. If you want to get to that level of detail, I seem to recall that the #44, #54, and #55 all had one-piece non-riveted smoke boxes like the C-16. So that might affect your choice of target.

I have never seen any of these classes with a beartrap cinder catcher as they were all mothballed or scrapped by the time these came around. However, In my fantasy railroad  universe, management was just a wee bit more accepting of feeder railroads and the industry and economy were just a wee bit better and so in my world the C&S overhauled and kept some of these older engines for branch-line use longer than the real C&S did. If you decide to model one of these with a beartrap in the 1920s, I don't think anyone will have any complaints.

Skip Egdorf
Los Alamos, NM

[skip]

Fred52 wrote

Jim and Keith:

Thanks guys for your excellent responses.

Jim: those pictures are great aids for me. I noticed something about #13. In one picture, there seems to be a divider between the glass in the window of the fireman's side. (The one with the McConnel stack.) in the second picture of that same engine of a later view, on the engineer's side they are missing. Could it be my eyes or was there some sort of change during the rebuilds?
Thanks
Fred Cotterell.

P. S. My wife is buying me two more moguls. Both #22.

I think that the pane divider was removed with the cab re-build in the mid-teens. When I did my #13, I went with the removed divider as it matched the cab configuration and date that I wanted. The #11 and #22 (the others with the 2-pane cab windows) seem to have retained the pane divider.
The #12 and #22 went to the three-pane sliding windows when their cabs were rebuilt. If you want to mix things up, after the #21 was scrapped, there is a picture of the #22 late in its life (1923?) with the #21's cab and tender. So things did get swapped around during rebuilds.

Skip Egdorf
Los Alamos, NM

[Fred52]

Skip;
Thanks for your input. My rr is a fantasy of the idea that the DSP &P succeeded in completing the extension to the Ohio Creek line. We have chosen the period of 1920-1932. That way we can have a nice variety of motive power and rolling stock.
After we get our locos repaired we intend on doing two more moguls. Haven't decided on what ones yet. #13 is a good candidate though after Jim provided some excellent photos.
I hope to add at least one of the consolidations as a 'bigger' piece of power.

On Dec 4, 2017 9:26 AM, "skip [via C&Sng Discussion Forum]" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Fred52 wrote

Jim and Keith:

Thanks guys for your excellent responses.

Jim: those pictures are great aids for me. I noticed something about #13. In one picture, there seems to be a divider between the glass in the window of the fireman's side. (The one with the McConnel stack.) in the second picture of that same engine of a later view, on the engineer's side they are missing. Could it be my eyes or was there some sort of change during the rebuilds?
Thanks
Fred Cotterell.

P. S. My wife is buying me two more moguls. Both #22.

I think that the pane divider was removed with the cab re-build in the mid-teens. When I did my #13, I went with the removed divider as it matched the cab configuration and date that I wanted. The #11 and #22 (the others with the 2-pane cab windows) seem to have retained the pane divider.
The #12 and #22 went to the three-pane sliding windows when their cabs were rebuilt. If you want to mix things up, after the #21 was scrapped, there is a picture of the #22 late in its life (1923?) with the #21's cab and tender. So things did get swapped around during rebuilds.

Skip Egdorf
Los Alamos, NM

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/Air-tank-placement-on-the-Moguls-tp10271p10284.html

To start a new topic under C&Sng Discussion Forum, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from Air tank placement on the Moguls., click here.
NAML

[Robert McFarland]

How far past Baldwin does your line go?The Ohio Creek line would have gone as far as Grand Junction or maybe as far as Salt Lake City or Ogden.If they would have made it to the Grand Junction area it  would supposedly have opened an opportunity for hauling fruit and agricultural produce.

[Jeff Young]

A spur up to Marble would be really cool.

I’ve always wanted to do that area too.

[Jim Courtney]

All three of the B3As had the tank. Klinger's Clear Creek District Memories book has a wonderful picture of the #11 on page 223 showing it's tank.


Right you are Skip!  The photo in the Klingers' book is a great one. Seems the C&S number 11 was regularly assigned to the Morrison run:



May 4th, 1908. From Chappell et al, Colorado Rail Annual No. 12.


And Fred, if your fictitious C&S division northwest of Gunnison, over Ohio Creek Pass, is set in the 1920s-1930s, there is no reason that you couldn't have pulled some of those Cooke 2-8-0's, stored in "white lead", out of the Como roundhouse extension for service north of Gunnison.

The disposition of the stored Cooke locomotives was discussed on the "Como Roundhouse Addition" thread:
http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/Como-Roundhouse-Addition-td9120.html

After 1911, the Cookes were stored as a hedge, that some day business would pick up and they might be useful again. Fact is, several of the Cookes were put back in service and sold to other narrow gauge railroads. An example:



Ex C&S number 45 in 1921. W. J. Duteau photo in "Logging Along the Rio Grande". The Cooke 2-8-0 is back to work after a seven year slumber in one of the wood stalls of the Como roundhouse.


Heck, you could even add a Ridgeway stack to your Cookes, resurrected for service north of Gunnison -- it is your railroad!

Just remember to use light rail and spindly bridges to restrict the weight of the locomotives assigned to your C&S division.

Recall that the ex-C&S line from Gunnison to the Baldwin mines, after it was operated by the D&RGW beginning in 1910, never had upgrades to allow heavy power. The light bridges and rail are the reason that the three little D&RGW C-16's (223, 268 and 278) remained in service out of Gunnison until the early 1950's -- nothing heavier could work the line!

[Fred52]

My line is going to reprtjesent part of the proposed extension to about Kebler Pass if that was one of the passes on the line. In fact our original concept was to call the rr the Rio Grande Central. The idea was to be a little rr that had a mix of RGS,  D&RGW and of course The C&S. But that changed when I ffound a video of Harry Brunk's beautiful layout on Youtube.  So we decided on doing ours largely flavored by the C&S. That's a little bit about what we're up to.
The C-16 by Broadway will be acquired as one of my biggest freight locos letting the mogul  handle the varnish. I found my copy of the On 30 annual with an article about doing a 'kit bash' of one into the C&S #47. Its in the very first volume by Dan Roush.  He did a decent job of it too.
Armed with this plus all the various books I have I should be busy. Plus with the input of all of you this should be a busy 'winter' for me way down in Southern Alabama.
Thanks again
Fred Cotterell

[Fred52]

I know this isn't the best photo but this is pair of shots of our motive power.

On Dec 4, 2017 4:09 PM, "Fred Cotterell" <[hidden email]> wrote:

My line is going to reprtjesent part of the proposed extension to about Kebler Pass if that was one of the passes on the line. In fact our original concept was to call the rr the Rio Grande Central. The idea was to be a little rr that had a mix of RGS,  D&RGW and of course The C&S. But that changed when I ffound a video of Harry Brunk's beautiful layout on Youtube.  So we decided on doing ours largely flavored by the C&S. That's a little bit about what we're up to.
The C-16 by Broadway will be acquired as one of my biggest freight locos letting the mogul  handle the varnish. I found my copy of the On 30 annual with an article about doing a 'kit bash' of one into the C&S #47. Its in the very first volume by Dan Roush.  He did a decent job of it too.
Armed with this plus all the various books I have I should be busy. Plus with the input of all of you this should be a busy 'winter' for me way down in Southern Alabama.
Thanks again
Fred Cotterell

[LWilliams]

This is my Broadway ltd 2-8-0 dressed up as C&S 47

[LWilliams]

 
And if you want something a little different another BLI 2-8-0 as D&RGW 345 with ridgeway arrestor as leased to the C&S

[Fred52]

Williams; Those two are just about as big as I would utilize on my layout. Nice looking too. Would #47 have had a Ridgway? I will look at my list to see when it was gone or in White lead at Como. I hope that by February we will have our first module well underway. And we'll add more locos and lots more rolling stock. (My wife loves that we do have this in common.)
The wife is buying me two more moguls for Christmas and the detail parts I need because I'm paying to have her two Climaxes rebuilt to operating condition. Our last move wasn't line to them.
Fred cotterell

On Dec 5, 2017 11:30 AM, "LWilliams [via C&Sng Discussion Forum]" <[hidden email]> wrote:

 
And if you want something a little different another BLI 2-8-0 as D&RGW 345 with ridgeway arrestor as leased to the C&S

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/Air-tank-placement-on-the-Moguls-tp10271p10296.html

To start a new topic under C&Sng Discussion Forum, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from Air tank placement on the Moguls., click here.
NAML