Early #22 In Progress

[Mike Trent]

You Might be right, Darel. But it would surely have had to be fire resistant!

Interesting to note the commonality of height and thickness of the tubes. The lower the spark arrestor to the top of the boiler, the wider the tube. And eventually, the wide tubes won, it would appear.

But I'm not really sure about that. The PSC castings I used for my large engines look like they are spot on. When the draftsman for Overland did the drawings for the B-4-E and B-3-C projects, he reduced the diameter because he thought the larger PSC tubes were too big. Of course we also had actual measurements from the tubes of both #71 and #60 to confirm that he was right. All this time I've had both sizes on my engines, because I have always been certain that the big engines had bigger tubes. I tried an experiment trying to see what a narrower tube looked like on one of them and was sure that the wider tube looked better. Like the photos.

This may also be part of the problem Keith is having with the PBL tubes on his F class engines.

Having been through the process of fitting our replica Ridgway on both #74 and on #346, all of us who were there could agree that each engine had to have a custom fit tube. Different boiler diameters, different stack height, running boards, and pilot decks all differed from one to the next.  

[Fred52]

Hi Everyone!
A fella loses the net and wow, lots of food for me to digest about these logos. I guess since my models will be used on a '20's layout my #21 will get a ridgway. I did notice on the pictures that indeed the ridgway on #21 sits higher than #22. So I guess maybe a little surgery will have to be done. I use the ridgway assemblies from Keith Wisemann. So another will be forthcoming. Also here's a new question. Did either mogul ever use a butterfly low? Since these two are going to look almost like twins, can I install one on either mogul?
Fred Cotterell
Way down south.

[Lee Gustafson]

Question about #22's tender from 1918 to 1923. The N.G. Pictorial volume VI shows an Otto Perry photo on pg. 75 in Denver with the flare side tender configuration, pg. 76 shows a Jackson photo in Morrison with the straight side tender configuration and a H.E. High photo on pg.77 in Denver ca. 1920's shows the straight side tender. Does any one know when the tender was reconfigured? I've seen OVL On3 models with various configurations of flare side, straight side, no air tank and small air. Which configuration is accurate for what time period? As always thanks in advance.

Lee Gustafson

[Jim Courtney]

The straight or "intermediate" tender behind #22 was actually the tender from sister engine #21, when that locomotive was retired (1925 I think). The 22 used that replacement tender until removed from service (1927 I think).

Sorry, in the hospital and have no access to my C&S rosters.

[Lee Gustafson]

Jim,

Thank you. Best wishes.

Lee Gustafson

[Mike Trent]

Lee, not to worry, although that did sound bad, Jim is actually a Doc and working. If he were "in the hospital" like the rest of us would be, we might not know.