Love me tender (With apologies to Elvis) …

[John Schapekahm]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Tim Schreiner]

Her tender belonged originally to CB&Q #537. There is some info in the Burlington Bulletin No.41. As far as anyone drawings, I'm to knowledgable to where specifically they would be.

[Derrell Poole]

What scale are you building this in?

I have a couple of these in S scale (OMI) and one is for sale. Or Trade (need another 1006 caboose). But! If you Promise to return it in 30 days and pay for postage you can borrow it from me for a reference.

Somewhere I may have some info on the tender. I think Doug Heitkamp shared this with me. I'd have to find it.

Yes it did come from 537.

[Mike Trent]

John, I have a photocopy of a page from HW Ridgway's notebook that Hol Wagner made for me during construction of my #537. It indicates in Ridgway's handwriting that #537 and #70 had switched tenders and that both were modified in width. There is some dimensional detail. It may take a bit to dig it out, but I'll find it and post it.

[John Schapekahm]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[John Schapekahm]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Derrell Poole]

John, the tender is sitting here on my desk still wrapped in its MSM plastic. I'll get it out to you soon - and glad to help. In the meantime my offer to trade to anyone with an extra 1006... or perhaps a 1003, or 1009 stands. Not likely I guess. But if you need the tender I'll take cash too. Then maybe I can find a caboose after the fact. But you will have to wait for John to finish with it.

[Derrell Poole]

That is some Library John! Wow. I use to have more books but I got a wild hare (probably Bugs) man years ago and sold off nearly everything. Fortunately I got my C&S files back (thanks Big D). And most of the books.

I admire your collection - some authors notwithstanding. So a request; when every you are looking at pictures watch for an odd looking caboose....?

[Chris Walker]

A while ago for some reason I saved this link to a very comprehensive  bibli.  Now that would take some funds to aquire :)

http://www.midcontinent.org/rollingstock/CandS/bibliog-c&s.htm

As for 70's Tender, don't you just love those Bettendorfs?  She would have to be the most odd-ball detailed n.g. loco ever and in such becomes synonymous with the C&S Clear Creek lines.

Pre-Oil days in the Platte Canon....(strictly for comparison)
http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/p15330coll22/id/10676/rv/singleitem

[Tim Schreiner]

Here is a pretty cool picture I found on eBay a while ago.

[Mike Trent]

John, there are still a few dark places in #537's history that Rick may be able to help with, but Hol's history from the "Burlington Bulleten" is probably the best source of information on it.

I'm going to be interested in how your project comes out, because I have always known how useful Ridgway's dimensions and sketches would be for someone who wanted to build an accurate model of that tender.

I have never seen one of the OMI Sn3 models other than #74, which was the first.

I had an On3 PSC #70 years ago, and I can tell you that the dimensions of the PSC tender had to have come from a lot "by guess and by gollying", it really wasn't what I remember anywhere close to what I had from Hol Wagner.

There are a few published pictures of #537 taken between 1927 and 1931. In 1927 #537 was sent to Denver from the Black Hills after being wrecked for rebuilding at the C&S Joint Shops. These few shots show the locomotive pretty much as it was in later years, with some differences. but with a very different tender. It also had Bettendorf trucks, but the tank and bunker are much different than #70's tender.

When #70 was converted to oil in 1931, it's tender was widened shortly after being placed in service behind #537. The tender I built for #537 is close to what it would have been behind #70 before it was widened. I may yet undertake to rebuild that tender now that I have narrowed all of the B-4-F tenders to proper size. But for now it is as it was from #70. I'll post photos of #537 this weekend.

The locomotive was leased, not sold, to the C&S by the Q as a means to bring the motive power roster some much needed beef, as it was similar in tonnage rating to the big hog B-4-F class, "on the cheap", without having to invest in heavy expense in the process. One of the schemes that was seriously considered was the purshase of the two Uintah 2-6-6-T locomotives, removing the tanks and purchasing brand new tenders from Baldwin identical to those used on the D&RGW K-36's. The cost of reinforcing and/or replacing bridges along the mainline to handle their weight killed that idea. As a leased engine, it remained in CB&Q livery during the rest of it's life, although in several late pictures, the lettering is faintly visible. With light contrast, it disappears completely.

I'll provide more information on #537 later this weekend, along with some photos of mine.

Back to #70, I believe that as soon as it was converted to oil, possibly using parts removed from #537 in '27, it was fitted with #537's old tender, although the large oil bunker was probably built by the C&S, as it bears much similarity to those on the oil burning 800's and 900's in later years.

One last comment regarding #70 here. During my time with old Doug Schnarbush, he told me that the West End guys all missed that engine, and only heard tell of it's fate by the East End enginemen up to Como from Denver. Doug said it spent a lot of time on the West End and that they all liked it better than it's sister engine #69.

[Derrell Poole]

The PSC No. 70 was imported in the early 1980s (iirc) while the OMI S scale engine was imported in 1990. Two different companies and a growing awareness of how important accuracy is to the modelers in the interim of time. (In fact, OMI seems to have sacrificed quality of craftsmanship in favor of accuracy and detail). I have examples of nearly every S scale C&S model they imported - EXCEPT 74 and a couple of the moguls. Some twenty of them. I've found the OMI C&S engines to be fairly accurate tho not perfect. Knowing this I offer to John the use of my model. I would not have, Otherwise!

That being said this is how the 1/64th tender stacks up to George Lundberg's sketches to determine 537's capacities - before the oil bunker was installed.

Length of tank = 16'-3" (Lundberg's sketch 52")
O-A width of tank = 87.5" scale. (Lundberg's sketch 87")
Height of tank = 40" (Lundberg's sketch 44")
Bunker width (Between water wings ) = 52" scale (Lundberg's sketch 52")
TOR to top of frame deck = 38.5" (Lundberg's sketch 37")
Width of water wings approx 18" (Lundberg's sketch na)
Height of oil bunker above tank deck = 20" (Lundberg's sketch na")
Length of oil bunker = 11' - 11" (Lundberg's sketch na")
Width of oil bunker = 83.75" (Lundberg's sketch na")
BO tank to BO oil Bunker = 50" (Lundberg's sketch na")
Length of frame over sills = 19' - 5.5" (Lundberg's sketch na")
Width of frame over bands = 8' (Lundberg's sketch na")

There is nothing like a 3D object in your hand to understand how something is put together. PSC - Iron Horse Models - isn't known to be very accurate with C&S engines. It's not so hard to replicate a 3D, 12" to the foot scale K-36 but the C&S engines are mostly memory! So. I would not recommend John rely on a little Sn3 model as his sole source of info.

But of course if some "expert" knows better, I'll just not bother...

[Derrell Poole]

 
OMI Sn3 oil tender


70 with oil tender


Engineers side


Coal burning 70

I thought I had 2 oil tenders but I've actually have a coal tender to set the engine up to pre 1931. I also have stacks and Ridgeway spark arrestors. The pilot deck would have to be modified plus whatever else - but no big effort.

Looks right to me.

[Mike Trent]

Looks right to me too, Derrell. Definitely looks like #70. John could do a lot worse than using this as a starting point for information. Overland's draftsman was a guy who lived in Valparaiso named Arendt Gerritsen, and he was really talented at being able to pull detail out of photos and reproduce them in his drawings. He probably made drawings for this and the other Sn3 projects and I am impressed. He also did the drawings for all the earlier On3 C&S projects that Todd and I participated in.  

This looks better to me, proportionally, than the On3 PSC model. Including, I believe, the cab width, which was probably at least 6" too narrow on the On3 PSC. I always thought they made the cab undersized to compensate for an undersized tender.

The coal tender looks like a reprise of the #71's tender, but sure gives the right feel.

Thanks for the pics. When Darel told me some time ago that OMI had produced these engines in Sn3 I was really surprised. And very happy for everyone modeling in that scale.

Did they produce the Baggage and Mail car #13 in Sn3? I know it was done in HOn3, but not in On3.  

[Mike Trent]

Derrell, your information from Lundberg is what I was erroniously referring to yesterday as being from HW Ridgway. I believe Ridgway was long retired by 1931.

I have not been able to find a hard copy, but I have a jpg image that does show Lundberg's note that #70's tender was now on #537. with similar calculations regarding the before and after capacities of #537's new tank.

I'll include that page here, though it's largely illegible. But interesting nonetheless. Your information is from the opposite page.

One question, what was Lundberg's measurement of the length of the original #537 tank? I believe you missed that on your notes above.

Thanks to Hol Wagner.

[John Schapekahm]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Derrell Poole]

Mike, OMI did Baggage 13, and coaches 70 and 74 (iir the numbers correctly) basically 9 cars if you reno. the coaches to fill the series - but don't put any grades in your mainline because the little engines can't pull more than a couple up 2%. In order to reduce some of the weight I put PBL trucks under them - evil, I know - but I'm not that much of a passenger car guy anyway. The only one I didn't do that to was 13 because the trucks are so unique. I've thought about making new floors out of plastic just to cut the weight.

I think the tender came off of a 71 model iir but truth is I won't be using it either because it is way too modern for the 1910 no. 70. I have tender etchings for that. If I can ever cut some time out of my weeks to do my own stuff I'll have a bunch of surplus tenders.

To pitch Sn3 there is a bunch of stuff available for the C&S - disproportionate, really, considering that there can't be more than 1000 Sn3 modelers in the whole world and we all know 90% of them model the Evil Empire. Thank you Billy P. (Sn3 use to be the scratch builders scale) If you want to model late C&S about the only engine you may find missing is the Q engine. You can fairly easily convert 71 to the other 2 E engines and you have 65 69 and 70 for the Ds. You have a lot of work to do to convert a 60 to a 58 but is can be done. All the moguls you'd ever want come off the selves. It's a beautiful world...

But I'm new-rottic so I have to tear everything apart.

[Robert McFarland]

I believe that that photo was taken near Garos.

[Derrell Poole]

This is what I have - clearly you have more info. In the upper left corner the note says (circled) figures are for Eng. 70 so there is a comparison here.

I forgot to adjust the cut-and-paste job I did on the first line - it should say;

Length of tank = 16'-3" (Lundberg's sketch 16' - 2")

Maybe a little photo shopping to your e files will bring them out? I had to do that with my info.

Still the point here is that for a 1/64 sized model perrrrr-ritty doggone close... John should be able to build a fabulous large scale tender. Looking forward to seeing his results.

[Derrell Poole]

John, likely Mike can answer your question about Lundberg better than I can. The jpeg I posted says; "George Lundberg, a mechanical engineer, who was also the railroad's primary mechanical draftsman, was sent to the Seventh Street roundhouse..."

Captions for the photo you posted have stated this was case spur which iirc was southwest of Garos. Even tho Trout creek had been abandoned in 1910 trains apparently still rand down to as far as Bath until the early '20s. My recollection is that when the line was actually taken up it was from somewhere south of this spur so trains still occasionally ran south of Garos well into that decade and maybe later. This is all memory and dot connecting on my part so anyone pipe in and correct substantially.

Sorry about the typo in the dimensions. See correction in my previous post.

"I see weee-aud figgers. Strange figgers..." Groucho Marx. Keep looking for that mystery caboose.