Re: C&S #30, a C-16 conversion

Posted by John Greenly on Jan 08, 2020; 9:34pm
URL: http://c-sng-discussion-forum.254.s1.nabble.com/C-S-30-a-C-16-conversion-tp15055p15066.html

Hi Rick,
thanks for your comments!  Your knowledge is certainly better than mine.  I'll be curious to hear what you think of the dimensions I found. I used this data sheet compiled for the NMRA from folios and other data:

https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/d4h.pdf

This has the dimensions of C-16 (class 60) #278 which agrees well with the Westside model.  This sheet also has C&S dimensions and I checked them against the (very incomplete)  data on the folio sheets for B4A posted in the files here on C&Sng blog.     The wheel spacing is not consistent between that NMRA sheet and the folio which shows the third driver 1" further back.  Otherwise the spacings are identical to the C-16.  The dome and stack spacings are a couple of inches different according to the nmra data, and I relocated the domes as given on the NMRA sheet for the C&S engine.
Driver diameters are both given on the NMRA sheet as 37", but I have seen 36" for the C-16 elsewhere.  The Westside model drivers are about 36.5.  The boiler diameter of 48" of the C&S engine is indeed the same as the class 56, while the class 60 C-16 is 2.75" larger. As you can see, I didn't mess with that, so my model is a bit more stout than the real #30.  
A bigger difference is that the C-16 cab sides were 5.5" longer than the C&S cab.  I decided to leave that alone too, so that's too long on my #30.  The domes on the Westside model match very closely to the domes on #30 by my measurements from the photographs.  The domes on the Cooke B4B's are substantially different, the sand dome is quite noticeably lower and fatter.  
Does all this seem correct to you?


Jim,  
thanks for your info as always!  The stack on my model is the C-16 one, and it is not right, I know.  As I mentioned in the first post, that's on the list to make.  The brakes are an interesting question indeed.  That vertical cylinder brake arrangement was on the F&CC Baldwin consolidations (built a couple of years later) too, so I know a little about it.    Unfortunately the brake mechanism is invisible in the photos of #30 in 1910.  

That photo of C&S 34 is a very big help, I've been using it.  I haven't done much to the frame and underparts of my model yet, except to redo the saddle under the smokebox which was poorly done originally.  Unless we find otherwise, I'll probably take off the brake cylinders and put in the vertical mechanism.  The model has no brake shoes now anyway.

Steve,
I'll take some photos and post about the repowering.  I had a Faulhaber 1331 on hand, and when I found I could fit it in, that's what I used.

Thanks everybody for your comments!!
John