Re: Alpine Tunnel Glass
Posted by John Droste on Oct 10, 2017; 11:03pm
URL: http://c-sng-discussion-forum.254.s1.nabble.com/Alpine-Tunnel-Glass-tp9540p9691.html
Thank you Chris,
I am surprised that K27`s never ran to Leadville. I do believe you.
I do understand that a K would not fit on the turntable with the tender attached. Recently, I have come to understand that all the entrances to the stone roundhouse required turning of the turntable.
I also understand that a loaded K would as was once described, turn the rail to ribbon.
I imagine and imagine only that a dead and empty K27 would way less than the broad gauge snowplow machine that was used through and around the tunnel. So I can not discount that a K could have been towed that way. Maybe I am wrong on that.
Maybe I am wrong on what I believe I read about the description of a viewer watching as one person axed away the doorjambs to make way for a locomotive to enter while a third person watched, smoking a cigarette. That both doorjambs were cut back to the stone for the pilot plow to scrape through between the stone. That one doorjamb was cut back so much for the cylinder or cylinders that it lost its structural purpose.
I did read something, whatever it was, I did read something and nobody seems to be aware of what made me aware of the doorjambs. Know what I mean? But that does not make me correct in what I am saying. I am just saying that when I first spoke of the doorjambs in the DSP group, Deb, soon produced some photos of the doorjambs in question.
IF, there had been known discussions on these doorjambs before, they would have been brought up by now.
So my quest is not so much to prove something that I believe that I read, but to actually find out what I did read.
I have a respect for your knowledge, it is outstanding. But I have found in life when people look at things with a point of view, they are not perceiving things from other angles too.
I also respect the views of Jerry Day, who gave me this information which it seems is a different point of view to yours, with respect.
Width over cylinders 10'5"
Width over plow pilot 10'7&1/2"
Width of cab 9'5"
Sources: D&RGW erecting card 10801 dated Jan 18 1926. Baldwin locomotive specifications.
Now I have provided these measurements in the past. And I have no doubt that they have been checked. No doubt! The issue has created a great deal of debate. I am quite certain that if that measurement across the stone pillars is not very very near the plow pilot measurement, I would have been informed by now. Also, that the measurement from the scallop at cylinder hight to the stone pillar opposite will only be just larger than the width of measurement that Jerry provided.
But nobody has verified that yet. And I think that that is a story in itself.
But as I said before, I want to rediscover what I had read more than force what I believe that I read. But if the measurements don`t stack up, then I am wrong in what i thought I read.
Thanks for your input, sincerely.
URL: http://c-sng-discussion-forum.254.s1.nabble.com/Alpine-Tunnel-Glass-tp9540p9691.html
Thank you Chris,
I am surprised that K27`s never ran to Leadville. I do believe you.
I do understand that a K would not fit on the turntable with the tender attached. Recently, I have come to understand that all the entrances to the stone roundhouse required turning of the turntable.
I also understand that a loaded K would as was once described, turn the rail to ribbon.
I imagine and imagine only that a dead and empty K27 would way less than the broad gauge snowplow machine that was used through and around the tunnel. So I can not discount that a K could have been towed that way. Maybe I am wrong on that.
Maybe I am wrong on what I believe I read about the description of a viewer watching as one person axed away the doorjambs to make way for a locomotive to enter while a third person watched, smoking a cigarette. That both doorjambs were cut back to the stone for the pilot plow to scrape through between the stone. That one doorjamb was cut back so much for the cylinder or cylinders that it lost its structural purpose.
I did read something, whatever it was, I did read something and nobody seems to be aware of what made me aware of the doorjambs. Know what I mean? But that does not make me correct in what I am saying. I am just saying that when I first spoke of the doorjambs in the DSP group, Deb, soon produced some photos of the doorjambs in question.
IF, there had been known discussions on these doorjambs before, they would have been brought up by now.
So my quest is not so much to prove something that I believe that I read, but to actually find out what I did read.
I have a respect for your knowledge, it is outstanding. But I have found in life when people look at things with a point of view, they are not perceiving things from other angles too.
I also respect the views of Jerry Day, who gave me this information which it seems is a different point of view to yours, with respect.
Width over cylinders 10'5"
Width over plow pilot 10'7&1/2"
Width of cab 9'5"
Sources: D&RGW erecting card 10801 dated Jan 18 1926. Baldwin locomotive specifications.
Now I have provided these measurements in the past. And I have no doubt that they have been checked. No doubt! The issue has created a great deal of debate. I am quite certain that if that measurement across the stone pillars is not very very near the plow pilot measurement, I would have been informed by now. Also, that the measurement from the scallop at cylinder hight to the stone pillar opposite will only be just larger than the width of measurement that Jerry provided.
But nobody has verified that yet. And I think that that is a story in itself.
But as I said before, I want to rediscover what I had read more than force what I believe that I read. But if the measurements don`t stack up, then I am wrong in what i thought I read.
Thanks for your input, sincerely.
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |