210 F 75 tenders usually were fitted to M1/a/b locos later in their careers before being downgraded with the arrival of diesels. The M1 was meant to be dual service for fast freight and to replace doubleheader K4s locos. Hence the keystone number plate on the smoke box and water scoop on the tender. They weren’t as fast as the K4s so their service areas in passenger work was limited.

So far as historic fabric goes, any dressing needed to look similar to a 180 P 84 could likely be reversed. I might even propose that if steam had hung on longer, a T1 could have been fitted with a tender of this class for increased range.

Jason,

Thank you for the overview.

Confirming the this tender bed is a single piece GSC water bottom casting?

The four axle trucks are massive. In the car shop at Altoona in the late 80’s ( re: …..was a PRR K4 Resto #1 occasional volunteer), I was able to get a very close look at them before they made their way to the museum on the other side of the railroad. SERIOUS castings on these trucks. In addition, did I hear a pair of these trucks linger under a flat car in the former Lukins Steel ( now Cleveland Cliffs) Plant in Coatesville PA?

Is the plan to put a façade over the hole tender sides to replicate the shroud or add to the perimeter? It already appears to have a smooth welded shell.

The shrouding over the trucks really created the interesting “hunkered down” look, classic PRR . It’s interesting the SAR had the same look on their NG15 2ft gauge tenders.

https://www.sa-transport.co.za/trains/n ... _1_amc.JPG

Probably not to mimic the PRR but get the center of gravity lower!

Is the donor tender, longer in wheel base? Longer in overall length? The differences seem to paramount to “rivet counting”. Excellent reuse of the tender. Perhaps this is the new historic fabric for it?

Found two photos illustrating the de-streamlining mods to the tender. (The second is posted on the Trust’s Facebook page.)

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/314266880228187027/

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3 ... n__=%2B%3E

In the initial build they had the two water fill hatches really tucked away!

Regards,

Randy

Ah, Ed. Maybe someday you will be able to see the forest. Just too many trees in the way, eh? Yes we know you have hostility toward the T1 Trust for some reason which of course colors your opinions.

Former steam locomotive tenders that have been converted to water cars have minimal historical value to begin with. Lets think big picture. What value does preserving this particular tender in it's current state have to western civilization? How many people will be able to learn anything of value from its existence? Aside from the occasional modeler looking to count rivets, what useful information does it really possess?

Now let's discuss the new build T1. What value will a completed and operational T1 have? For starters, tens of thousands will be able to experience something not seen since the 1950s. The actual task of building the T1 has uncovered reams of useful information about what it takes to build a large locomotive from the ground up, bringing to the present day engineering skills and techniques that went obsolete in seventy years ago. To think that a tender has it's highest and best use as a rusty hulk on a siding in New York and not at 79 mph on a passenger train is really foolish thinking. If all rail preservation is about is keeping examples of prototypes so that modelers can make more accurate models, then we all are wasting our time.

Oh btw, not much in the way of any permanent changes will have to be made to this tender for the T1. The post steam front end coupler modifications will be removed and shrouding added. Upgrades to the trucks and brake systems are not unlike that done to other operating tenders.

Those of us who actually do make stuff work understand that historic preservation is better served when machines perform their intended function rather than sitting still. I posit that very few preserved steam locomotives are actually true representations of their historic appearances. Once the shine is gone off the wheels it no longer is an accurate artifact, because no in service steam locomotives had rusty treads.

A great way to tell which form of preservation best serves the public interest is to note the amount of attention this tender is receiving now on a siding vs. the amount of attention it will have when it is behind the T1.

But still, in the preservation community, it is not inappropriate to say a paraphrase of 'how can you rejoice when my creation is drowning in the sea?'

Not really that different from the proposal in Project 130 to 'modify' the last of the Ripley Hudsons into something that was intended to garner similar enthusiasm. It would have been fun. It would have been finance with escrow to 'restore it to original' after the record run and the torrefied-fuel testing had been done. But yeah, there's room for different opinions on the subject, and yeah, I'm glad it wasn't done.

I think it makes best sense to concentrate work on the locomotive ahead of cosmetic tender modifications anyway...

If I understand the class nomenclature correctly, this one’s tank does hold 3k gallons more water than the original so I’d guess it’s longer. That’s 401 additional cubic feet needed to hold 3k gallons. The coal bunker would have to be smaller if it was the same length so I can’t say absolutely yes or no.

The tender has the exact same one piece cast frame and trucks as the original T1 tenders. The tank is nearly the same with the exception of how much coal/water space. We will keep the larger water space of existing M1 tender since we are going to put an oil bunker in coal space anyway.

We have been to Coatsville and looked at that frame and trucks. We believe it came of a J1 and was the same frame and trucks as the T1 and M1 tenders. After 50 years of being used to transport very large plate steel within the mill, it is toast. I saw so many cracks and repairs made to the frame and trucks, that the Coatsville tender frame is not even viable to be base of aux tender.

The tender we bought is all welded and smooth sided like the original T1 tenders, so all we have to do is remove steps and front part of tender and add streamlining over coal space. The picture below represents what it will look like when complete. We will even fake the train phone.



It all reality, this is among the simplest things we will have to do and we are spending our focus on the frame and boiler at the moment. If someone wanted to convert it back for a new M1, it would not take much to convert it.

I agree. However, I am wondering about the parameters of how exacting the chattering classes insist the project must adhere to.

I seem to recall a lot of handwringing about using Alco 251's in place of 244's. I don't object to that, either.

I am increasingly impressed with, and hopeful this project will produce a finished product after having an initial visceral response that it was "a bridge too far". I think this is a small concession, and less significant a deviation from the original than the presence of two water glasses as required by 49 CFR or the use of weldments instead of castings.

My late grandmother was a woman who accumulated a vast array of practical heuristics in her 99.96 years. One of them was "don't let the good become the enemy of the perfect".

jasonjohnson- Thank you for providing the details of your organization's ingenious adaptive reuse of this tender. Adaptive reuse has become a fundamental and widely accepted concept in the historic preservation of structures and will serve this project and the historic preservation of this tender very well. Unlike the adaptive reuse of buildings, the tender will continue to be used for its original purpose, and so not only its outer form, but also its function will be preserved with only the minor, accepted, and commonplace modification of the interior consistent with adaptive reuse to allow the containment of oil instead of coal. The minor modifications to the outer appearance are easily reversible and consistent with an era-correct representation of the reuse. Finally, the environmental and economic goals of adaptive reuse will be well served. Great work.

Kurt Bell cannot locate any PRR records for the tender using a combination or the tender number on the classification plate or the roster number painted on the tender in the photo above.

Wesley

Nobody tell him about Doc's "hybrid" engines - 3350-95W in the shell of the R-3350-26WD

https://www.b29doc.com/first-new-engine ... s-for-doc/

I disagree with some of what you've said, but I understand your point of view.

There is room in the world for both approaches. But I think it's important that the consideration of the other approach is brought up for consideration.

What does this mean as far as the heritage of this tender? Is it possible that that the plate is a reproduction and so the number is a non-rostered number? Are there any similar plates preserved that could be compared to this plate to determine authenticity?

I attached the photo of the plate from the T1 website that you had posted the link for earlier. If the plate data is inaccurate, is it possible that this tender came from another road or is it definitely a PRR tender? Are there any other locations on the tender or trucks that would have identifying indicia? If so, could the trucks have been swapped with another tender during the life of the tender? Very interesting. Thanks.

Another "Occam's Razor" possibility/probability: The desired "records" simply don't exist any longer, or Mr. Bell does not happen to have access to them.

I don't see any claim that the records in question are considered absolutely complete and definitive and/or was the "Holy Gospel" of such data maintained directly by the PRR's locomotive departments. And I've learned long ago not to even take a railroad's official documentation as irrefutable.

I remember that PRR tender plate being attached to the tender when it showed up at Marshallton on the Wilmington & Western in the 1980s. So there's little chance the plate is a "fake." (That was part of a manic phase when the W&W/HRCV effectively wanted to be the next "Steamtown"--and, in the process, saved CNJ 113, Buffalo Creek & Gauley 14, GM&N 425, NYC 6894, and other steamer for future preservation/operation.). PRR fanatics will save literally anything with "PRR"or their holy keystone emblem on it, from locomotives to handrail stanchions to pencils, so there are plenty of other PRR tender plates to examine out there--just not likely to be that many 210P75 plates. Note that these plates have a blank area for the locomotive number to be stenciled onto as the tender was reassigned.

It remains an absolute fluke that this tender survived AT ALL. The only reason it survived until the mid-1980s in Hagerstown is pure inertia, the failure of the PRR/PC/CR to install a proper fuel tank until late. The W&W grabbed it and moved it to Delaware when there were (and remain) only about two or three locos in existence of any class that ever had such a big tender--and that counts the Hamburg, NY I1, the anomaly of two PRR K4s's getting big tenders late in their careers, and of course 6755 at the RR Museum of Pa. Then, further, the I1 group saved it from the W&W for 4483.

The PRR Starlink antenna...;-)


Mike

From a member of the PRR Technical & Historical Society, via Kurt Bell.



Additional research help is welcome.

Wesley