I am involved with the restoration of Colorado & Northwestern 2-8-0 #30 in Boulder Colorado. We recently got a grant to restore the locomotives tender and have run into a bit of a dilema as to what to do with the tank. (The tender tank is the original tank built with the locomotive in 1898, the tender's frame is newer, built around 1920)
Upon removing the tank from the frame, it became apparent that the tank was shot. It would make an OK display peice but would never hold water for any length of time. Thus the dilema, should we make a new tank or attempt to salvage the old one? (Only the top and about 6" of the sides could possibly be re used)

By making a new tank we could save the old one, in its entirety as a display or historical record but, the tank people saw on the tender would be new. By salvaging some of the old tank, we wouold have to destroy the rest. Which is better & why? Any input or discussion is helpful.

Thanks

Jason Midyette

amjm@indra.com

Jason:

I'm no expert but I guess the answer lies in part to the eventual goal. If a cosmetic display is the end result, then perhaps salvage is preferable and cheaper since it may never again have to hold water. On the other hand, if operation is the result, I think that a new tank is the only realistic option, especially since it sounds like this is not an "original complete" tender anyway. Just a thought.



shawsinoly@aol.com

> I am involved with the restoration of
> Colorado & Northwestern 2-8-0 #30 in
> Boulder Colorado. We recently got a grant to
> restore the locomotives tender and have run
> into a bit of a dilemma as to what to do with
> the tank. (The tender tank is the original
> tank built with the locomotive in 1898, the
> tender's frame is newer, built around 1920)
> Upon removing the tank from the frame, it
> became apparent that the tank was shot. It
> would make an OK display piece but would
> never hold water for any length of time.
> Thus the dilemma, should we make a new tank
> or attempt to salvage the old one? (Only the
> top and about 6" of the sides could
> possibly be re used)

> By making a new tank we could save the old
> one, in its entirety as a display or
> historical record but, the tank people saw
> on the tender would be new. By salvaging
> some of the old tank, we would have to
> destroy the rest. Which is better & why?
> Any input or discussion is helpful.

> Thanks

> Jason Midyette
Well, what is to say you couldn't do both..save the original top 6" and make new beneath it. Alternatively use the old tender sides as a "wrapper" and install new metal on the inside to make it watertight (a tender within a tender). I agree with Scott, it depends on what the desired outcome is. If it is to be used and reliable, make the necessary changes (didn't stop Grand Canyon from modifying their ex CB&Q engine) If it is to be stuffed and mounted a-la CSRM, preserve as much of the original "fabric" as you can. I've seen this dilemma many times before, for example, if you were to take CPR 4-4-0 136 and restore it back to the original 1880's Rogers appearance, you would have little left as the cab, tender, boiler, cylinders, appliances etc have all been replaced during its lifetime. Myself, I have done restorations where we wished to preserve as much original as possible, and actually injected epoxy into wood pieces to strengthen and stabilize them. Once sanded and painted, it is nearly impossible to tell where the work was done, and it save making entirely new pieces from scratch.

You guys do have a project.

I was looking over a small steam locomotive a few years back and found the boiler in a similar situation, compounded with a fascinating series of patches done over the many decades. Our solution was for an operating restoration, replace the boiler and conserve the old one as a display to interpret different boiler repair and construction techniques. For a cosmetic job, conserve the old one on the locomotive. I wouldn't want to try to cob together a bit of the old tank and a lot of new tank unless perhaps the top deck could be used on new sides and bottom,and new and old fabric easily differentiated.

The cost of building and patching onto 90% of a new tank is probably more than building a 100% new replica. Conservation isn't too costly.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

We found building a tank within a tank worked really well with Essex Terminal #9 (see pic). Basically you build a whole new tank slightly smaller than the original one, cut the bottom off the old one, then place it over the new one. You will lose only a minimal amount of water capacity,

ETR #9

robsterne@hotmail.com

I imagine you will be wanting to do an operational
restoration; therefore a new tak in necessary.

But to build one it should be a riveted structure as the original was. That is the way to go

Have you decided yet weather you are going to make the engine Colorado&Northwestern or the later
Denver & Something?

I also hope that you can at least plan to put a cover over the finished display in the park. TM


ted_miles@NPS.gov

I'd agree that keeping the original appearance as much as possible is the correct thing to do.

On "our" shay, some of the smokebox rivets are actually welded in place, and thus are only cosmetic.

Is this "correct"? I'll let you decide, but it is functional, and looks good.

> But to build one it should be a riveted
> structure as the original was. That is the
> way to go




john.stewart@crc.ca

> I'd agree that keeping the original
> appearance as much as possible is the
> correct thing to do.

> On "our" shay, some of the
> smokebox rivets are actually welded in
> place, and thus are only cosmetic.

> Is this "correct"? I'll let you
> decide, but it is functional, and looks
> good.

An interesting take on the fake rivet issue is that railroads actually used them in past.

The old heavy weight passenger cars were constructed by riveting the side sheets to the frame. This was easy to do during construction since all you had at that point was the frame in place. After the cars were in service a problem developed with what to do with a car that had received some some minor damage that required replacing a small section of side sheet. To rivet it in place required removing the interior in that area so you could insert and buck up the rivet as it was being hammered. Someone, probably Pullman Co. came up with a screw that had a head shaped like a rivet with a slot for a screwdriver. For replacing a small section of side sheet they would drill and tap holes in the frame and screw the sheet in place. For a small repair the cost of drilling and tapping was cheaper than tearing out the interior. The car that I saw that had this done had the slots in the screws filled before painting. Once painted you couldn't tell the difference.


tennesseans@juno.com

> I imagine you will be wanting to do an
> operational
> restoration; therefore a new tak in
> necessary.

> But to build one it should be a riveted
> structure as the original was. That is the
> way to go

> Have you decided yet weather you are going
> to make the engine Colorado&Northwestern
> or the later
> Denver & Something?

> I also hope that you can at least plan to
> put a cover over the finished display in the
> park. TM

We havent decided the final lettering yet, but it will probably have Colorado & Northwestern on one side and Denver Boulder & Western on the other.

As for a display site, the city still has not made up its mind, other than it will not remain in Central Park. Whereever it ends up, it will have a roof over it at the very least.

Jason Midyette


amjm@indra.com

I have been intimately involved with the fabrication of a new tender tank for locomotive 464 at the Huckleberry RR. We decided to make a new tank as the old one was completely rusted away in many places, and decided on a design which had rivets where the original had them, and they were visible on the outside. The rest of the assembly is welded. So to the observer it will look like the original.

You have to consider several things:

1. What did you promise to the people who gave you the grant?
2. What are your facilities? If you have the equipment and a lot of time and cheap or free labor, then make a new tank. Do you have people who can and want to spend a lot of time rivetting and welding? Can you cut and bend the sheet metal? You can buy a lot of angle iron, and the sheet metal cut to size and rolled where required, so you have a kit with " some assembly" required. This is what we did.
3. If you have the money, minimal facilities and labor force, and want it in a hurry, then contract an outside company to make it.
4. If the present tender can be cosmetically repaired, then you get a custom fiberglass tank made to fit inside for holding the water. You will loose some water capacity: you will have to decide if this is a problem in you untended use.
5. Is your prime purpose restoration, making an operating locomotive, or a cosmetic display?

> I am involved with the restoration of
> Colorado & Northwestern 2-8-0 #30 in
> Boulder Colorado. We recently got a grant to
> restore the locomotives tender and have run
> into a bit of a dilema as to what to do with
> the tank. (The tender tank is the original
> tank built with the locomotive in 1898, the
> tender's frame is newer, built around 1920)
> Upon removing the tank from the frame, it
> became apparent that the tank was shot. It
> would make an OK display peice but would
> never hold water for any length of time.
> Thus the dilema, should we make a new tank
> or attempt to salvage the old one? (Only the
> top and about 6" of the sides could
> possibly be re used)

> By making a new tank we could save the old
> one, in its entirety as a display or
> historical record but, the tank people saw
> on the tender would be new. By salvaging
> some of the old tank, we wouold have to
> destroy the rest. Which is better & why?
> Any input or discussion is helpful.

> Thanks

> Jason Midyette


clica@ieee.org

Unfortunately, No. 74 looks much different than it did when operating on the C&NW/DB&W, so such lettering would be inaccurate. The engine was heavily rebuilt (gaining outside valve gear, a new tender, etc.) by the joint C&S/CB&Q shops in Denver after acquisition by the C&S. In its extant state, it could be properly restored as a
C&S or RGS locomotive. My vote for its (and all other extant C&S ng equipment's)final resting place? That wonderful old stone roundhouse at Como, Colorado, which is under restoration, and which actually housed it for so many years...

> We havent decided the final lettering yet,
> but it will probably have Colorado &
> Northwestern on one side and Denver Boulder
> & Western on the other.

> As for a display site, the city still has
> not made up its mind, other than it will not
> remain in Central Park. Whereever it ends
> up, it will have a roof over it at the very
> least.

> Jason Midyette


bobyar2001@yahoo.com

> Unfortunately, No. 74 looks much different
> than it did when operating on the
> C&NW/DB&W, so such lettering would
> be inaccurate. The engine was heavily
> rebuilt (gaining outside valve gear, a new
> tender, etc.) by the joint C&S/CB&Q
> shops in Denver after acquisition by the
> C&S. In its extant state, it could be
> properly restored as a
> C&S or RGS locomotive. My vote for its
> (and all other extant C&S ng
> equipment's)final resting place? That
> wonderful old stone roundhouse at Como,
> Colorado, which is under restoration, and
> which actually housed it for so many
> years...

The roundhouse at como is being restored? By whom? For what purpose?!? Its a great project, but Como is remote enough from major population centers and/or other railroad equipment that I'm somewhat suprised.
Plugak Thet
Boulder, CO


plugak@yahoo.com

> Unfortunately, No. 74 looks much different
> than it did when operating on the
> C&NW/DB&W, so such lettering would
> be inaccurate. The engine was heavily
> rebuilt (gaining outside valve gear, a new
> tender, etc.) by the joint C&S/CB&Q
> shops in Denver after acquisition by the
> C&S. In its extant state, it could be
> properly restored as a
> C&S or RGS locomotive. My vote for its
> (and all other extant C&S ng
> equipment's)final resting place? That
> wonderful old stone roundhouse at Como,
> Colorado, which is under restoration, and
> which actually housed it for so many
> years...

I am inclined to agree and in a perfect world C&S 74 (most of the locomotive's present look is a result of the C&S) would be restred as such and Como would be a perfect place for it. Reality however dictates that the locomotive is owned by the city of Boulder Colorado and it is there because it was C&N #30. The city will not part with the locomotive but finally, after many years of neglect is spending monwy on its restoration.

We will not be changing anything on the locomotive, so returning it to C&S or RGS will only be a paint job away.

We still need help with the project, especially money (what restoration project doesn't need money?) If anyone out there would like to help or wants more info, please email me at amjm@indra.com or write to Boulder County Railway Historical Society 1936 14th Street Boulder CO 80302.

#30/74's tender is presently being restored, should be complete next year. (hence the original question about the tank)

Jason MIdyette


amjm@indra.com