elecuyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 168 is getting an American Rolled Iron (aka
> "Russia Iron") jacket.
>
> The process being used is the same one that the
> WW&F developed during the restoration of WW&F #9 -
> which is documented at:
> [wwfry.org]
>
> We're proud that the process we developed (funded,
> in part, by the National Railway Historical
> Society) has been chosen to be used on this, and
> other similar period restorations.

Note that calling it "russian iron" in this sense is akin to generically applying the term "googling" to ANY online search engine, which is why I suspect you put it in parenthesis (those of you involved with the WW&F 9 know the distinction!). The D&RG didn't buy many (any?) locomotives with the genuine imported russian sheet iron, instead favoring domestic planished iront. This is something of an advantage from a restoration standpoint since the domestic, rolled sheetmetal generally seems to have had a more consistent level of quality control (I've seen this mentioned even in 19th century sources), making it probably easier to replicate using modern methods. Genuine russian iron was inconsistent batch-to-batch, leading to a lot of different descriptions of what the stuff looked like--and they're (mostly) all correct for their own specific instances. The most commonly-seen mistake is bright robin egg blue, which (much like bright red domes) is a misconception arising solely from ignorance with no basis in reality. Other than that? Near-black to medium grey, or with bluish, greenish, brownish tints--all of it existed and still exists in bits and pieces scattered around various museums and collections. I've seen numerous samples that look quite distinct, and in today's world with the expectation of consistent production it's at times difficult for my mind to accept it's all the same stuff--but it is.

The WW1 era (when the class 47/T-12's were being rebuilt) was a transition era. Genuine russian iron has no longer being imported in significant quantity and hadn't been for some time. Bare metal jackets in general were in a terminal decline since temperature-tolerant paints were by then available. Some railroads stuck with the bare metal jackets longer than others. Since the168 is being restored with a planished jacket, I assume that means the D&RG was still using such around that time. By the Depression era painted jackets seem to have taken over, leading to all those arguments about green- vs black-painted jackets.

Oddly, the D&RG specified steel boilers for some of its passenger power (mainly most of the 4-4-0's) but for some reason reverted to iron boilers for the 168 and its siblings. This led indirectly to the 168's current appearance, as the original straight-profile iron boiler had to be replaced circa WW1. That's why the 168 cannot accurately be backdated farther than how it's being restored, although it could potentially "stand in" for some of the other D&RG 10-wheelers which recieved extended wagon-top boilers much earlier.

I I look forward to seeing how well modern crews like running the 168. Soon!