Re: WW&F RR #9

Back on the Mason Bogie thread was this question:
Randall Hess Wrote:
=======================================================
> Jeff Ramsey Wrote:
> ==================================================
> =====
> > Kevin K Wrote:
> >
> ==================================================
>
> > > the folks at the WW&F have had to do some
> > > re-engineering of the original frame
>

> I'm guessing that part of the need for
> re-engineering at the WW&F was the fact that they
> had to put a completely new boiler in #9. But, as
> I have already said, if engineers with slide rules
> could get the Torch Lake right, I am completely
> confident that engineers with personal computers
> could get a replica right.

If I can recall that far back accurately, we tried to get the FRA to comment on using a boiler as part of the frame structure of the engine - so that if/when we fall under FRA jurisdiction, we wouldn't have a condemned loco. The FRA either wouldn't comment or wouldn't make any kind of promises that they wouldn't condemn it. So we did the next best thing, and the frame redesign that followed is what Portland Company did for their last 2-foot gauge engine (and apparently what Baldwin did for their Maine 2-foot engines).