Re: D&RGW 483/478 trade: no one really knows, do they?

Chris Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> drgwk37 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > TheTrekki Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Sadly the reason that I hear that 497 has not
> > been
> > > rebuilt is due to it needing a new boiler
> > because
> > > when it was last inspected it's boiler was
> too
> > > thin. What I heard is that if they rebuilt it
> > they
> > > would have to take one of the good boilers
> from
> > > the other K-37's. Most likely 492.
> > > David
> > > Phoenix, AZ
> >
> >
> > Sorry to be rude but that would be one of the
> > dumbest things that could be done and create a
> > whole new set of issues when relocating a
> boiler
> > from one frame to another. This rumor that you
> > heard is one that came out of a fantasy land
> > conversation on this board years ago. I think
> I
> > stated then what a lame idea it was. Bottom
> line
> > there are not any shortcuts when overhauling a
> > locomotive. If you were going to do all of
> that
> > you might as well take 494 and rebuild her on
> her
> > existing frame and her existing boiler. I bet
> > it's in better condition than most or all of
> the
> > operating K36's. Just my 2 cents and my
> opening
> > comment is not directed at you but rather that
> > loon of an idea about swapping boilers! I think
> > what John Bush stated sums it up....nothing
> > significant to see to mot have 497 returned to
> > service.
> >
> > William
> > aka drgwk37
>
> Where just did you get that idea from William?
>
> Surely Burnham shops built these K-37's to a
> Blueprint or were there just 10 Locomotives
> constructed by making it up their heads as they
> went along?
>
> excerpted from Wiki NZR A^B class page
> he
> re
>
> The A^B type boiler had a working
> pressure of 180psi, a standard across the type.
> These boilers were of standard construction, no
> matter which firm built them, and as such were
> interchangeable across any locomotives of the
> type. They were also similar to the boilers built
> for the W^AB and W^S class
> 4-6-4T tank locomotives in 1939 - in fact, the
> W^AB boiler and A^B boilers
> were the same, with those fitted to the
> W^AB fitted with the necessary
> components to draw water from the locomotive's
> side tanks.
>
> This type of boiler was also adapted for use on
> the Q and A^A class 4-6-2 tender
> locomotives of 1901 and 1915 respectively when
> their original boilers wore out. In the case of
> the A^A class, the boiler change was not
> necessitated by the condition of the boilers but
> due to the limitations of the original boilers.
> The replacement took place in the 1930s, and these
> locomotives gained new heights of reliability,
> before they were withdrawn in 1957 (at the same
> time as the Q class). All of these boilers were
> then put back into the A^B class pool,
> and were reused on engines of that class.
>
> In all, 6 separate classes used the standard
> A^B boiler. When Q, A^A and G
> class locomotives were scrapped in the 1950s, the
> boilers were overhauled to keep locomotives of A,
> A^B, and W^AB serviceable.
>
>
>
> So to our Chief Mechanical Engineer's and
> Workshops Manager's, no big deal to swap Boilers,
> convert old locomotives to different wheel
> arrangements and build completely new design
> loco's as well.

To end this discussion I will add that of course the D&RGW had a plan on how to build the 37's and yes they made it up to suit their needs with the existing boilers being used and transformed it into a very technical plan for building. What I suggested had nothing to do with the creation of the K-37 class it had to do with swapping two boilers between different frames in Chama. I still contend that undertaking such a job to try and create one good working locomotive is not only shortsighted but completely unnecessary. John Bush has added that their is not any significant issue with the 497, again reaffirming the lunacy for swapping the boilers of 492 and 497. Taking my points out of context are fine but doesn't add to the conversation. I again contend that if the C&TS wants an operational K-37 which we all hope they do, they have several viable candidates in their current condition on the property in Chama or Antonito. I appreciate the additional informative information you've provided as always but it has nothing to do with what I was referencing. So with that all I can say is NUFF SAID!!

Williams
aka drgwk37