Date   

Re: Narrow Gauge & Short Line Gazette

Bill Mugford
 

Looking for both a K-36 and K-37.

I mistyped in my earlier message.

Bill Mugford
Phone

On Mar 2, 2021, at 2:13 PM, Bill Mugford <wjmugford@...> wrote:

Hi:

Can you text pics to 336.307.1870?

I’m interested.

Bill

Bill Mugford
Phone

On Mar 2, 2021, at 1:57 PM, tonyk537 via groups.io <Tonyk375@...> wrote:

I have a Balboa K-36 for sale.   $300 including shipping.

Unpainted.


Re: Narrow Gauge & Short Line Gazette

Bill Mugford
 

Hi:

Can you text pics to 336.307.1870?

I’m interested.

Bill

Bill Mugford
Phone

On Mar 2, 2021, at 1:57 PM, tonyk537 via groups.io <Tonyk375@...> wrote:

I have a Balboa K-36 for sale.   $300 including shipping.

Unpainted.


Re: Narrow Gauge & Short Line Gazette

tonyk537
 

I have a Balboa K-36 for sale.   $300 including shipping.

Unpainted.


Re: Narrow Gauge

Mick Moignard
 

Glyn Valley Tramway in Wales was 2’4.5” (724mm) and Snailbeach District Tramway (a lead mining line) in Shropshire was 2’4 (711mm).  600mm and occasionally 610mm were common gauges in UK for mineral railways.

Mick
________________________________
Mick Moignard
m: +44 7774 652504
Skype: mickmoignard

The week may start M,T but it always ends WTF.


Re: Alberta Navigation and Coal/Great Falls and Canada Railway

kevin b
 

Hello Nigel:

Re:
I'm interested in the Moguls but have run into the usual problem of this gauge and scale, the scarcity of models. Can anybody point me to some plans/blueprints/diagrams with dimensions? 

heard back from my friend.

this is a copy paste of what he had to say:

As far as I know, the DeGolyer Library at Southern Methodist University in Texas has a slug of Baldwin records, but I can't recall if they have the blueprints.

dunno if that'll help you or not.
good luck.
Kevin.


Narrow Gauge

Nigel Phillips
 

And of course several thousand kilometers of meter gauge in Europe.

Standard gauge was adopted after the engineering success of Brunel's broad gauge. Standard gauge was referred to at the time as narrow gauge. 

The Washington DC metro is technically narrow gauge at 4' 8.25" .

The Hajaz Railway that runs from Damascus to Medina in the middle east. 850 miles, 3' 5 and 11 /32" (1050 mm). Jordan puts on a tourist train using I think a Baldwin.

In Scotland the Glasgow metro is 4'.

Pittsburg and Castle Shannon Railroad, 3' 4".






On Tuesday, March 2, 2021, Nigel Phillips via groups.io <nigelp18000=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
If you mean passenger and freight requiring appropriate government approval how about the following:

Zero gauge. Lartigue monorail (several countries, one example was the Listowel and Ballybunion Railway in Ireland.

Wales. 1' 11.5" Festiniog Railway; 2' 3"Talyllyn Railway;
I
England. 1' 11.5" Lynton and Barnstable Railway; 



On Tuesday, March 2, 2021, <Climax@...> wrote:
We all know that standard gauge is 4'8" between rails and anything less is Narrow gauge.  Perhaps the standards there are 36" and 30". Was there any other sizes used on a powered narrow gauge railroad, not referring to mining track of 24 or 18 inch.
Mule


Re: Narrow Gauge

Nigel Phillips
 

If you mean passenger and freight requiring appropriate government approval how about the following:

Zero gauge. Lartigue monorail (several countries, one example was the Listowel and Ballybunion Railway in Ireland.

Wales. 1' 11.5" Festiniog Railway; 2' 3"Talyllyn Railway;

England. 1' 11.5" Lynton and Barnstable Railway; 



On Tuesday, March 2, 2021, <Climax@...> wrote:
We all know that standard gauge is 4'8" between rails and anything less is Narrow gauge.  Perhaps the standards there are 36" and 30". Was there any other sizes used on a powered narrow gauge railroad, not referring to mining track of 24 or 18 inch.
Mule


Re: Narrow Gauge

Mike Conder
 

Arizona had at least 3 mining roads of 20" gauge, and at least one hauled passengers and freight.  One had a 10-ton 0-4-0 on 20" rails, should be about 5,000# tractive effort. 

And yeah, it looked awkward but I have never found any info on wrecks. 

Mike Conder

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 12:21 PM RG Teeter via groups.io <rteeter01=icloud.com@groups.io> wrote:
Maine 2 footers were known to derail due to ice conditions. Also 1 of them had a new locomotive with no baffles in the water tank. It came to a stop, then fell over. Baflles were added.

Bob in Florida - who once followed WW&F track alignment in the, if I recall correctly, Boothbay area.

On 2 Mar 2021, at 13:53, Climax@... <Climax@...> wrote:

PK, Lloyd, 
Yes, I forgot about them.  Got a question though.  since the 24" Ry did exist up there were there any cases in higher winds were the cars would blow off the tracks or at least tip over due to wind?
Mule

-----Original Message----- 
From: lloyd lehrer 
Sent: Mar 2, 2021 1:13 PM 
To: HOn3@groups.io 
Subject: Re: [HOn3] Narrow Gauge 

hey Mule, did you forget the maine 2 footers and the meter gauge railroads
lloyd lehrer, MANHATTAN BEACH, CA (310)951-9097


On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:04 AM <Climax@...> wrote:
We all know that standard gauge is 4'8" between rails and anything less is Narrow gauge.  Perhaps the standards there are 36" and 30". Was there any other sizes used on a powered narrow gauge railroad, not referring to mining track of 24 or 18 inch.
Mule



-- 
lloyd lehrer

--
Mike Conder


Re: Alberta Navigation and Coal/Great Falls and Canada Railway

Nigel Phillips
 

Found them. Built 1890 for the Alberta Coal and Railway Company (another Galt line). 7 in the class. 10-26E. Still getting used to the Bladwin classification. Apologies for the confusion, new to me. Numbered and lettered for the Great Falls and Canada Railway. Numbers 3 and 5 sold to the Utah Central in 1893 (according to steamlocomotives.com). Probably when the GF&CR started to go standard gauge and became a subsidiary of the Great Northern. Narrow gauge operations still continued around Lethbridge, which was dual gauged.


On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 12:19 PM Nigel Phillips <nigelp18000@...> wrote:
I had a look at the North Western Coal and Navigation Company, another part of the Galt narrow gauge system in southern Alberta. The library uses North Western and Northwestern in its index. Road numbers 1-6 in 1884, 8-18D, road number 7 in 1887, 8-18C (2-6-0). Many pages for 1884 at the library were not scanned properly, unfortunately, including the 1884 order. Are these the Consolidations? D says they are. If so they would have moved around pretty fast from the NWC&NC to Utah to the D&RGW, as they were built in 1884 and arrived in 1886. Unless there were earlier 2-8-0s. Unlikely though, the narrow gauge railway from Lethbridge to Dunmore was only opened in October 1885. Perhaps they were not required or were NFFIU and immediately sold on. Maybe I can use a D&RGW Consolidation suitably re-lettered. Better start saving up in that case.

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:57 AM Nigel Phillips via groups.io <nigelp18000=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
Thanks John.

I am left  wondering where the other locomotives came from. One of the other associated Companies? The information below will help enormously. Book ordered. More research.

On Monday, March 1, 2021, John Stutz <john.stutz@...> wrote:
Nigel

For Canadian narrow gauge lines, the starting point is Omar Lavallee's "Narrow Gauge Railways of Canada" (1972).  This has brief histories, detailed locomotive rosters, line side photographs, and sketches of locomotives for most lines.  I attache his sketch of the AR&C's heavy Moguls.

Regarding the Consolidations, Lavallee records that two went via the Utah Central to the Rio Grand Western, and ultimately to the D&RGW.  The Colorado Railroad Museum's "Locomotives of the Rio Grande" (1980) indicates that the RGW converted two of the ex UC 2-8-0s to standard gauge in 1900, which on merger became D&RG 554 and 555.  These were converted back to NG in 1918, and after the D&RGW renumbering of 1924, were classified as C-17 #305 and 306, dismantled in '27 and '35 respectively. 

Regarding similar Consolidations, the BLW Class List shows all seven AR&C delivered in July 1890 as class 10-26-E, drawing 9, #155-161. Class AND drawing number identifies the specific design, although auxiliary fittings can vary greatly between orders, while the locomotive numbers are sequential within the class.  Class 10-26-E reached drawing 64 and locomotive #472 by 8/26, the last entry in my copy.

Design 10-26-E drawing 9 had first been built for the Hancock and & Calumet, with deliveries of #95 & 96 in 9/85, #105 in 7/87, #128 in 1/89, #172 in 1/91, and #173 in 2/91.  The latter was actually for the closely associated Mineral Range.  Two of these ended up on the North Shore, later the North Western Pacific, in maintenance service on a commuter lline north of San Francisco Bay.  Other examples were built for the East & West RR of Alabama, as #97 & 98 of 12/85, Canca RR as #188 of 7/91, and Utah Central as #236 of 10/95.  The CRM author believed that the latter was actually the ex. UC engine that ended as D&RGW 306.

The visually similar D&RG class 70s of 1887, later D&RGW class C-17, were built to drawing 10, #99-104 in 5/87.  I've no idea of exactly how drawings 9 and 10 differed, but note that no other engines were built to this class and drawing. 

Another similar and well documented design, the D&RGW's  class C-18,  consisted of six of the 10 Florence & Cripple Creek consolidations, all built to 10-26-E drawing 18, from 7/95 to 3/97.  Two additional of drawing 18 were built for the Silverton Northern in 4/04 and 4/06, both of which last saw service during WWII on the White Pass & Yukon.  Of these, D&RGW 315 has been restored to operation and is now based in Silverton.

So between the other 10-26-E drawing 9 locomotives, and the similar but much better documented locomotives of drawings 10 and 18, there is actually quite a lot of examples for study, including one survivor. 

John Stutz


Re: Narrow Gauge

RG Teeter
 

Maine 2 footers were known to derail due to ice conditions. Also 1 of them had a new locomotive with no baffles in the water tank. It came to a stop, then fell over. Baflles were added.

Bob in Florida - who once followed WW&F track alignment in the, if I recall correctly, Boothbay area.

On 2 Mar 2021, at 13:53, Climax@... <Climax@...> wrote:

PK, Lloyd, 
Yes, I forgot about them.  Got a question though.  since the 24" Ry did exist up there were there any cases in higher winds were the cars would blow off the tracks or at least tip over due to wind?
Mule

-----Original Message----- 
From: lloyd lehrer 
Sent: Mar 2, 2021 1:13 PM 
To: HOn3@groups.io 
Subject: Re: [HOn3] Narrow Gauge 

hey Mule, did you forget the maine 2 footers and the meter gauge railroads
lloyd lehrer, MANHATTAN BEACH, CA (310)951-9097


On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:04 AM <Climax@...> wrote:
We all know that standard gauge is 4'8" between rails and anything less is Narrow gauge.  Perhaps the standards there are 36" and 30". Was there any other sizes used on a powered narrow gauge railroad, not referring to mining track of 24 or 18 inch.
Mule



-- 
lloyd lehrer


Re: Narrow Gauge

Martin Fischer
 

Europe has or had
600 mm (little less than 2 feet)
750 mm (close to 302")
900 mm (almost 3')
1000 mm

Regards
Martin

Am 02.03.2021 um 19:53 schrieb Climax@Mindspring.com:

PK, Lloyd,
Yes, I forgot about them.  Got a question though.  since the 24" Ry did exist up there were there any cases in higher winds were the cars would blow off the tracks or at least tip over due to wind?
Mule
-----Original Message-----
From: lloyd lehrer
Sent: Mar 2, 2021 1:13 PM
To: HOn3@groups.io
Subject: Re: [HOn3] Narrow Gauge
hey Mule, did you forget the maine 2 footers and the meter gauge
railroads
lloyd lehrer, MANHATTAN BEACH, CA (310)951-9097
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:04 AM <Climax@mindspring.com
<mailto:Climax@mindspring.com>> wrote:
We all know that standard gauge is 4'8" between rails and
anything less is Narrow gauge.  Perhaps the standards there are
36" and 30". Was there any other sizes used on a powered narrow
gauge railroad, not referring to mining track of 24 or 18 inch.
Mule
--
lloyd lehrer


Re: Narrow Gauge

Climax@...
 

PK, Lloyd, 
Yes, I forgot about them.  Got a question though.  since the 24" Ry did exist up there were there any cases in higher winds were the cars would blow off the tracks or at least tip over due to wind?
Mule

-----Original Message-----
From: lloyd lehrer
Sent: Mar 2, 2021 1:13 PM
To: HOn3@groups.io
Subject: Re: [HOn3] Narrow Gauge

hey Mule, did you forget the maine 2 footers and the meter gauge railroads
lloyd lehrer, MANHATTAN BEACH, CA (310)951-9097


On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:04 AM <Climax@...> wrote:
We all know that standard gauge is 4'8" between rails and anything less is Narrow gauge.  Perhaps the standards there are 36" and 30". Was there any other sizes used on a powered narrow gauge railroad, not referring to mining track of 24 or 18 inch.
Mule


--
lloyd lehrer


Re: Narrow Gauge

John G Massura
 

What about 42” in the British Empire (or are we just talking about US RR)?

LongJohn

On Mar 2, 2021, at 12:04, Climax@... wrote:

We all know that standard gauge is 4'8" between rails and anything less is Narrow gauge.  Perhaps the standards there are 36" and 30". Was there any other sizes used on a powered narrow gauge railroad, not referring to mining track of 24 or 18 inch.
Mule


Re: Narrow Gauge

lloyd lehrer
 

hey Mule, did you forget the maine 2 footers and the meter gauge railroads
lloyd lehrer, MANHATTAN BEACH, CA (310)951-9097


On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:04 AM <Climax@...> wrote:
We all know that standard gauge is 4'8" between rails and anything less is Narrow gauge.  Perhaps the standards there are 36" and 30". Was there any other sizes used on a powered narrow gauge railroad, not referring to mining track of 24 or 18 inch.
Mule


--
lloyd lehrer


Narrow Gauge

Climax@...
 

We all know that standard gauge is 4'8" between rails and anything less is Narrow gauge.  Perhaps the standards there are 36" and 30". Was there any other sizes used on a powered narrow gauge railroad, not referring to mining track of 24 or 18 inch.
Mule


Re: Alberta Navigation and Coal/Great Falls and Canada Railway

Nigel Phillips
 

I had a look at the North Western Coal and Navigation Company, another part of the Galt narrow gauge system in southern Alberta. The library uses North Western and Northwestern in its index. Road numbers 1-6 in 1884, 8-18D, road number 7 in 1887, 8-18C (2-6-0). Many pages for 1884 at the library were not scanned properly, unfortunately, including the 1884 order. Are these the Consolidations? D says they are. If so they would have moved around pretty fast from the NWC&NC to Utah to the D&RGW, as they were built in 1884 and arrived in 1886. Unless there were earlier 2-8-0s. Unlikely though, the narrow gauge railway from Lethbridge to Dunmore was only opened in October 1885. Perhaps they were not required or were NFFIU and immediately sold on. Maybe I can use a D&RGW Consolidation suitably re-lettered. Better start saving up in that case.


On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:57 AM Nigel Phillips via groups.io <nigelp18000=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
Thanks John.

I am left  wondering where the other locomotives came from. One of the other associated Companies? The information below will help enormously. Book ordered. More research.

On Monday, March 1, 2021, John Stutz <john.stutz@...> wrote:
Nigel

For Canadian narrow gauge lines, the starting point is Omar Lavallee's "Narrow Gauge Railways of Canada" (1972).  This has brief histories, detailed locomotive rosters, line side photographs, and sketches of locomotives for most lines.  I attache his sketch of the AR&C's heavy Moguls.

Regarding the Consolidations, Lavallee records that two went via the Utah Central to the Rio Grand Western, and ultimately to the D&RGW.  The Colorado Railroad Museum's "Locomotives of the Rio Grande" (1980) indicates that the RGW converted two of the ex UC 2-8-0s to standard gauge in 1900, which on merger became D&RG 554 and 555.  These were converted back to NG in 1918, and after the D&RGW renumbering of 1924, were classified as C-17 #305 and 306, dismantled in '27 and '35 respectively. 

Regarding similar Consolidations, the BLW Class List shows all seven AR&C delivered in July 1890 as class 10-26-E, drawing 9, #155-161. Class AND drawing number identifies the specific design, although auxiliary fittings can vary greatly between orders, while the locomotive numbers are sequential within the class.  Class 10-26-E reached drawing 64 and locomotive #472 by 8/26, the last entry in my copy.

Design 10-26-E drawing 9 had first been built for the Hancock and & Calumet, with deliveries of #95 & 96 in 9/85, #105 in 7/87, #128 in 1/89, #172 in 1/91, and #173 in 2/91.  The latter was actually for the closely associated Mineral Range.  Two of these ended up on the North Shore, later the North Western Pacific, in maintenance service on a commuter lline north of San Francisco Bay.  Other examples were built for the East & West RR of Alabama, as #97 & 98 of 12/85, Canca RR as #188 of 7/91, and Utah Central as #236 of 10/95.  The CRM author believed that the latter was actually the ex. UC engine that ended as D&RGW 306.

The visually similar D&RG class 70s of 1887, later D&RGW class C-17, were built to drawing 10, #99-104 in 5/87.  I've no idea of exactly how drawings 9 and 10 differed, but note that no other engines were built to this class and drawing. 

Another similar and well documented design, the D&RGW's  class C-18,  consisted of six of the 10 Florence & Cripple Creek consolidations, all built to 10-26-E drawing 18, from 7/95 to 3/97.  Two additional of drawing 18 were built for the Silverton Northern in 4/04 and 4/06, both of which last saw service during WWII on the White Pass & Yukon.  Of these, D&RGW 315 has been restored to operation and is now based in Silverton.

So between the other 10-26-E drawing 9 locomotives, and the similar but much better documented locomotives of drawings 10 and 18, there is actually quite a lot of examples for study, including one survivor. 

John Stutz


Re: Alberta Navigation and Coal/Great Falls and Canada Railway

Nigel Phillips
 

Thanks John.

I am left  wondering where the other locomotives came from. One of the other associated Companies? The information below will help enormously. Book ordered. More research.


On Monday, March 1, 2021, John Stutz <john.stutz@...> wrote:
Nigel

For Canadian narrow gauge lines, the starting point is Omar Lavallee's "Narrow Gauge Railways of Canada" (1972).  This has brief histories, detailed locomotive rosters, line side photographs, and sketches of locomotives for most lines.  I attache his sketch of the AR&C's heavy Moguls.

Regarding the Consolidations, Lavallee records that two went via the Utah Central to the Rio Grand Western, and ultimately to the D&RGW.  The Colorado Railroad Museum's "Locomotives of the Rio Grande" (1980) indicates that the RGW converted two of the ex UC 2-8-0s to standard gauge in 1900, which on merger became D&RG 554 and 555.  These were converted back to NG in 1918, and after the D&RGW renumbering of 1924, were classified as C-17 #305 and 306, dismantled in '27 and '35 respectively. 

Regarding similar Consolidations, the BLW Class List shows all seven AR&C delivered in July 1890 as class 10-26-E, drawing 9, #155-161. Class AND drawing number identifies the specific design, although auxiliary fittings can vary greatly between orders, while the locomotive numbers are sequential within the class.  Class 10-26-E reached drawing 64 and locomotive #472 by 8/26, the last entry in my copy.

Design 10-26-E drawing 9 had first been built for the Hancock and & Calumet, with deliveries of #95 & 96 in 9/85, #105 in 7/87, #128 in 1/89, #172 in 1/91, and #173 in 2/91.  The latter was actually for the closely associated Mineral Range.  Two of these ended up on the North Shore, later the North Western Pacific, in maintenance service on a commuter lline north of San Francisco Bay.  Other examples were built for the East & West RR of Alabama, as #97 & 98 of 12/85, Canca RR as #188 of 7/91, and Utah Central as #236 of 10/95.  The CRM author believed that the latter was actually the ex. UC engine that ended as D&RGW 306.

The visually similar D&RG class 70s of 1887, later D&RGW class C-17, were built to drawing 10, #99-104 in 5/87.  I've no idea of exactly how drawings 9 and 10 differed, but note that no other engines were built to this class and drawing. 

Another similar and well documented design, the D&RGW's  class C-18,  consisted of six of the 10 Florence & Cripple Creek consolidations, all built to 10-26-E drawing 18, from 7/95 to 3/97.  Two additional of drawing 18 were built for the Silverton Northern in 4/04 and 4/06, both of which last saw service during WWII on the White Pass & Yukon.  Of these, D&RGW 315 has been restored to operation and is now based in Silverton.

So between the other 10-26-E drawing 9 locomotives, and the similar but much better documented locomotives of drawings 10 and 18, there is actually quite a lot of examples for study, including one survivor. 

John Stutz


Re: Baldwin narrow gauge locomotives

John Stutz
 

Nigel

RE: NWC&N and AR&C 2-6-0s

The North Western Coal & Navigation 2-6-0s of 1885 comprised two different designs: class 8-18-D, drawing 7, #61-63, delivered in March 1885, and 8-18-D, drawing 9, #66-68, delivered in Oct & Nov 1885.  I suspect this has been a source of much confusion, due to assuming that all six were the same design.  Photographs suggest that drawing 7 has a straight boiler, and drawing 9 has a wagon top boiler.

Class 8-18-D drawing 7 was widely built, as: #53 for Florida Southern 1/82, #54 for R.G.Peters 4/83, #59 for Olympia & Chehales Valley 5/84, #64 for Charlotte(?), Colombia & Augusta 10/85, #69 for Americus, Preston & Lumpkin 1/87, #70 for Surry, Sussex & Southampton #4 of 10/88, #74 for Surry, Sussex & Southampton #6 of 9/91, and #82 and #85 for Luis Redor 11/92 and 9/93 respectively. 

The only other example of 10-18-D drawing 9 was delivered to the Pajaro Valley in 7/91.  I attach a photo, from Shaw, Fisher & Harlan's "Oil Lamps and Iron Ponies" (1949), of what they identify as this engine.  The PV had 5 later Moguls, but they are listed in class 8-20-D  drawing 20, indicating 13" cylinders. More recent sources may have better information.

None of the above appear in DeGolyer's 1991 list of BLW erection drawings.  However Surry, Sussex & Southampton #6 of 9/91 has been preserved and is operated at the Midwest Central Railroad Museum in Mt Pleasent Iowa.  So you have a, possibly much altered, example of the 8-18-D drawing 7 design available.  See < ">https://www.mcrr.org/PAGES/six.html>.  H.T.Crittenden's history or the Surry, Sussex & Southampton, titled "The Comp'ny" (1967), has a few photographs of #4 and #6.

The larger Alberta Railway and Coal 2-6-0s of 1890 were class 8-22-D, drawing 10, #140-43.  The other examples are: #27 & 28 for South Pacific Coast 11 & 12 of 6/81, # 64 and # 108 for Champerico & N. Co. of Guatemala in 9/82 and 3/84 respectively, #75 for North Pacific Coast in 1/83, and 135 for Michoncan Ry & Mining Co in 8/89.   The SPC pair are very well known, and I enclose a pair of Southern Pacific (successor to SPC) engine diagrams.  The 1894 version is out of a set of drawings that accompanied Bruce MacGreggor's "Narrow Gauge Portrait of the South Pacific Coast", while the circa 1920 version is from Robert Bader's  recent "Southern Pacific Narrow Gauge - Locomotives and Freight Equipment", showing SP 11 & 12 before their conversion to 4-6-0s.   

So you can find good information for modeling two of the three designs, despite the quite sparse information available for your actual prototypes.

John Stutz


Re: Baldwin narrow gauge locomotives

John Stutz
 

Nigel

RE: Alberta Ry & coal 2-8-0s

On looking through my 1991 edition of the DeGolyer Library's listing of available BLW Erecting Card drawings, I fail to find anything for the AR&C or the H&C.  However they do have a side elevation and cross sections for 10-26-E, drawing 9, #188 of 1891 and built as the Cauca railroad's #4, listed as collection index# 675A-10.  The basic locomotive: boiler, frames and motion work, should be identical to the AR&C and H&C engines.  Minor items like cab, running boards, sand box, stack, brake apparatus & etc. may differ, but can be corrected from photographs.  The BLW specifications book's entry may show what was changed. 

BLW erecting cards were made to show how the locomotives were to be assembled, and are profusely dimensioned, except for the boiler, which arrived complete on the erecting floor.   They are not quite up to the obsessive completeness of British style general arrangement drawings, but far more so than anything you will find in a modeling magazine. 

John Stutz


Re: Alberta Navigation and Coal/Great Falls and Canada Railway

John Stutz
 

Nigel

For Canadian narrow gauge lines, the starting point is Omar Lavallee's "Narrow Gauge Railways of Canada" (1972).  This has brief histories, detailed locomotive rosters, line side photographs, and sketches of locomotives for most lines.  I attache his sketch of the AR&C's heavy Moguls.

Regarding the Consolidations, Lavallee records that two went via the Utah Central to the Rio Grand Western, and ultimately to the D&RGW.  The Colorado Railroad Museum's "Locomotives of the Rio Grande" (1980) indicates that the RGW converted two of the ex UC 2-8-0s to standard gauge in 1900, which on merger became D&RG 554 and 555.  These were converted back to NG in 1918, and after the D&RGW renumbering of 1924, were classified as C-17 #305 and 306, dismantled in '27 and '35 respectively. 

Regarding similar Consolidations, the BLW Class List shows all seven AR&C delivered in July 1890 as class 10-26-E, drawing 9, #155-161. Class AND drawing number identifies the specific design, although auxiliary fittings can vary greatly between orders, while the locomotive numbers are sequential within the class.  Class 10-26-E reached drawing 64 and locomotive #472 by 8/26, the last entry in my copy.

Design 10-26-E drawing 9 had first been built for the Hancock and & Calumet, with deliveries of #95 & 96 in 9/85, #105 in 7/87, #128 in 1/89, #172 in 1/91, and #173 in 2/91.  The latter was actually for the closely associated Mineral Range.  Two of these ended up on the North Shore, later the North Western Pacific, in maintenance service on a commuter lline north of San Francisco Bay.  Other examples were built for the East & West RR of Alabama, as #97 & 98 of 12/85, Canca RR as #188 of 7/91, and Utah Central as #236 of 10/95.  The CRM author believed that the latter was actually the ex. UC engine that ended as D&RGW 306.

The visually similar D&RG class 70s of 1887, later D&RGW class C-17, were built to drawing 10, #99-104 in 5/87.  I've no idea of exactly how drawings 9 and 10 differed, but note that no other engines were built to this class and drawing. 

Another similar and well documented design, the D&RGW's  class C-18,  consisted of six of the 10 Florence & Cripple Creek consolidations, all built to 10-26-E drawing 18, from 7/95 to 3/97.  Two additional of drawing 18 were built for the Silverton Northern in 4/04 and 4/06, both of which last saw service during WWII on the White Pass & Yukon.  Of these, D&RGW 315 has been restored to operation and is now based in Silverton.

So between the other 10-26-E drawing 9 locomotives, and the similar but much better documented locomotives of drawings 10 and 18, there is actually quite a lot of examples for study, including one survivor. 

John Stutz

2401 - 2420 of 10276