WM 2-8-0

In regards to the 2-8-0 might it be possible for a generic unlettered version for reskinning?

WM%200-6-6-0s.jpeg
[/URL][/IMG]

Also, as the text in the photo mentions, a number (10) of Baldwin 2-6-6-2's that were purchased for use on the Blue ridge and Sand Patch grades. As they were apparently unsuccessful at road service supposedly they ended up being converted to 0-6-6-0 for hump service.

I'm aware that they don't exactly resemble the USRA 2-6-6-2's but I was going to suggest that perhaps the Mallets that colorado71 did(the USRA 2-6-6-2's) could be converted to be a stand in for the aforementioned WM mallets?

Further, to keep from going to far off the topic of WM 2-8-0's here's a B&W picture of the H-9's & H-7's
WM%202-8-0s.jpeg
[/URL][/IMG]

Let me know if you want any further photo's of WM Consolidations(or any other steam engines that the WM had that might be of interest to you).
 
[QUOTE=wva-usa;1421230]LOL. 20,000 gallons seems much to large... :)


This article written in 1921 states the locomotives had 15,000 gallon/16-ton tenders.

Steamlocomotive.com says they had 15,000 gallon/20-ton tenders.[/QUOTE]

Problem is wva-usa you've got no way of knowing if that was the as-built spec or the final spec that the locos were retired with.

It wouldn't be the first time that a loco class received new bigger tenders and the change not documented in officialdom.

Its also possible that someone inputting the info at Steamlocomotive made a mistake/typo regarding the water and coal capacity's of the H-9 tenders.

The following was found on Steamlocomotive.com >

The I-2 decapods were a direct result of the success of the WM's huge H-9 consolidations. These consolidations were built with 61 inch drivers, huge cylinders matched by equally huge boilers, and some of the first giant tenders.

So its quite possible that the operating department simply decided they needed bigger tenders, had said bigger tenders built and fitted and simply forgot to update relevant records.

The info that I have states that they had a 20,000 gallon tank in the early 1950's.

That is all.
 
Dimensionally, those 0-6-6-0/2-6-6-2s are similar to USRA where it counts, in the drivers and cylinders. Overall, they are shorter, both in the front and rear, and not just as 0-6-6-0s. I wouldn't mind modeling them...
 
Problem is wva-usa you've got no way of knowing if that was the as-built spec or the final spec that the locos were retired with.

It wouldn't be the first time that a loco class received new bigger tenders and the change not documented in officialdom.

Its also possible that someone inputting the info at Steamlocomotive made a mistake/typo regarding the water and coal capacity's of the H-9 tenders.

The following was found on Steamlocomotive.com >
Click to expand...
The I-2 decapods were a direct result of the success of the WM's huge H-9 consolidations. These consolidations were built with 61 inch drivers, huge cylinders matched by equally huge boilers, and some of the first giant tenders.

So its quite possible that the operating department simply decided they needed bigger tenders, had said bigger tenders built and fitted and simply forgot to update relevant records.

The info that I have states that they had a 20,000 gallon tank in the early 1950's.

That is all.
Click to expand...

LOL. If you're going assume steamlocomotive.com's data for the H9a is actually "a typo" then you probably should assume it's equally possible that the figure in your book is "a typo."
 
These locomotives kept the same tenders they were built with all through their lives, and with no major changes. I'll get the numbers off the tender when I start in on the model later.

Speaking of 1912 pacifics, those are next after I finish the H9, and they will proceed much more quickly. Should be able to do each of the four major styles each of the nine locomotives existed in, and while the first three will be fairly generic (probably only changing the sand domes as appropriate for even- and odd-numbered locomotives), the final configurations for all nine will be accurate to each road number. They all recieved their own distinctive batch of changes over the years.
 
That is really weird. If you can't find the official/correct source go with 18,000 gallons, that's kind of an approximation of all of the measures.
 
Now that I look at the drawing more closely, it's possible it does say 15000... Might not be a bad idea to figure up how many cubic feet it is and then convert that to gallons, just to know.
 
MeowRailroad said:
That is really weird. If you can't find the official/correct source go with 18,000 gallons, that's kind of an approximation of all of the measures.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd trust the 1921 articles over most contemporary sources, as these articles that appeared in the era's leading trade publications were almost always written from information/press-releases supplied directly from the railroad and/or the locomotive's builder. Additionally, a Western Maryland equipment diagram book would certainly be another authoritative source. Diagram books were published by the railroads during the era the equipment was used and listed capacities, general dimensions, etc. Reprints often available from railroad historical societies.
 
As to the volume in cubic feet of one gallon of water, the value is 0.133681, or to put it another way, a cubic foot of water is almost 7 and a half gallons. BTW, we have date for the capacity of 15,000 gallons, are there any dates for the larger capacities? It would not surprise me in the least if at least one of the locomotives was not upgraded with a larger tender towards the end of its carreer. I would expect trains to have been heavier in 1945 than in 1921, and a change in tender would not have surprised me in the least.

ns
 
Ah yes, 7.48 gallons per cubic foot. I had fluid mechanics class last semester and that number will be forever etched into my mind after that. Also, 2.31 feet of water produces a pressure of 1 psi at the bottom. :D

Anyway, none of the H9s got bigger tenders later, I can assure you of that. Without checking capacity of the I2 tenders, I am going to speculate that the 20000 gallon number originated there.
 
simulatortrain said:
I'd say you're right then with 15000 gallons and 23 tons. I did check the diagram and there was nothing on there.
Click to expand...

Western Maryland seems to be one of the more difficult railroads to track down information on for some reason. Strange...

Your Trainz model of the WM Consolidation is most excellent, btw. It will make a wonderful addition to the Trainz steam roster. Trainz had needed a well detailed giant 2-8-0 for a long time. The Trainz American 2-8-0s made have all been on small size.

mjolnir said:
As to the volume in cubic feet of one gallon of water, the value is 0.133681, or to put it another way, a cubic foot of water is almost 7 and a half gallons. BTW, we have date for the capacity of 15,000 gallons, are there any dates for the larger capacities? It would not surprise me in the least if at least one of the locomotives was not upgraded with a larger tender towards the end of its carreer. I would expect trains to have been heavier in 1945 than in 1921, and a change in tender would not have surprised me in the least.

ns
Click to expand...

Sounds possible, but it seems like if there were WM H9s that had larger replacement tenders there would be a photos of them around, so you'd think these photos would tend to be the ones "pushed to the top of the stack" on a editor's desk when it came time to publish a photo of a WM H9/H9a 2-8-0, simply because they would lend themselves to having an more interesting description in the photo's caption. And too, I'd think the custom HO model builders would make a point of manufacturing custom runs of those locomotives that had replacement tenders, highlighting that locomotive's uniqueness.
 
If I can remember correctly the engine on the Western Mayland Senic is an Ex LS&I engine with a Ex New York Central Tender.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

0
K&L Trainz Wishlist
Replies
4
Views
139
rwk
R
J
About my payware CN K1D Pacific Class Steam Locomotive
Replies
0
Views
285
JonMyrlennBailey
J
T
Modifying BDANEAL's Older Content
Replies
12
Views
752
Thad09
T
C
purchased sealed Trainz Simulator 2 Pack with Engineer 2010, World Builder circa 2013 no S/N Did I buy a non legit Version
Replies
8
Views
449
MasterTracklayer
M
G
Weird entries on the Driver Messages display
Replies
3
Views
118
MasterTracklayer
M
Back
Top