• Wiscasset, Waterville & Farmington Railway (WW&F) Discussion

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England

Moderators: MEC407, NHN503

  by Watchman318
 
trainsinmaine wrote:Does anyone know if there is anything remaining of the one road overpass that used to be over the WW&F, on Horseback Road in Palermo?
Google Maps says the road is in South China, but close enough, eh? Anyway, I followed the satellite view of the road out to where it appears to end, then by snooping around a little more, found what looks like an old right-of-way nearby. I'm pretty sure it's not a power line. The road and the r-o-w both get pretty well grown-over, but both look like they might continue beyond their obvious ends. I'm just guessing that the green arrow was the location of the bridge.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=44.430141 ... gl=us&z=19
Go northwest of the arrow to see (what I think is) the r-o-w, and southwest to see the intact portion of the road.
I drove in there a short distance a couple of weeks ago, only to find that the property has been posted with nicely painted, unusually polite "We Don't Mean to Offend You, But Please Keep Out" signs --- which also mentioned that there are guard dogs. Needless to say, I didn't venture any farther.
Yep, a variant of the Al Capone comment "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." ;-)
  by Mikejf
 
trainsinmaine wrote:Does anyone know if there is anything remaining of the one road overpass that used to be over the WW&F, on Horseback Road in Palermo? I drove in there a short distance a couple of weeks ago, only to find that the property has been posted with nicely painted, unusually polite "We Don't Mean to Offend You, But Please Keep Out" signs --- which also mentioned that there are guard dogs. Needless to say, I didn't venture any farther.
Actually there was another ovewrpass that waqs at Head Tide. It went between the church and 218. Nothing is left of that either that I have found.

Mike
  by CVRA7
 
Mike, I also rooted around in that area a few times and came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to find any remnant of the wood structure still intact, at least on the surface. About all that you could possibly see would be some remnant of any excavation connected with the overpass.
  by Mikejf
 
GO'K
The frame is progressing nicely. The cylinders have been set back into place. A little machining needs to be done and some holes drilled to mount the cylinders. A nice photo can be found here on the WW&F forum under No 9 Work.

Mike
  by gokeefe
 
miketrainnut wrote:GO'K
The frame is progressing nicely. The cylinders have been set back into place. A little machining needs to be done and some holes drilled to mount the cylinders. A nice photo can be found here on the WW&F forum under No 9 Work.

Mike
Mike,

Are those cylinders original?
  by steamer69
 
you guys sure do some great restoration work.
  by gokeefe
 
miketrainnut wrote:Yes. They were sent to a local machinist to be bored and sleeved. A great job.

Mike
Wow. Its very inspiring to see such great work being done.

I second what steamer said.

I would also note that the WW&F's commitment to historical accuracy is among the deepest of any railroad museum anywhere in the country. The result has been the recreation of a true Maine two footer, which prior to its "resurrection" I doubt anyone anywhere would have even believed was possible.

I also like the fact that the "one bite at a time approach" leaves future museum members with plenty of space to grow in whichever direction they see fit.
  by Cosmo
 
gokeefe wrote:
I also like the fact that the "one bite at a time approach" leaves future museum members with plenty of space to grow in whichever direction they see fit.
It also keeps us from getting "over budget and underfunded" with a yard crowded with too many projects for our group to ever see finished. :wink:
  by steamer69
 
What a concept....railroading within your means....you sure you don't a yard full of rotting junk? I know where you might be able to get some....and I'm not talking about MNG.... ;-)
  by Cosmo
 
steamer69 wrote:What a concept....railroading within your means....you sure you don't a yard full of rotting junk? I know where you might be able to get some....and I'm not talking about MNG.... ;-)
I know where the Valley could get some, and I'm not talking about CSRX... but we-ah strayin way off topic he-ah. Ay-uh. :wink:
  by steamer69
 
Not really....you're talking about one that burns rice, I'm talking about one that burns sweedish meatballs....HA!!!!!
  by gokeefe
 
I'm kind of curious about these antique two footers.

What kind of coal mix do they typically fire with?

I'm sort of under the impression that early steam didn't do as well with "soft" or "brown" coal (bituminous) as later engines did.

Since the technology on the two footers is archaic, even by steam engine standards, do they fire exclusively on anthracite coal?

Is there any truth to the idea that older engines (ca. pre-1915) required mostly anthracite?
  by steamer69
 
Goerge,
In terms of the fuel burned it really depends on the firebox configuration as well as a few other factors. IMO you have your coal types reversed. Soft coal does not require as much heat to initiate combustion, and you can use this in smaller fireboxes than the anthricite coal, but it is not as clean burning. Take a look (for example) of the anthricite roads like the Pennsy and such in how their engines had to have large fire boxes in order to have enough grate space for the slower burning coal. Even though Anthricie burns hotter, it takes more heat to get to it's flash point....longer to burn off, and requires a little more anticipation when reading your fire.
Now we get to the question of mix. Some places (I know that portland has done this as well as some other people) have tried a mix of the two types of coal to cut down on the amount of smoke that the locomotives put out. There are a few reasons for this, but we can explain it in 2 seperate discussions. 1st is the coal itself. Bitumionuse (soft) coal has an outer layer that causes quite a lot of smoke when it "burns off" where as this layer on hard coal does not react as much. The idea of combining the coal into something like a 50/50 or 40/60 etc is in principal a good temporary fix to the "smoking" of the locomotive. The only issue you run into is how you get a good mix in every tender fill. there are different ways to do this, but I have yet to see it work well.
I am more of a fan of the "read your fire" method. If you have a fireman who can read the fire, or excersizes the pattern system of fireing, you can also eliviate the "smoke" problem with the added bennifit of fuel concervation and a better steaming engine.

I don't know if I would say that most locomotives were set up for hard coal before 1915, it really depended where the railroad was located and where the nearest fuel source was. The Stourbridge Lion (the first engine in america) on the D&H was set up for it, as the D&H was in this area....the Baltimore and Ohio orriginally was an anthricite road....but a lot of the southern roads were not. All about where they could get the fuel, and at what cost.

If you are interested in the thing I was tralking about with reading a fire, I have some stuff that I can post. Let me know.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 22