Auxiliary Water Tenders

[nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org]

No, Gary, they didn't replace the tops, and they weren't all that rusty 
anyway. The purchased tenders were to increase the water and coal 
capacity for existing power. Some 16 K tenders got released for the aux 
program, but not from the locos that got the purchased tenders. It was 
from the locos that got the 18 K tenders released by the purchawsed 
tenders.    Jim Nichols

nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org wrote:


>The intent was to buy larger tenders in good condition that could

>replace older rusty tenders that could go into the rebuilding process

>and be converted to aux tenders.  The old rusty tenders had the

>advantage that the N&W engineering office knew just about everything

>about the variety as they had all of the plans for them.  So designing

>the auxiliary version conversions was relatively straight forward and

>could be done ahead of the project.  Basically the N&W kept the frames

>and trucks and replaced the tops.

>

>Some of the purchased tenders did require some significant reworking,

>which was not the intent of the project as this was an expense with

>little pay-back time given the age of the steam locomotives in general

>and their looming replacement with diesels.  

>

>G Rolih

>Cincinnati

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: nw-mailing-list-bounces at nwhs.org

>[mailto:nw-mailing-list-bounces at nwhs.org] On Behalf Of

>nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org

>Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 5:47 PM

>To: nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org

>Subject: Auxiliary Water Tenders

>

>Veterans,

>

>Around 1952 and such, the N&W purchased tenders from ACL, Pere

>Marquette,

>and C&O (possibly others also?) to relieve some engine tenders so that

>THEY

>could be converted into Auxiliary Water Tenders.

>Does anyone have any ideas why the purchased tenders were not converted

>into canteens themselves?

>Was it easier for some reason to couple the acquired tenders to the

>engines

>and then convert the displaced tenders?

>Was it because the displaced tenders were all the same 'model' and

>therefore all the new parts would be the same?

>Were ALL of them basically the same?  16,000 gallons?

>

>Sorry to pepper you with so many questions, but we've got the get the

>information before we lose you.

>

>humbly,

>Dave Willis. 

>

>

>________________________________________

>NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org

>To change your subscription go to

>http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list

>________________________________________

>NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org

>To change your subscription go to

>http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list

>

>

>  

>