Page 3.
Building the new Cab.
 

Update.
February 12, 2008.

While the axels are underway, I started work on the cab.

As I said, I originally ordered the "steel cab" version because the door placement matched No. 9.
"as built" (even thought No. 9 "as built" had a wood cab)
I was going to convert the steel cab into a wood cab, but keep the overall layout of the cab the same.

But upon taking a closer look at the cab, it wont quite work for this project. the rivits are easy enough to take
care of, just sand them off...but the curve of the roof is wrong, and the cab sides are too short.
So I thought it would be better to just scratchbuild a new cab..
 

The prototype drawing im using for the cab, and for this whole project, is from the
"Maine 2-foot Cyclopedia Plan Book", published by Maine 2-foot Quarterly.
Part of the drawing is visable in the photo above.
Its an actual Baldwin drawing! extremely accurate. I was using the Crittenden drawing,
but it shows the "late" configuration of No. 9, with the new steel cab and the replacement tank.
The M2FQ plan book drawing shows No. 9 "as built"..which is what im building.
 
 
 

Update.
March 3, 2008.

The cab is about 75% complete..still needs a roof, some rivits,
two windows and two doors.

Update.
March 16, 2008.

The cab is complete! 
(well..not completely..it still needs windows, doors and more rivits..but its "complete enough" that im ready
to set it aside and move on.)

Here are some pics of the new cab, and compared with the Bachmannn forney cab.
you can see the difference in the roof curve, and other detail differences.

I also modified the tender tank..and discovered something interesting..
Bachmann made a mistake!
Its not a huge deal, and most people probably won't care, won't notice, or even be aware that its wrong,
but it is wrong, and I had to fix it! 

The Bachmann forney has the width of the cab, and the width of the tender tank the same.
and the tank flare sticks out beyond the edge of the cab sides..this is historically incorrect.

first, some terms to help explain..

"cab width"
"tank width"
"flare width"

Cab width is simple..its the overall width of the cab:

On the Bachmann forney, (and my new No. 9 cab) the overall cab width is 45mm.
this is fine, correct and not the problem..
the problem is the tender tank.
 

On the Bachmann forney, the "tank width" is also 45mm, matching the width of the cab,
so that the cab sides and tank sides are flush and even with each other,
and the overall "flare width" is 48mm, so that the flare sticks out beyond the edge of the cab..
this is incorrect:
 

and a photo of the Bachmann forney:

That is simply wrong..no Maine forney was built that way.
(or ANY forney, as far as I can tell so far..)

Instead, the "flare width" should be 45mm, matching the cab width,
and the "tank width" is narrower than the "cab width", and the tank side sits inside
of the cab sides, like this:
 

I looked through EVERY Maine 2-footer book I own..
you can do the same to confirm this!
EVERY photo of every Maine 2-foot forney (with a flared tender)
shows this Cab/Tank relationship.
The flare is always flush with the cab.,,the flare does not "stick out" beyond the edge of the cab.

The only exceptions I could find to this are modern photos of Monson 3 and 4, and WW&F #10.
Current photos of those three locos show the "flare" being wider than the cab.
(All three happen to be built by Vulcan)
so at first I thought maybe Vulcan was the exception, and they built forneys with the flare
extending out beyond the cab..but this is not the case either, because the builders photo
of WW&F number 10:

http://www.ironhorse129.com/Prototype/SteamClass2004/Vulcan/vulcan_574.jpg

also shows that "flare width" and "cab width" are the same, and the tank is narrower.
so Vulcan also built them this way..
The current tanks on Monson 3 and 4, and WW&F 10 are rebuilt or replaced tanks,
not the originals.

So Bachmann simply got it wrong..

Every historic photo of a Forney I can find, (even Mason Bogies) shows the "flare" being
flush with the cab side, and not extending beyond it.

Here is one example:

Most photos of locomotives are taken from a front angle, so the cab/tank division is
hard to notice. Above is a detail from the Baldwin builders photo for Eustis number 8.
notice the top of the flare is even with the cab, and the edge of the cab partially hides the tender
bracket.

The builders photo of SR&RL 9 and WW&F 7 also show this clearly.

Since the majority of loco photos are front-angle views, its hard to find good examples that show it
clearly, but take a look through your books, you can find many more examples.

The locomotives with "non-flared" tenders, such as SR&RL 10, B&H 7 and B&H 8, and others,
do have the tank width and the cab width the same..with no tender flare.
Everything above applies to "flared" tender tanks only.
 
 

So I went ahead and modified the Bachmann tank, removing 3mm from the width, making the "flare width"
45mm, the same as the cab width.

I made a simple jig out of wood..the distance between the sides is 45mm, I used the jig
to glue the tank back together. some squadron putty to fill in the gaps, and the tank is done.

This narrowing of the tank did cause some problems with the electronics that sit inside the tender,
they no longer fit! I had to unscrew the circuit boards from their mounts, cut the mounts off,
and insert the circuit boards into the tender at an angle..they still fit, barely.

And thats it for the cab and tank!
(as I said, the cab still needs a few more details..I will add those later)

Next up, grinding away at the frame! 
coming soon...
 
 
 
 

To Page 4, Frame regauged!
 
 
 
 

Back to Page 1 of  SR&RL No.9

Back to my main page.