[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: RE: (erielack) Erie K5, K5a [was PSC Erie K5b]

I concede, already.  The confusion arose from a mental gearslip.  I was thinking of 2934, not 44.
2934 is one of the three K5 which were rebuilt, pumps in front, but it (and, I think, the other two
K5 (not K5a) which were rebuilt retained the original fabricated valve gear hanger.  It also has
been pictured with a full set of Boxpoks.  But, it has the original trailing truck, which is NOT
Delta, which is what the Max Gray has.  There is a picture on page 45 of Dan's book.

I know that Dan has told me that there are two legitmate numbers for the Max Gray model.  I lost
those numbers when my computer crashed last fall.  I haven't really communicated with Dan on this
since then.  I've got an email going to him shortly, though, and I'll report back.

SGL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janet & Randy Brown [mailto:jananran_@_mymailstation.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:51 PM
> To: erielack_@_lists.railfan.net
> Subject: Re:RE: (erielack) Erie K5, K5a [was PSC Erie K5b]
> 
> It may seem like I am beating a dead (iron) horse but I feel I need to pursue this point to avoid
rewriting history,
> although it may be too late.  Someone may already have read the passage from a previous post I
quoted and now
> believes that not all the Erie K5a locomotives were rebuilt to the more modern appearance with the
air pumps up front
> and the cast engine bed.  That person may, at some time, retell this to someone else, and so the
mistake will profilerate.
> 
> The fact is that all the K5a class were rebuilt with the cast engine bed. This includes 2944. See
Biernacki, p. 29-32;
> photos at p.51, 74, and rear cover. Also see "Erie Memories", by Ed Crist, text and picture: p.31.
And "The Erie
> Railroad Story" by Paul Carleton, photo: p.131.  See also Locomotive Quarterly, vol. 11, #2, and
"Eastern Steam
> Pictorial", p.209.  And Railway Mechanical Engineer magazine, Simmons-Boardman, June, 1942, p.218.
> 
> The written evidence might be contested (except for the announcement in RME), but the pictures are
irrefutable.
> 
> The confusion may arise from the several sets of improvement applied to the K5 and K5a classes
during thier lifetimes,
> some of which have been referred to in various sources as "rebuildings".  The first and probably
most obvious was the
> addition of the Elesco feedwater heater -- yet all the K5s and K5a's and the K5b got them.
Another area could be the
> tender modifications (raised coal b.oards) or replacements.
> 
> In any event, some regretable confusion has happened.  I hope it is now cleared up.
> 
> Randy Brown
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Look, Randy, say what you want.  I have discussed this with Dan at some extreme length.
> 
> SGL
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Janet & Randy Brown [mailto:jananran_@_mymailstation.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:46 AM
> > To: erielack_@_lists.railfan.net
> > Subject: (erielack) Erie K5, K5a [was PSC Erie K5b]
> >
> > SGL said, "Not>>>ALL<<< were rebuilt with new engine beds. I know for sure that there were two
that were not, one
> > of which is 2944 and I'm not sure of the other one. . ."
> >
> > Biernacki says, "In the spring of 1940, Erie initiated a major rebuild program that would
include all 10 K5a and the
> lone
> > K5b . . . only three of the original K5 group were rebuilt . . ."
> >
> > Since pictures abound of 2944 as rebuilt, I'll stick with Dan on this one:
> >
> > All ten K5a and the K5b (and three K5) were rebuilt.
> >
> > Randy Brown
> >
> 
> 
> 	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
> 	http://EL-List.railfan.net/
> 	To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	http://EL-List.railfan.net/
	To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html

------------------------------

End of EL Mail List Digest V3 #2795
***********************************