The question comes up time to time and I still haven't really found a way to answer it? How do you go about tracking down the owner of a piece of equipment like this tender?

Robert

I was once told that the owner was the cagy lawyer from the Baltimore area who bought some track and thought that made him a railroad. Can't remember his name now.

This sounds familiar...

If we're thinking about the same equipment collection I recall some coaches, a caboose or two, and some MOW equipment but no tender. There was also a serious question as to whether or not the person involved was actually a lawyer. I believe my grandfather discussed him here at some length in the past and we were never able to confirm the degrees he claimed in various filings under any of the names he was known to have used.

If I have the wrong person here please say so. Its just interesting that this comes up on the same day that we have the first really positive news on what may have been the the one topic which used up more bandwidth than his and his cohort's antics.

Meghan

1) Y'all are probably thinking of someone by the name (well, now and then) of "Riffin."

2) This is the first I've heard of any supposed tie between him and the tender in question. (Although that might explain a few things......)

Any idea of which locomotive was owner of this tender?

Riffin! That's the guy.

Amazing how Ghost of Charlatans Past returns to haunt.

The tender was probably never his as it did not disappear during the bankruptcy sale. His claims of ownership require heightened scrutiny as along with everything else he tried to claim ownership of the spur into Morgan Millwork and the ramp from the Ma & Pa Roundhouse to the B&O main on the basis that the PRR might have switched them once or twice.

I will also note that since neither my lovely Granddaughter nor I uttered the name that Brother Mitchell is responsible for the next round...

GME

ADMIV, RSwinnerton, Trainlawyer, and Meghan - Nostalgia for Mr. Riffin notwithstanding, Mr. Corns' post from the previous page of this thread suggests the possibility that either his organization or someone he knows is the owner of the tender.

It just as readily "suggests the possibility" Mr. Kim Jong-un is the owner.

I've had about 25 years of dealing with Baltimore-area rail preservation and/or the "flights of fancy" of He Whom We Can't Mention under my belt, and although I have no way to prove he or his cronies are NOT involved,my "gut feeling" is that someone more competent than him has to be dealing with this tender, or it would have been scrapped by now strictly out of spite.

If you say so.

There's no way to really know which engine had this tank; C&O had similar tenders in classes 16-VA, 16-VB, and 16-VC, all with 16,000 gallon water capacities. A lot of those tanks and plenty of others were shifted around to various locomotives in shoppings; they could be seen behind 2-8-2s, 4-6-2s, 4-8-2s, 2-10-2s, at least one 2-6-6-2, and 2-8-8-2s. A lot of that swapping occurred when C&O built or bought larger replacement tenders (which were typically rectangular types), and these large Vanderbilt tenders in turn replaced smaller tenders on other locomotives.

One thing that does stand out is the shape of the coal bunker. Most of the C&O Vanderbilt tenders I found photos of had the tapering rear of the coal bunker cut off square, like the one in this photo:



But that's not what THIS tender has; instead, its coal bunker continues out to a fine point. It's like what you would normally see on a B&O Vanderbilt tender, but the curvature of the coal bunker sides isn't right; the B&O's versions weren't rounded, but angled. Overall proportions are bit different, too:



Further looking came up with photos of two of the road's J-2 4-8-2s (USRA Heavy design)--and take a look at the tender bunker shape, and also notice the number of one of the engines!





Could it be from that 4-8-2? It doesn't seem likely--as noted, those tenders got swapped around a lot--but that engine is one of only two that I could find images of with a similar looking tank--and the one in Baltimore even has the extended coal bunker edges of the tank on the 545.



What do you think?

Thank you for the excellent treatise on Vanderbilt tenders and the possible origins of this one! BTW, outstanding photos, particularly the final one of the unit sitting idle.

Next question would be, and I don't think we'll know until it's tested, is the interior clean and water tight? Is there are good re-match locomotive for her in the outside world? Would she make a good auxiliary tender for an excursion train?

Again, thank you for the critical background information.

And thank you for the kind words; we don't hear enough of that these days (and I have to admit to being guilty of that myself).

The credit for the photos really belongs with the original photographers and the people who put them on the internet; all I did was find them.

As to a good "rematch" for this tender? Well, there are two, identical twins in fact, though both still have their tenders, and one is kind of controversial around here.

http://trn.trains.com/~/media/images/ne ... sphoto.jpg


Yes, at least one of her earlier sisters wore such a tank, or a similar one. As noted, it was a replacement for a smaller one--this one was supposedly a class 16-VC. As was typical, it replaced a smaller tender:



The same locomotive in a somewhat earlier time (probably 1930s), with what might be her original tender, or at least her original tender class (and I'm not even sure of that! Some of these engines came with rectangular tanks.) This one would be a 12-VB or 12-VC (and yes, I'm a crazy C&O fan):



Source:

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... id=4329963

Thank you for the interesting history lesson on C&O tenders.

I wouldn't mind seeing the 545 tender paired with the 1309. My interest in the tender is possibly mating it up with UP 5511 the drag freight 2-10-2. C&O tenders do have precedence for showing up behind UP steam.

How much bigger is the Vanderbilt tender to C&O 1309's current tender in coal and water capacity? Would the larger tender fit on the turntable with 1309 or would it be too long?

Robert

Two observations on the photo of RPCX 545 as posted above:

1. The was a reference to a drawbar on the front (coal bunker) end of the tender, but from the air hose attachment, it appears that the tender has had a coupler installed on that end.

2. A determination of the original locomotive to which the tender was assigned might be possible with a little sand paper and some careful "elbow grease". It might well show the locomotive number. My guess is that this has never been tried.


Les