The Star engine built by the Aultman Company, of Canton, Ohio, and mentioned in Mr. Brown's letter.
943 Dutton Avenue San Leandro, California
All readers should appreciate your editorial, which was in the September-October 1953 issue of the ALBUM, concerning the correction of material that the readers submit to you. Everyone should appreciate the fact that you cannot check or re-check all the material for the facts and their correctness. This writer believes very strongly that it is therefore the duty of any reader, who notes a miss statement in any article or picture data, should therefore send in the true facts. Therefore, in the future it is hoped that our written materials are correct when we submit them.
On page 2, Nov. Dec, 1953 issue of the ALBUM there appeared a picture furnished by Mr. R. H. Blank of Walcott, Iowa and it is stated that the engine in the picture is a Star engine (Mogul) built by C. Aultman & Co., Canton, Ohio.
I state herewith that the engine in Mr. Blank's picture is not a Star Mogul and submit the following reasons together with pictures.
The words 'Star' and 'Mogul' were trade names for two different model engines. The 'Star' used the locomotive type boiler and the cylinder was front mounted up on the smoke box and had two speed gear traction arrangement.
The 'Mogul', also a trade name, was an entirely different type of engine, using a return flue-drop fire box type boiler, the cylinder was also front mounted and had two speed gear arrangement. There was no water tank on the front end, as shown in the picture, nor was the cylinder mounted on a water heater at rear over drive wheel.
Having made comparisons from my files, all pictures back up the statement and furnish ample proof that the engine in the picture furnished by Mr. Blank, is a Minneapolis return flue model of about 1896-98.
Refer now to the picture at top of page 3, Sept.-Oct., 1955 issue of the ALBUM, concerning the 'Phoenix' engine in the picture by Bernie Myron of R. D. 3, Chetek, Wis. If the engine in the picture is as stated, a 12hp.then it had combination chain and spur gear drive. If it was 16hp. then the drive was all spur gear and had two speed gear change. Only two sizes of this particular model12 and 16hp. were made by the C. Aultman & Co., of Canton, Ohio. Neither they nor their successor ever built a shaft drive traction. It was Aultman and Taylor Machinery Co., of Mansfield, Ohio who built this type of drive. (This was purely the editors confusion when he made the statement in the ALBUM.-Ed.)
Turn now to page 7 of Sept.-Oct., 1955 issue of the ALBUM. A letter by Mr. Ralph Thompson of Maxwell, Iowa. He is writing about the 36-110 hp. double cylinder Rumely engine. I still have old service contract with Rumely and worked as 'Expert' in Alberta prior to World War I.
Mr. Thompson states that this engine was a double-simple compound. This statement is rather hard to understand. I am quite sure that the engine was a double cylinder simple. Rumely never built a double cylinder compound.
By referring to old catalogs, Rumely never made but one type compound traction engine and that for only a few years. It was single cylinder tandem Wolf type compound and used Wolf reverse the only engine that uses this reverse. It was built in three sizes12, 16 and 20hp. My records show that Rumely never built anything but double cylinder simple engines. I am sure the engine Mr. Thompson speaks of was such an engine; Double cylinder simple with bore of 7, stroke 14 inches, PSI 175; 235 R.P.M.
Mr. Thompson says that the engine weighs 63,000 lbs., less fuel and water. That was some big pile of iron. So checking my memory some old catalogs and several records of the Winnepeg Motor Contest; I must say that he is a long way from the true and correct weight of this particular Rumely d.c 36-110 hp. steam, plow engine. Winnepeg records list several entries of this engine, giving a net weight of 37,000 lbs. Total working weight of 46,000 lbs. Water tanks were listed as hold 400 imperial gallons 4,000 lbs. (10 lbs. per imperial gal.). Working level of water in boiler 2,800; fuel bunker approximately 2,000 lbs. of fuel. Total working weight minus fuel and water of 8,800 lbs.37,600 lbs. a figure close to the net weight given.
No. of flues Length of flues Size of flues Fire box above grates
Therefore Mr. Thompson must find about 25,000 lbs. of weight to back up his statement.
Mr. Thompson mentions two other famous old steam plow engines Case 110 and Reeves 40. The following brief comparative figures might be of interest