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
Case 110 | Reeves 40 | Rumely 36 |
76 | 70 | 88 |
2 | 2 | 2 |
100 | 108 | 108 |
36x35x50 | 42x34x55 | 34x36x48 |
