It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:39 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:16 pm 

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:40 pm
Posts: 710
whodom wrote:
as12 wrote:
Interesting that upon inspection the engine isn't that bad off, according to the KSHC.


As I said in my previous post, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the running gear is in excellent condition. OTOH, the Southern (which became Norfolk Southern while this engine was under lease) side-lined that engine in the middle of a very busy excursion season, and went to the trouble to not only lease NKP 765 to fill in for it, but they paid for some fairly expensive repairs (refurbishment of both trailing truck axles) to ensure 765 could complete the season without major issues. NKP 765 finished out the season, and they never returned 2716 to service after that.

I heard from people directly involved with the Southern steam excursion program at that time that 2716 had significant firebox problems and that's why they side-lined it mid-season. Now that doesn't necessarily mean the firebox is rotten, but I'd certainly expect the new crew to find more than a broken staybolt or two.


Exactly.

Does not mean they can't fix what they find, but first they have to find it.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 6:28 pm 

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:41 pm
Posts: 378
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Bringing a "retired" locomotive back into service requires a 1472 day inspection per Part 230. There are no exceptions to this rule, no matter how good the locomotive was when it went out of service or how badly it has deteriorated while in retirement. Part 230 was developed to make sure that no assumptions are made when bringing a locomotive out of retirement. So how good or bad the locomotive was "back in the day" simply doesn't matter. And arguing about it doesn't move the world forward.

Every locomotive restoration requires an absolute pie-in-the-sky optimism. In the past, that optimism has been a trap for the unwary. The good thing about Part 230 is that now, after 15 years, we understand just what is required and can make very good plans and estimates. The days of an open-ended or slap-dash restoration are pretty much behind us. Let's let the Kentucky Steam guys get on with the work at hand. They have a big job ahead of them and they don't need a bunch of worry warts or gloom-and-doomers hanging around telling them that they shouldn't be doing what they have decided to do. It's their money, their sweat and their responsibility to succeed or fail.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 8:48 pm 

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:45 pm
Posts: 12
hamster wrote:
Bringing a "retired" locomotive back into service requires a 1472 day inspection per Part 230. There are no exceptions to this rule, no matter how good the locomotive was when it went out of service or how badly it has deteriorated while in retirement. Part 230 was developed to make sure that no assumptions are made when bringing a locomotive out of retirement. So how good or bad the locomotive was "back in the day" simply doesn't matter. And arguing about it doesn't move the world forward.

Every locomotive restoration requires an absolute pie-in-the-sky optimism. In the past, that optimism has been a trap for the unwary. The good thing about Part 230 is that now, after 15 years, we understand just what is required and can make very good plans and estimates. The days of an open-ended or slap-dash restoration are pretty much behind us. Let's let the Kentucky Steam guys get on with the work at hand. They have a big job ahead of them and they don't need a bunch of worry warts or gloom-and-doomers hanging around telling them that they shouldn't be doing what they have decided to do. It's their money, their sweat and their responsibility to succeed or fail.



It's not really their money, they are requesting donations to the tune of 1.3 million with in all reality little to no knowledge of how they are going to sustain this project, house, or utilize when done. Gloom and doom aside they are asking for a blank check with little or no back story or information. Maybe just maybe people would be a bit more accepting if they would come up with some information on just how they plan to get this million pound locomotive out of New Haven which has one way out which is through CSX which has had larger groups with more resources attempt to get steam engines moved on and been told to fly a kite...

There is mass amounts of information missing, everyone keeps saying how they obviously have thought these things out carefully but it appears that the only thing they have is a lease and no real plan.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:45 pm 

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:08 pm
Posts: 252
Location: Amherst, Oh
There will always be something but the reasons for being retired from NS were supposedly fixed by Ft. Wayne.


nathansixchime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The firebox and a host of
> other issues that had defined "basket case" for
> the N&W steam program had been repaired by the
> FWRHS in 1995.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:56 pm 

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:40 pm
Posts: 710
hamster wrote:
It's their money, their sweat and their responsibility to succeed or fail.


Two out of three ain't bad.

It's contributions, not THEIR money.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 10:56 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:58 pm
Posts: 874
"This locomotive does not have a "...cracked crown sheet..." What it has is a tired, worn out firebox, which is not unusual and relatively easily fixed. They will have to do all the work required under CFR 230. That means ultrasound tests and measurements on the boiler, flues and tubes removed/replaced, appliances checked and overhauled, running gear checked, etc.

When we ran this engine back in 1996, there were a few leaks in the firebox we had to deal with, but nothing serious."

Rich Melvin, Publisher & CEO
O Gauge Railroading magazine

I believe this man is in a position to know......


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:15 am 

Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:11 pm
Posts: 270
Lil back story and theory. I believe that her rebuild in 1980-81 was pressed a bit possibly leading to some of the firebox issues... For those that may be a bit new to the 2716 story, she was slated to take over the Clinchfield Steam program from the venerable ten wheeler #1. That derailed when the Clinchfield's top brass got caught up in an embezzlement scandal. 2716 had already been extracted from the KRM and was sitting in Erwin when Bill Purdie and Jim Bistline were shopping for a replacement to T&P 610 and CP 2839. She seemed to be the perfect fit for what they needed -power and speed. I'm not sure of the date but she was towed to Irondale and work began in 1980. The Southern was down to 1 steam locomotive in the spring of 1981 when 4501 went down with a cracked front flue sheet - Drats! Southern pressed forward with the 2716 with the added pressure of no steam loco in the steam program. 2716, the Southernized version, began excursion service in October 1981 She made it to the winter break but only half way into the 1982 season. Lost in the story is the arrival of 611 in Irondale in Oct 81 with a really tight schedule to be finished by Sept '82. To the extent it could have been the plan to give 2716 a serious look see Dec to Feb 81-82, that was not possible as 611's rebuild was in full swing. When the sieve like firebox sidelined her in 82, there was no shop bandwidth to handle its repairs. I can't help but think that the 2716 firebox may have sidelined her, but opened eyes to the complexities of superpower steam boilers & fireboxes when compared to the simpler designs in the old locos (630,722,750,4501 remember 610 arrived operating Southern steam did not overhaul her). So maybe just maybe 611's firebox was examined a wee bit more to make sure things weren't missed -just my speculation. We all know 611 had her own firebox issues (1987ish maybe) but certainly not out of the gate like 2716. Not saying folks didn't know what they were doing but circumstances coupled with 2716 being the first superpower engine rebuilt by Southern may explain some of 2716's "bad luck".


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:09 am 

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 31
You my be on to something when you said the southern steam shop had problems with super power fireboxs. Because 611 also had firebox problems about one year after her rebuild, or they had very tight deadlines. so it makes me wonder what if 2716 didnt have problems in 1982 would 1218 been rebuilt or would it been the 611 and 2716 show?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:31 am 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:31 am
Posts: 1100
Location: South Carolina
I had totally forgotten that the FWHS had operated 2716, so obviously the firebox problems I was aware of were corrected during that time.

I saw 2716 in steam once in Charlottesville, Virginia. I'm looking forward to seeing it again.

_________________
Hugh Odom
The Ultimate Steam Page
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:51 am 

Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:11 pm
Posts: 270
Being of C&O decent, 2716 was a bit cursed after N&W and Southern started dating followed by a marriage in July 1982. As to 611's firebox issues this thread should share some light.
Quote:
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35384&p=200520&hilit=611+firebox+repair#p200520

If 611 were heated up too fast, then one could assume 2716 was too. Due to circumstances 2716 didn't get to benefit from lessons learned. That period in Irondale was one of transition as it was at the end of Purdie's tenure. Bill and his mastery of the old stable gave way to a new group working with new bigger toys and all the learning that goes with it. I am in no way suggesting that folks didn't know what they were doing going from early 20th century steam to mid century superpower in just a few years is a pretty big leap. And quite frankly they did a fantastic job.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:45 pm 

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 5:07 pm
Posts: 2
As I have heard it from people who were there with Mr. Purdy when it was originally taken out of service, the firebox suffered a significant failure the morning after it was laid up for the night.

If Rich Melvin has said that issue was fixed then I would take him at his word. From the sound of it they will be patching the firebox for the amount of money they are looking to raise. As far as I know from people that ran the engine, it was still in good shape when it was shelved.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 1:13 pm 

Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:27 pm
Posts: 111
Location: Flat Rock, MI
It is interesting reading about the 2716 and her past from those who knew Bill Purdie, and getting that inside look. Also, the comments from Rich and Kelly paint a different picture than everyone else is talking about. It sounds like a lot of these later operating excursion locomotives have firebox "damage", just as RDG 2100 was rumored to have in it's firebox, only to have it dis-proven recently upon her inspection.

The only thing that concerns me, as a potential donor, is the lack of a already established shop. I've been doing some work lately at one of the local museums, and we are finding out it is really hard to maintain a GE 44 tonner, while sitting out in the snow. It needs proper shop facilities. The group is working on some land near our current ROW to develop into a working railroad shop. I cannot imagine trying to take apart a large steam locomotive outside or without adequate shop facilities. Now, if they had said that they were going to rent some space at a shop like Ft Wayne, or even Age of Steam one would be more inclined to donate, as those are well run shops, and have the added knowledge base of large steam locomotives.

Second thing is the issue with CSX. Without a valid interchange point, it makes it even harder. Your gonna truck it... to a shop that hasn't been established yet, and near or on a head of rail that is not steam friendly. Sounds like a hard proposition, notice I didn't say "losing", but a very hard proposition. I'd like to hear more from Mr. Campbell on how they plan to over come this major obstacle in the future.

_________________
James B.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 1:20 pm 

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:45 pm
Posts: 12
TrainWatcher wrote:
It is interesting reading about the 2716 and her past from those who knew Bill Purdie, and getting that inside look. Also, the comments from Rich and Kelly paint a different picture than everyone else is talking about. It sounds like a lot of these later operating excursion locomotives have firebox "damage", just as RDG 2100 was rumored to have in it's firebox, only to have it dis-proven recently upon her inspection.

The only thing that concerns me, as a potential donor, is the lack of a already established shop. I've been doing some work lately at one of the local museums, and we are finding out it is really hard to maintain a GE 44 tonner, while sitting out in the snow. It needs proper shop facilities. The group is working on some land near our current ROW to develop into a working railroad shop. I cannot imagine trying to take apart a large steam locomotive outside or without adequate shop facilities. Now, if they had said that they were going to rent some space at a shop like Ft Wayne, or even Age of Steam one would be more inclined to donate, as those are well run shops, and have the added knowledge base of large steam locomotives.

Second thing is the issue with CSX. Without a valid interchange point, it makes it even harder. Your gonna truck it... to a shop that hasn't been established yet, and near or on a head of rail that is not steam friendly. Sounds like a hard proposition, notice I didn't say "losing", but a very hard proposition. I'd like to hear more from Mr. Campbell on how they plan to over come this major obstacle in the future.


Exactly my point, there seems to be some very important information missing from this, and yet they want wallets opened up and money to flow.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 1:42 pm 

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:45 am
Posts: 457
TrainWatcher wrote:
Second thing is the issue with CSX. Without a valid interchange point, it makes it even harder. Your gonna truck it...

Why not put it on a flatcar?

_________________
--
Chris Webster
Personal Website Last Updated in 1996


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: C&O 2716 and her return to steam
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 2:21 pm 

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:03 pm
Posts: 719
TrainWatcher wrote:
It is interesting reading about the 2716 and her past from those who knew Bill Purdie, and getting that inside look. Also, the comments from Rich and Kelly paint a different picture than everyone else is talking about. It sounds like a lot of these later operating excursion locomotives have firebox "damage", just as RDG 2100 was rumored to have in it's firebox, only to have it dis-proven recently upon her inspection.



I'm reminded of the phrase "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth." Makes you wonder how many things get telephoned into oblivion in the rail preservation world. Some falsehoods suit a narrative and look right at home with the truth.

I've noted some have called findings such as those mentioned as "optimistic," but I suppose that the evolution of the preservation field would be a strange place to find pessimists, anyhow.

KL


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Earl Knoob, Google [Bot], rjenkins, ted66, trainman584@aol.com, Yahoo [Bot] and 64 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: