Railway Preservation News
http://www.rypn.org/forums/

Progress on 1309?
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=40615
Page 12 of 13

Author:  Ed Kapuscinski [ Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

Crescent-Zephyr wrote:
WVNorthern wrote:
If an organization is "hush-hush", that's about the only criticism they will get. If they lay out details, someone is sure to criticize each and every one.


Where is the criticism for Strasburg and IRM's restorations then?


I take it you don't read their Facebook page.

Author:  Crescent-Zephyr [ Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

Ed Kapuscinski wrote:
Crescent-Zephyr wrote:
WVNorthern wrote:
If an organization is "hush-hush", that's about the only criticism they will get. If they lay out details, someone is sure to criticize each and every one.


Where is the criticism for Strasburg and IRM's restorations then?


I take it you don't read their Facebook page.


Which one? I subscribe to both...
Please point to examples.

Author:  MJM-1 [ Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

Maybe I missed something, but when I looked at the September, 2017 video, the WMSR was optimistic that the 1309 would be ready in early 2018. What changed? Did they have any idea that they would have a $530,000 shortfall back then?

Author:  MJM-1 [ Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

On another note (perhaps this is wishful thinking), are there any operable steam locomotive owners out there looking for someplace to run their engines? If such a situation existed, perhaps a lease arrangement could be negotiated with WMSR to operate during the 2018 season, hopefully improving WMSR's cash flow to the extent that funds could be generated for the 1309 restoration.

Author:  nathansixchime [ Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

Getting one there, adding in the lease payments or day rates, etc would be impractical.

The problems here go far deeper than motive power and wouldn't be solved by swapping out what's up front.

Author:  J3a-614 [ Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

nathansixchime wrote:
Getting one there, adding in the lease payments or day rates, etc would be impractical.

The problems here go far deeper than motive power and wouldn't be solved by swapping out what's up front.


And on top of all that, there's the matter of capacity. One of the reasons for the purchase of the 1309 was to get even more tractive effort than the substantial 60,484 pounds the 734 has, the WMSR being one of the few heritage roads to need something that hefty.

Granted, plenty of other engines would have that much--Fort Wayne's own 765 is up there--but most, if not all, are Superpower engines with higher drivers and a higher peak horsepower speed than would be useful on the WMSR.

And as Kelly suggested, let's not forget the problem and expense of getting a steam engine to Cumberland over very anti-steam CSX.

Author:  MJM-1 [ Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

If I recall correctly, the N&W was granted trackage rights over the B&O in the late 70's when Chessie tore up the WM. If those trackage rights were never terminated, could a steam locomotive be moved to Cumberland under that provision?

Author:  MJM-1 [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

Looks like the new fund raising for the 1309 has begun...

https://www.wmsr.com/winter-photo-freig ... er-diesel/

Author:  hullmat991 [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

Well if they can get 2000 people to watch a recreated freight train for photos, then 1309 will be fully funded.

Author:  PMC [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

J3a-614 wrote:
nathansixchime wrote:
Getting one there, adding in the lease payments or day rates, etc would be impractical.

The problems here go far deeper than motive power and wouldn't be solved by swapping out what's up front.


And on top of all that, there's the matter of capacity. One of the reasons for the purchase of the 1309 was to get even more tractive effort than the substantial 60,484 pounds the 734 has, the WMSR being one of the few heritage roads to need something that hefty.

Granted, plenty of other engines would have that much--Fort Wayne's own 765 is up there--but most, if not all, are Superpower engines with higher drivers and a higher peak horsepower speed than would be useful on the WMSR.

And as Kelly suggested, let's not forget the problem and expense of getting a steam engine to Cumberland over very anti-steam CSX.


There is a currently-unused 1980s-built 2-10-2 with 63,235 lbf of tractive effort less than 500 miles away that would put on quite a show, and I doubt that the average person who rides WMSR trains would care about its heritage. But, as has been noted, there will be a problem with only one current connection to the outside world.

Author:  Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

PMC wrote:
There is a currently-unused 1980s-built 2-10-2 with 63,235 lbf of tractive effort less than 500 miles away that would put on quite a show, and I doubt that the average person who rides WMSR trains would care about its heritage.


Does it fit on the Frostburg turntable?

Author:  hullmat991 [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
PMC wrote:
There is a currently-unused 1980s-built 2-10-2 with 63,235 lbf of tractive effort less than 500 miles away that would put on quite a show, and I doubt that the average person who rides WMSR trains would care about its heritage.


Does it fit on the Frostburg turntable?

Yes it would. With a 12 wheel tender a QJ comes in at around 96 inches; 1309 will be around 99 feet, and the turntable is 100 feet.

I think the real question to ask would be - Could a rigid 2-10-2 locomotive handle the WMSRR?

Author:  PMC [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

hullmat991 wrote:
I think the real question to ask would be - Could a rigid 2-10-2 locomotive handle the WMSRR?

WM I-1s and I-2s were 2-10-0s, but I have no idea how well they worked or what they did to track..

Attachments:
wm1114s.jpg
wm1114s.jpg [ 129.27 KiB | Viewed 496 times ]

Author:  Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

Or whether the track maintenance standards of 1947 equal those of 2017.

Author:  Benjamin J True [ Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Progress on 1309?

I think the sharpest curves on the C&P section going into Frostburg are something like 20 or 22 degrees. In the past my attempts to convert 145m radius (found on Multipower International's website) in to degrees of curvature failed miserably.

I've also found it suspicious that Multipower list both the JS and the QJ as having an identical turning radius.

Maybe Dennis Daughtry could weigh in on that one.

My personal thought is that WMSR need to just stay the course and finish what they started. Probably focusing on the heart of the operation and taking "it'll be done when it pulls into the depot" approach to 1309 would be most productive. I mean who really thought a 2-6-6-2 restoration was going to be quick and easy? Optimism is their only fault I think.

Ben True

Page 12 of 13 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/