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

Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41298
Page 1 of 3

Author:  Cody Muse [ Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:53 am ]
Post subject:  Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

I have a few questions about this locomotive.

Does Steamtown have any plans for this locomotive? Such as a restoration or at least asbestos removal? What condition is the locomotive in? I live in Colorado and probably won't be able to see it for quite a while... Has any group/organization tried to purchase it? What would the likelihood of them selling it?

Thanks for everything (Including some of my stupid questions)

Cody Muse

Author:  hullmat991 [ Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

I would suggest that you post this question on the Steamtown Forum page on Facebook. You will probably get a good deal of information there. You will have to request an invite but the page is open to view and post to anyone.

Author:  6-18003 [ Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

She was not included in the asbestos abatement program and without a local champion, her condition will probably not improve any time soon.

The park seems to have to come to the realization that a decaying deadline large enough to overpower the rest of the site does not do them any favors. Combined this with the lack of funding to rectify the problem, and I think that any legitimate organization would be able to acquire one of the more forlorn pieces in the collection, like BSC #1.

I don't know if the park is allowed to sell off artifacts per say, but they do seem to be able to donate or trade (or scrap) when they feel it is appropriate. An alternate route would be to speak with their non-profit arm, the Iron Horse Society, and ask if you can make a donation specifically for the care of BSC #1.

Author:  superheater [ Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

I have no direct knowledge of this particular locomotive. I suspect that it is rather low on any operating restoration priority list due to condition, lack of power (~20,000 LBS. TE) and a lack of connection to the DLW or any of the related focus areas.

As an aside, long time locomotive mechanic and engine crew member Rob Staely passed away on October 17 after an illness at age 55. That is another loss in the backshop to a staff that is stretched pretty thin.

Priorities Now as I personally understand them:

Keep the 26 running, continue work on 3713 and get the NKP 514 up an running again, assist the ARHS with the F3's.

Author:  Bruce_Mowbray [ Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

There are plans in the works to abate the asbestos on the remaining asbestos containing locomotives including the #1. Anybody have a spare 1/2 million laying around that they don't need?

Author:  Cody Muse [ Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

Thanks for all the replies....

Unfortunately I don't have a half million dollars just laying around... The asbestos scares me a little, to think it has been on there since it was retired. If I'm ever able to I wouldn't mind going to PA and speaking with the NPS about purchasing this locomotive. Of course I don't even want to know the bill of trucking it to Colorado.

Thanks again,
Cody Muse

Author:  NS 3322 [ Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

superheater wrote:
Keep the 26 running, continue work on 3713 and get the NKP 514 up an running again, assist the ARHS with the F3's.


What about the 3254?

Author:  6-18003 [ Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

NS 3322 wrote:
superheater wrote:
Keep the 26 running, continue work on 3713 and get the NKP 514 up an running again, assist the ARHS with the F3's.


What about the 3254?



Dead. May come back as 3377. A long time from now.

Author:  Scranton Yard [ Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

6-18003 wrote:
Dead. May come back as 3377. A long time from now.


A robust Mikado like 3254/3377 is a good match for the line. Also, resurrecting 3377 will give the Park Service the opportunity to finally use that unused stainless steel tender tank they had made for 3254 about ten years ago.

Scranton Yard ... "making a run st[sic] the title of most irrelevant keyboard warrior on RYPN" - RobertJohnDavis

Author:  NS 3322 [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

6-18003 wrote:
Dead. May come back as 3377. A long time from now.


Why would Steamtown restore the #3377?

Author:  Richard Glueck [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

Story is, CNR 3377 was the a candidate in line for restoration when the swap was made for 3254. Apparently, 3377 has a very good boiler and other parts are in good shape. It was cannibalized to support the working CNR Mikado. There have been RUMORS for years that 3377 might get the nod with a total swap out from 3254.
The CPR 4-6-2 was also supposed to be on a short list of rebuilds, but B&M 3713 has the best opportunity to represent big steam in Scranton, and we should all be happy with that. I have my personal favorites to rebuild at the SNHS, but that's been discussed in other threads.

Somebody from the Steamtown shops could better address this whole thing with factual information.

Rumors don't answer the question and merely fire up more rumors.

Author:  Benjamin J True [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

What's going on with the 514?

Author:  6-18003 [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

NS 3322 wrote:
6-18003 wrote:
Dead. May come back as 3377. A long time from now.


Why would Steamtown restore the #3377?


3377 had only 500 or so miles on her after being shopped when she was put on the dead line. I believe 3254 has a bent frame from an old wreck and was eating up bearings at an unusually high rate (I think 2317 also has service damage). There was a plan kicked around at one time to place 3254's boiler on 3377's frame, but the latest version is to simply use 3254's good parts to fix 3377 (where most of them came from to begin with) and leave 3254 as a static display.

Author:  6-18003 [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

Cody Muse wrote:
Thanks for all the replies....

Unfortunately I don't have a half million dollars just laying around... The asbestos scares me a little, to think it has been on there since it was retired. If I'm ever able to I wouldn't mind going to PA and speaking with the NPS about purchasing this locomotive. Of course I don't even want to know the bill of trucking it to Colorado.

Thanks again,
Cody Muse


Let me clarify my answer. I don't think the park is willing to sell anything outright. An organized group, working in conjunction with a museum or other institution, could probably arrange for a piece to be donated if they can prove that said equipment would be in better hands elsewhere. If said group could perform a task in return, such as a trade for needed equipment or supplies, or for services rendered, your chances would increase.

Author:  6-18003 [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Brooks Scanlon Corp. 2-6-2 No. 1 --- Status and/or Plans

Scranton Yard wrote:

A robust Mikado like 3254/3377 is a good match for the line. Also, resurrecting 3377 would give the Park Service the opportunity to finally use that unused stainless steel tender tank they had made for 3254 about ten years ago.



When the new stainless tender body was built (I believe Brookville), there was an issue with the way it was constructed - stoker cavity too short? Was this ever corrected? Did the park receive any compensation from the contractor? Did they provide the wrong specs?

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/