It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 3:17 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:09 pm 

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:05 am
Posts: 47
Location: Quebec
I wait for your announcements, i hope your can get back this horsepower on rail.

David

_________________
New York Central fan


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:30 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 8953
Location: Somewhere north of Prescott, AZ on the Santa Fe "Peavine"
co614 wrote:
Trust me, for what they did " clowns " is an overly polite label.

I would suggest that unprofessional "name-calling" in a public forum of the group that STILL OWNS the assets in question, even if the individual(s) in question are not still involved, is a good way for such a valiant effort to end up rejected by the "powers that be," no matter how much actual malfeasance or incompetence might have been involved.

We have enough amateur "armchair railroaders" spouting negative name-calling rhetoric at various preservation efforts, thank you.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:00 pm 

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:52 am
Posts: 1486
Location: Strasburg, PA
6-18003 wrote:
Am I correct in stating that Strasburg is the only modern shop to successfully bring a belpaire into FRA compliance? It would be nice if Levin and Moorman keep the work in Pennsylvania.

Partially. LIRR #39's new 1/2" roof sheet is made and ready to install on the boiler should funding come available to restart the job.

As I recall, in 2007, #1361 was found to be in need of the same repair by Messrs Yuill (Historic Machinery) and Musser (SRC), unfortunately after all new crown bolts had been installed by workers under a previous administration, this being the final straw for the original restoration effort.

_________________
"It was not easy to convince Allnutt. All his shop training had given him a profound prejudice against inexact work, experimental work, hit-or-miss work."
C. S. Forester

Strasburg Rail Road Mechanical Department


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:16 pm 

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:31 am
Posts: 535
I think there was a little more to it but basically, yes. I can't recall if there was a "shop change" of staybolt location/number as well? May have been 3713 that I am thinking of?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:45 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1745
Location: Pottstown,Pa.
Sadly, as is so frequently the case, TGB 4th. you're wrong again.

IMHO-Ross Rowland


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:07 pm 

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:31 am
Posts: 535
co614 wrote:
Sadly, as is so frequently the case, TGB 4th. you're wrong again.

IMHO-Ross Rowland


Ross, I know you like your obscure acronyms but use English for us peasants, please.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:27 am 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:12 am
Posts: 485
Location: Somewhere off the coast of New England
co614 wrote:
Kelly, It's classified TOP SECRET so I'm afraid I can't divulge. There's lots of constructive planning work taking place behind the scenes. When the physical work commences it will be done professionally throughout.

Patience is a virtue. Ross Rowland


Patience is indeed a virtue particularly in the case of this project. However you should bear in mind that in my professional experience people who talk about knowing "TOP SECRET" information generally fall into one or both of two categories: 1. They do not really know what they are talking about; or 2. They should not be talking about it.

GME


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:27 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 8953
Location: Somewhere north of Prescott, AZ on the Santa Fe "Peavine"
6-18003 wrote:
Ross, I know you like your obscure acronyms but use English for us peasants, please.

If he did, he would be once again proving my assertion of unprofessional name-calling on a public forum.

As I repeatedly point out elsewhere online, name-calling is the desperate act of grabbing gravel and flinging it when your rhetorical debate quiver is empty.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:40 pm 

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:52 am
Posts: 1486
Location: Strasburg, PA
6-18003 wrote:
I think there was a little more to it but basically, yes. I can't recall if there was a "shop change" of staybolt location/number as well? May have been 3713 that I am thinking of?

Neither one has had or needs the staybolt pattern modified.

Prior to 2008, repairs to #1361 were proceeding with what looks like no sheet specific strength calculations having been done. As I understand it, a policy was initiated where any sheet that measured less than 80% of new thickness was replaced, whether it needed it or not. In the case of the roof sheet, it needed it, but since it was over the 80% threshold, it wasn't replaced. When researched and calculated, it was found that the original design had nearly no corrosion allowance built in, and was good for 210 PSI From the factory (205 was the MAWP), with nuts and washers on the roof sheet end of the crown bolts. In the 1940's PRR eliminated the nuts and washers without any corresponding design change (perhaps as an economy move?), reducing the factor of safety below 4, not counting any loss from corrosion. Repairs made up to 2008 consisted of replacing the inner firebox, but not the roof sheet, and new crown bolts were made and installed, without the nuts and washers needed, resulting in a FOS of closer to 3 than 4.

#3713 is currently having a second new firebox being made to the original Lima design, after the previous contractor made a mess of the first one (installed a few years ago) through fabrication errors, carelessness, and lack of QC.

Sure hope that the #1361 group is checking referrals on any contractors they hire.

_________________
"It was not easy to convince Allnutt. All his shop training had given him a profound prejudice against inexact work, experimental work, hit-or-miss work."
C. S. Forester

Strasburg Rail Road Mechanical Department


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:05 am 

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:03 pm
Posts: 775
bigjim4life wrote:
Having heard nothing, no rumors, no hearsay, nothing from Mr. Levin, Moorman, or any of the parties involved since the original "announcement" was made - I'm not buying that this is still happening anymore. For there to be that much excitement in the original announcement and the grand plans, then to have zero updates in the months since...no progress made public whatsoever...At this point, the skeptic in me says this is no longer going down.


Reality check a moment: there never was an "announcement."

There was a presentation at a meeting.

Some details from the presentation were picked up, broadcast, posted about (and deleted about), and Trains ran an article about the presentation.

That was it. No official press release, no website, no social presence, nothing official, thereby removing the obligation to make any update or noise about the project at all since its only exposure to the limelight was a presentation at a semi-private event.

In addition to this intentional non-announcement of an exploratory effort, that removes a great degree of entitlement to any news. News about what? Something that hasn't been announced yet?

I trust that when the project matures to a level where they feel any publicity about it is prudent and useful, we'll know. Until then, what K4 project?

_________________
Kelly Lynch
Vice President
Fort Wayne Railroad Historical Society, Inc
http://www.fwrhs.org


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:03 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:55 pm
Posts: 706
Location: Warren, PA
Thank you Kelly, and of all the digital opinions stated that one carries the most weight when you get down to it on the Belpaire boiler firebox design issue.

Part II was supposedly the rivet quality issue, similarly, lots with rather hard ones mixed in that had already been installed. I'd heard (rumor) that there was a plan approved to remedy that issue but it was subject to FRA approval, and that was a while back now. That may have been superseded by the reported plan for full boiler replacement, or not.

Whatever may or may not happen here now you have to remember that in Pennsylvania, both politicians that had championed the restoration with state and federal money for their own reasons are now long-gone out of office, so working with private individuals that understand the technical issues remaining remains possibly the best hope here. Politically, it's been snakebit, even if there are sympathizers.

The other major paradigm shift has been that Everett 11 is up and running and a sweet little engine, if you want to see operating steam in Altoona it's already there now in Hollidaysburg. And for big steam, 1309 is making progress only 30 minutes south at Cumberland. So that's another layer of reality to remember. It's an interesting situation when the best market for actually operating it may no longer be Altoona.

One of the last newspaper articles in the Mirror sums the local change in attitude, like it or not....
http://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local ... ves-along/


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:33 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1745
Location: Pottstown,Pa.
You're so right Randy. Former Pa. State Representative Rick Geist was the big booster who was able to get multiple infusions of taxpayer monies while this was being totally bungled by the 2 culprits at the ARRM in Altoona.

Conventional wisdom is that one of the main ingredients in Geist's losing his last race for re-election was his association with what became this well publicized boondoggle that burned through nearly $3M in taxpayer funds and produced a basket case comprised of a thousand pieces.

Messrs. Levin & Moorman are far too savvy to allow a repeat performance.

Ross Rowland


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:17 am 

Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:11 pm
Posts: 278
I’m being a bit captain obvious but project 1361 would be best broken into a set of attainable phases (which is probably the plan). If one were to start with low hanging fruit, the tender could be made road worthy with the least cost/effort - roller bearing wheel sets (if this has not already been done), cistern cleaned and coated, and a nice coat of Brunswick green. Next phase tackle the frame and running gear. Assess and fix every inch of it as it would be stupid not to without a boiler resting on the frame. Rollers on the lead and engine truck, and SP style oil-cellar journal boxes on the drivers. Next phase the boiler new or rebuilt let the pros make that call. We all know it’s the big ticket item. As to whether or not the existing boiler can be made whole, many suggested that FEC/USG 148’s boiler was too far gone. Final phase reassemble the locomotive. This is a huge project between 148 and 4014 in complexity and cost. It needs a community of boosters not unlike our friends across the pond that built the Tornado. Its boosters need to adopt the philosophy “don’t dream of a better yesterday”. If I recall correctly a crop of volunteers has been tinkering along on the parts of 1361 doing what they can, and this helped stimulate the interests of Messrs. Levin & Moorman. As for us in the armchairs - patience, optimism, and support.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2018 4:31 pm 

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:47 pm
Posts: 3
I’m quite curious to see how the restoration for Pennsylvania 1361 is going about, mainly due to my personal interest in proposing the restoration of Atlanta & West Point 290.

Both of these locomotives face similar challenges, as both could be considered “Heavy Pacifics” due to their heavy axel loads. This weight makes shortline operations for these locomotives risky. I know that even if 290 is just cosmetically restored, the Southeastern Railway Museum’s track is not rated for her weight for her to be removed from the shop. Thus any restoration budget for her will also have to require track replacement.

Obviously the element for both of these locomotives is for the mainlines with their high drivers, but that requires cooperation with the mainline freight lines. Heavy Pacifics sadly are in the awkward place where they are too heavy for shortline excursions, but not powerful enough to pull longer and heavier excursion trains, which thus causes less passenger revenue. Plus, the limited size of their tenders cause for more stops to refill on fuel and water, causing more excursion difficulties.

I am curious to see what operational plans they have for 1361, and see if they could be emulated in Georgia. If 1361 one becomes a success, then perhaps Southeastern Railway Museum can raise 290 on their priority list. :-)

_________________
Wesley Martin
Library and Archives Volunteer at the Southeastern Railway Musuem


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PRR 1361
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 pm 

Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:15 am
Posts: 24
I don't know how much, 290 weights, or how it's alxe loadings compare, but look at AT&SF 3415 out in Abilene, KS. It's a high drivered Pacific, and runs on some very bad ex- Rock Island trackage, but at about 10 mph. It's been on the ground a few times, but mostly due to the ties and roadbed conditions UNDER the light rail, or by a spread rail. Look at the old photos of the trackage in some of the steam era service areas, most of it in pretty bad shape, with tight, worn out switches, but they always seemed to stay a float at walking speeds. 290 might be able to at least venture out of the engine house to get to better track, a time or two, it's probably no stranger to poor shop & yard trackage at some point. I've read a lot of articles about UP 4014, and where it can't go, and how heavy was by 1940's standards, and at the same time, looking at photos of them in the roundhouse service tracks, seems to contradict everything. The track was bad, the rail looked light by mainline standards, the switches were tight, but they always seemed to get in and get out.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], softwerkslex and 44 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: