Slight correction: All parts EXCEPT boiler are in Altoona; boiler is (at last sighting) at EBT. Tender was "rebuilt" 2 years ago, "ready for paint and decals". Problems arose trying to move it, now sits forlornly gathering a new coat of rust in the yard, and unprotected from vandals. Typical of most of their "collection". So far, the taxpayers of PA have "invested" over $3m in the "restoration", with nothing worthwhile to show for it. Do the taxpayers even care? Apparently not.

The masochist I am when it comes to steam locomotives, I read this whole thread and remember having a bad experience with the young museum staff in 2012.

"If I were the boss of this, I would have them fired," I thought then, and: "Not a good sign for the management of the museum".

This is by far not the first restoration project which turns out to become much costlier than thought in the beginning. I may be wrong, but all this thread reads between the lines as if the major flaw seems not to lie in the design of the firebox but in the actual museum management. Your remark about the tender losing part of the invested taxpayers money just by - obviously unneccesary - neglect goes the same way.


So this newbie naively asks: Could a change in management possibly make a change in the outcome for 1361?

Michael,

who just had a perfect day in Strasburg with all friendly staff.

Any updates/news?

No.

How much money has been wasted on that project?

We are going to sit and wait for updates, there maybe work quietly going on, we would have to poke some of the people involved to find out, but any work at this point you would not expect operational for several years for sure, so lets just hang tight.

Wow, Just read through this and other 1361 items, and 2 car funeral comes to mind. Agree with the reality that until you get one taken apart its extremely difficult to know what the scope will be. Pretty safe to assume that a locomotive built before 1920 will have some significant needs. By all that I’ve digested on 1361, racing down the main line ala 1950 will require a new firebox and “wrapper” course. The Belpaire design can be re-engineered to meet code. And from what I’ve read the PRR in later years created the compromised Bepaire when they removed the nut from the “roof” stays thus creating the weakness that won’t pass today’s standards. This as well at the steel thickness been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere. One thing that has become exceedingly clear as a result of this locomotive’s story is the need for a suitable strategy that encompasses a home base, capital plan, and thorough cost loaded refurbishment plan when considering returning any steam locomotive to operating status. I Do have one question – Was the Boiler removed from the frame and only the boiler got sent to EBT? The excursion to Rockhill Furnace just seems odd to me. Seems that the loco boiler could have been stored onsite during the roundhouse construction.

Having read through all this I can see why the VMT is being very specific about needing a mass of funds up front to tackle 611. My understanding is that the majority of funds sought by “fire-up” are for infrastructure and the capitol plan.

Due to the interaction between original metals and modern product, any partial repair of the boiler is likely to have a much shorter operating life than could be obtained from a new construction boiler. Considering the historical importance of this locomotive, it deserves a new boiler, and the donors deserve some assurance that their money is being spent wisely rather than on a repair that will require further repairs not far into the future.

PC

Just so everyone understands,the locomotive did meet the Form 4 requirements when it was built, though just barely. There was little to no allowance designed in for such things as wastage or corrosion. Back then, the Form 4 was the boiler's "birth certificate", and there were no requirements to ever remeasure or recalculate anything, ever.

Today, there are still some boilers out there that were built to absolute minimal standards to begin with. 80 years later, after many miles, repairs and modifications, they don't anymore. Some just barely miss it; others miss it by a wide margin. In either case, it is possible to make necessary repairs/modifications to get the boiler above the Form 4 requirements.

There are those who choose to make the repairs/modifications that have been revealed as necessary after everything has been measured and recalculated to indicate the situation of a boiler as it is TODAY, not as it was when it left the builder who-knows-how-many years, miles and cycles ago. The present rules are designed to prevent someone from digging up an old paper, copying one, or making one up, then going out and running something that isn't anywhere close to what it should be.

Steam locomotives are expensive. So are accidents. Over the years, there have been locomotives out there whose operators were blissfully ignorant of the actual condition of the machines they were riding around on. And a few who knew but didn't care or couldn't afford to make things right. Not to mention a few who were afraid to know.

Ignorance and arrogance on the hoof are never a good thing. Do it right or don't do it at all, IMO.