It is currently Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:18 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 187 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:47 pm 

Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:07 pm
Posts: 508
Location: B'more Maryland
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:10 pm 

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:15 pm
Posts: 174
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:36 pm 

Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:50 pm
Posts: 12
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?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:48 pm 

Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:50 pm
Posts: 12
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:49 pm 

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:03 pm
Posts: 774
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:57 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:41 am
Posts: 3401
Location: Inwood, W.Va.
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:30 pm 

Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:50 pm
Posts: 12
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?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:34 pm 

Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:50 pm
Posts: 12
Looks like the new fund raising for the 1309 has begun...

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


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:49 pm 

Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:12 pm
Posts: 127
Well if they can get 2000 people to watch a recreated freight train for photos, then 1309 will be fully funded.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:23 pm 

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:55 pm
Posts: 621
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:41 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 8882
Location: Somewhere north of Prescott, AZ on the Santa Fe "Peavine"
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?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:50 pm 

Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:12 pm
Posts: 127
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?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:09 pm 

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:55 pm
Posts: 621
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 1783 times ]
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:37 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 8882
Location: Somewhere north of Prescott, AZ on the Santa Fe "Peavine"
Or whether the track maintenance standards of 1947 equal those of 2017.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Progress on 1309?
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:47 am 

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:53 am
Posts: 67
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


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 187 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dylan Waddell, Google [Bot], ns2110, Schultz, TrainDetainer and 45 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: