Bill Purdie, SR, and A&WP 290

Wesley Paulson · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:57 pm

In reading postings below about A&WP 290, I recall a reference in a TRAINS article in the 1970s about the Southern Railway steam program. In the article I believe Bill Purdie referred to an engine that he really wanted for the program, but could not get. No it was not SR 1401, but another locomotive. Was it A&WP 290? If so what were the issues involved? Was this another ownership dispute like that of The General?

Wesley

BILL · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:31 pm

IIRC, the reference was about Dick Jensen's GTW Pacific #5629. Maybe others can explain further.

drotarinoh@webtv.net

jimwrinn · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:51 pm

Both Dick Jensen's GTW Pacific and A&WP 290 were considered early on in the SR steam program for "conversion" to 1:1 scale Ps4 Pacifics with green and gold lettering. W. Graham Claytor, Bill Purdie and Jim Bistline were all involved at one time or the other in trying to secure them. The deal could never be struck with Dick Jensen on the GTW engine and the West Point objected severely (to the point of theatening a lawsuit) if the SR touched the 290. Thus, neither happened. Quite a few engines crossed SR's crosshairs in those days.

Ironically, Bill Purdie recently completed a running gear rebuild of 290 at Southeastern Ry Museum (working with son Donald) and was moving along with some additional work last I heard so that when the stars and moon align again, she'll be ready to go. And here's the motivational factor for us all: Bill's 87!

http://nctrans.org
Wrinnbo@aol.com

Andrew Durden · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:25 pm

And
> here's the motivational factor for us all:
> Bill's 87!

88, actually!

Southeastern Railway Museum
gapower97@yahoo.com

Don Wirth · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:14 pm

Thank goodness Dick Jensen kept the 5629 away from the Southern and Mr. Purdie! He showed them the proper way to handle matters.

frisco1522@sbcglobal.net

jimwrinn · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:31 pm

I suppose, yes, that it was wise that he didn't let it go and become a "bastard stepchild" but if he had perhaps the 5629 might still be with us in some form... instead of becoming scrap metal.

http://nctrans.org
Wrinnbo@aol.com

Dave Albright · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:42 pm

I've been told he wanted the 4-8-4 in Nasville very badly as well.

sirterp@myactv.net

Don Wirth · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:11 pm

My comments were made tongue in cheek. A "bastard stepchild" in the hand sure beats an authentic engine being scrapped. There's no logical excuse for what happened to those engines! An unnecessary loss.
One can make a case against the SR for what they did to the C&O 2-8-4, but it was running for a while instead of rotting! Same can be said for the 4960, which would probably be scrap or nearly so by now. After all, railroads did the same thing with power they bought from other roads,B&M 2-8-4s being an example on the SP and Santa Fe.

frisco1522@sbcglobal.net

L Beckman · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 12:49 am

> My comments were made tongue in cheek. A
> "bastard stepchild" in the hand
> sure beats an authentic engine being
> scrapped. There's no logical excuse for what
> happened to those engines! An unnecessary
> loss.
> One can make a case against the SR for what
> they did to the C&O 2-8-4, but it was
> running for a while instead of rotting! Same
> can be said for the 4960, which would
> probably be scrap or nearly so by now. After
> all, railroads did the same thing with power
> they bought from other roads,B&M 2-8-4s
> being an example on the SP and Santa Fe.

Don:

Yes! And wouldn't it have been great if just one of those ex-B&M 2-8-4's from the SP or AT&SF had been saved? (I especially liked the one that the Santa Fe really "Santa Fe'd".)

Les Beckman (HVRM)

midlandblb@cs.com