Looking at the comments about feedwater heating here, what would be wrong, or otherwise undesirable, about using conventional feedwater heaters, which were and are proven in the context of these engines?

Alternately, what about finding a substitute for, or even replicating, the Hancock exhaust steam injector the 614 and her 1948 sisters were built with? She even has that nice, big bracket cast into her frame for it, ahead of the trailing truck on the fireman's side. It apparently worked well enough to be kept on the engine at least until it was in coal service in its last days--and there are photos of the other remaining Greenbriers at about the same time, in the same service, that still had them.

EDIT: I understand the Union Pacific went in for exhaust steam injectors (I think even the Big Boys used them), as did the Pennsy on its T1s. Does anyone know what models or versions were used by these roads, and whether they were the same or at least similar to what was applied to C&O's last 4-8-4s?

The answer, in a nutshell, has been cost-benefit for excursion service.

I'm sure Mr. Rowland can comment on this issue from his perspective, and I would presume that most of the prospective new 'operators' may choose to retain the existing two Nathans, at least initially.

Making and installing either a closed or open heat exchanger involves expensive fabrication, and a location somewhere on the 'historic fabric'. Both open and closed feedwater heaters require a vent for dissolved gases, which is also a handy release of not inconsiderable mass flow of steam (many railfans mistake this for turbogenerator exhaust). Note that at typical exhaust-steam pressure (with a reasonably modern front end, <22psi) the feedwater is tremendously below the saturation pressure of the water in the boiler (~267 at 25psi vs. 407.7 at pop pressure of 255psi on a Greenbrier) so there is still a chilling effect on convection-section water where the feedwater check is located.

The T1 Trust looked very carefully at the replication of both a TA-2 Turbo-Inspirator and a modified version driven by electric power. At 300psi it makes little sense not to use a competent method of feedwater heating to limit the potential for thermal stress at high mass flow. They decided famously to retrofit a conventional open feedwater heater. Unless very high-mass-flow sustained operation is intended (and that makes very little sense without valve and compression-control changes) the cost of a 'rightsized' feedwater heater arrangement would take a long time to recover.

I did try to make the case for lower potential for thermal stressing in a boiler expected to have long effective service life. I was unsuccessful.

Where is "there" that the new wye is located? Clifton Forge? Goshen? Staunton? It's not clear from your post...

Hi All
Looking forward to riding behind the 614 again,, the last time my friends and I rode behind her was on The Erie Limited, Hoboken, to Port Jervis,,
I know it will take time, to bring the locomotive back into current Federal codes.. Pat.

I was mistaken, I thought there was turning facilities built at Goshen.
I'm guessing there aren't any large turntables on market for Goshen.

Anytime after 6:14 am, est, tomorrow ( 11/8) please go to http://www.co614.com. Enjoy.

Thanks, Ross Rowland