I think it's time this topic be split off the 261 entry.

There already is a second travelling locomotive, it's another 0-4-0T, and is based in upstate New York.

Here's another possibility for some future time:



About 45 tons in working order, capable of 20-25 mph on decent track, 3000 gallon water capacity. And rather cute, I'd say.

Howard P.
Prairies of Thomaston, CT

Howard -

Is this S&C 2-6-2 the engine that was at the Valley Railroad and owned by the Empire State Railway Museum at one time? Not sure what you know about future plans for the Prairie. Maybe you'll clue us in.

As for future possibilities of this engine being moved by highway from one location to another, I can see one problem; length! The tender adds enough extra length that it would probably need a second tractor/trailer thus increasing costs. If you want a better alternative it would be a 2-6-2 tank engine. I will agree that the 103 is "cute" however.

Les

Dan Markoff with his "Eureka" (3' gauge 4-4-0) & tender already does that successfully using two trucks & trailers.

Phil

Take a look back through the briefs section for pics of 103 moving in June 2009. The tender easily goes onto a simple tilt-bed truck. The engine's weight might be a problem, yes.

At any rate, that would all be a long way off.

Howard P.
MP 6, Thomaston

I recall proposing something like this awhile back, and may have even used S&C 103 as an example. But as mentioned in several of the posts about 261, the locomotive is not the complete train.

You need coaches, also something small enough to be put on a TTX flat. My thoughts run to something like the LIRR Ping-Pongs with real trucks (with roller bearings and newer brakes of course-) and decent interiors, or clones of PRR P-54s. Maybe dedicated flats for the coaches and tender, and a "gooseneck" lowboy flat for the engine?

Do it right, and there will be no issues from the railroads about special moves with passenger cars, friction bearings, dimensional extras, etc. Just another six or eight flatcars-

We have 4 privately owned small narrow gauge locos that have or want to visit Ardenwood. Three are Porter 0-4-0's, the fourth a Baldwin 0-4-2... all 6-8 tons.

They also visit CSRM, NSRM, and such...

We provide a railroad and cars... they provide steam... its a good deal for all involved.

A locomotive like no. 103 is exactly the type of engine I had in mind. Two trailers would do the trick to move the engine and tender around. As for rolling stock, most museums and tourist railways already own suitable cars, even if it's a string of flatcars with sides and benches or a gaggle of cabeeese. I have fond memories of riding behind no. 103 at the original Empire State Railway Museum in Middletown, NY, as well as at the Valley Railroad in Connecticut. I look forward to seeing the old girl under steam at Thomaston someday -- better yet, visiting somewhere else.

Another potential small "traveler" would be the new Leviathan. Similar to the Eureka in terms of limited capacities, but certainly an upgrade from the blue guy. Haven't seen any plans for this but one would have to imagine you don't go to all the time and expense of building yourself a steam engine just to look at it,, right ?

"Let's work the problem and not make things worse by guessing." -Eugene Kranz (Apollo 13)

A locomotive which is unlikely to be accepted in interchange can be moved how many ways? My thinking takes me to one or two flatbed trucks. This would include locomotives of the size proposed in the above photo or tank locomotives. Tank locomotives, while they are much loved and make all the right sounds, do not impart the size and splendor of branchline or mainline steam locomotives, so without tossing them out of the picture entirely, this takes me to an interchangeable flatcar, acceptable to modern railroads. RDG 2100 was a huge locomotive moved in this manner. Does it need to be a locomotive of that size? Of course not, but it could include wheel arrangements from 4-6-2 and 2-8-2, down. What about a converted auto-loader? enclosed, capacious, and available? Who pays for this? Federal grants are a good place to begin looking, then other railroads wishing to contribute something so they merely lease a steam loco for events, rather than undertake possession and all the trimmings. Working the problem would be my suggestion, by first getting an ad hoc oversite group in place. It might work out better than you'd think. It works in Britain.

Well, if we have to look to moving our traveling locomotive by rail on its own dedicated flatcar, the first place to look would be among the retired DODX flatcars now owned by several museums. These cars were extra-heavy duty cars designed to transport Abrams tanks and other heavy military gear, so they should be able to handle a 45-60 ton locomotive. Come to think of it, weren't there a few DODX flats fitted with rails in the deck to move diesel locomotives from base to base? Anybody have one of those?

I'm all in favor of moving rail equipment by rail, but experience tells me moving a small locomotive by road is cheaper and faster and gives the owner more control over pick-up and delivery, not to mention the reduced anxiety factor. Hmmm -- all the reasons shippers abandoned rail for trucks....

A traveling boomer engine moving by truck is the way to go. Rail is indeed an option and it is easy to visualize a 2-6-2 on a DODX flat but there are other factors working here to consider so if you are going to move your beloved steamer around rail is the wrong way and here is why.

First even if using a perfectly good interchange worthy flatcar you are going to be dealing with class I railroads that do not want to move your car. It is still a pain to pick up and drop off a single car here and there and they do not want your business. I worked for a major international chemical company for many years and our plant did a substantial business by rail and had 5 different sidings and was located right on the mainline. The railroad did not want our business and managed to drive all of it off and it is all now on the road. If our plant was located on a shortline I am sure there would still be rail service. Bottom line is they don't want this type of business and you are not going to get good service. The railroad will make it hard and the trucker will make it easy.

Second, sooner or later they will damage your train. It will go over a hump or be coupled hard, left out to be vandalized, or some other bad thing.

Third, sooner or later your beloved locomotive will miss an engagement because it ended up sitting in Atlanta for 3 days when it was being moved from Indiana to Pennsylvania.

I actually wrote an article on this, back what Trains put out there "Steam Today" special issue in 2008. It was fun getting the perspective of operators on both sides of the equation (steam owners and excursion lines) and getting their perspectives as well as a few great stories.

There are a lot of possibilities out there. Off the top of my head I can think of:

The Eureka (To many places)
The Leviathan (To Trainfest and Monticello IL)
CSRM's 0-6-0T (To Niles Canyon, and again soon)
Niles Canyon's Quincy 2-6-2T (to Sierra Railroad)
The Flag Coal Company 75 (everywhere)
Viscouse Co 6 (Trainfest, NY&LE, A&A)
Spencer's Shay (To Great Smokey Mtns)
Cass's WM Shay (To D&GV at Elkins WV by rail)

These are engines that actually went to an established scenic railroad to provide motive power, as opposed to exhibition only, like the RRMofPA's John Bull or to a convention, like the 4449.

Also the Ohio Central's 4-6-2 1293 has visited the Byesville Scenic and Cuyahoga Valley lines on a few occasions. R&N's 425 operated on a number of Steamtown trips. NKP 765 has operated on the Hoosier Valley recently, proving that, at least regionally, a larger engine can work in some instances.

Dave Crosby

PS Howard, the 103 would be great, I've always liked that engine and hoped it would come to PA one day.

I would agree that it is more economical to move a locomotive simply and less expensively via truck. Tank engines fill this bill nicely as long as they weigh in under major load restrictions. John Gramling's Flagg Coal 75 is a fine example of keeping things simple, cost effective, and being able to reinvest monies into making a sustainable steam program. A traveling engine show is very costly and it needs to pay for the engine's next rebuild in order to sustain itself. Otherwise the business model must rely on personal finance which is by no means stable, or grants which although very helpful, also can be spotty and subject to uncontrollable outside forces.

The reason I say this is because I am in the middle of rebuilding a small engine on the West Coast to do just such a thing. You can see a progress update from the beginning of December at:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/r ... 10,2083532

After doing much careful research, it is very clear what is possible and what is not. As Doyle McCormack has said repeatedly "these things run on money!" and a workable business model is key. For my engine I do not intend to make profit from the operation, merely be able repair and rebuild when the time comes. Luckily, when the pressure vessel work is done, that should not be an issue for decades to come. I have also included a photo of the locomotive before restoration began which illustrates the portability and feasibility of road transport.

For all those becoming interested in traveling engine shows, I truly believe this will become an ever more important aspect of the steam community, and applaud the efforts of the Gramlings for starting this new chapter in small steam.

Best,

Stathi Pappas

Thanks for sharing and best of luck on her restoration. Please keep us posted.

Am I correct in assuming that the Leviathan does not have air brakes, which would be correct for that era? If it does not have air brakes, pulling cars with passengers requires a little more thought. Engines of that era were notorious for having very poor brakes, and depended on reversing the engine (or some similar equivalent) and/or the brakemen winding up the hand brakes on the coaches for stopping the train. Some operations might think twice about using a non-air braked locomotive in passenger service. After all there is no such thing as an emergency stop! I know that several Museums do not allow trains to operate in service without working air brakes.

The B&O Museum operates three steam locomotives that (correctly for their era) do not have air brakes. At least in recent times, they generally operate these engines light, or with very short trains without passengers, strictly for viewing from the wayside.