so what condition is the southern pacific 4460 what type of bearings does it have i really do believe that she should run

A few years ago, some of the former members of the St. Louis Steam Train Association were looking into the possiblilty of restoring and running the Frisco 1522 again. I did not want to do it. The Frisco 1522 broke my heart too many times. And no matter what we did, it was still going to be a friction bearing locomotive. I brought up the subject of the Southern Pacific 4460. The response "The 4460 never ran in the midwest, so we won't do it". OK, how about rehabbing the E-8s in the collection. We could certainly sell tickets with a stream lined locomotive set. And it would be a lot less work for men who are reaching retirement age. "But it is not steam!". I could not get anyone to think in a broader view. It was going to be the Frisco 1522, or nothing. Nothing is what we got. I do not think that there is a core of steam enthusiasts in the St. Louis area that would work on the Southern Pacific 4460. And that may be a shame, but that is the way it is.

She'd be a fine locomotive to run, I agree, but the NYC Mohawk could bring out the best in east and mid-western railroading.

I'm not totally convinced that 4460 is a roller bearing engine, but could be wrong. One of the things I distinctly remember is years ago the painters union or someone similar volunteered to repaint her. They did a complete sandblasting job, not covering anything first, before they painted. I'm sure every nook and cranny is sand encrusted and would make the job a real pain.

The number of obstacles facing any steam restoration in this area remain the same as when the decision to retire 1522 was made:
Horrendous insurance costs unless running as an Amtrak trip.
Staggering costs of a premier restoration. Anything less is not acceptable.
Lack of cars, hence the car rental charges.
Low ticket sales. 1522's trips rarely made a ton of money. The only sellouts in several years were the farewell trips.
The local railroads changing attitude towards steam trips.
Finding a qualified group for the restoration, qualified being the operative word. The folks who restored 1522 are old enough to know better than to try it again. The knowledge base is still there, but the bodies aren't quite as willing.

There are a couple of great candidates at the MOT for restoration to operation. One being the last MKT steam locomotive in existence, 4-4-0 No. 311. The other is Union Electric 0-4-0T. The Katy engine is small enough to be trucked to other venues to operate and be an MOT ambassador as is the UE 1. Both engines would fit into the MOT plans for the future. A mainline locomotive in actuality would not benefit the MOT as much as something small enough to operate on their existing trackage as well as future expansion. I've heard no groundswell of enthusiasm for either of these
two locomotives. These are small enough to be restorable and would provide volunteers a chance to actually get some operating and restoration experience.

S.P. only two roller-bearing steam locomotives, class GS-5 SP 4458 (Timken) and SP 4459 (SKF). Everything else had oil-lubricated driving-box journals with spring-pad lubricators (basically a wick system with springs pushing the oily "carpet" pad against the bottom of the axle journal), or hard-grease-block lubrication. Spring-pad lubricators are great so long as nothing goes wrong, such as grit or strands of oil pad getting under the brass: much easier to top up lubricant, lower friction and lower operating temp. Hard-grease-block driving box lubrication is more labor-intensive for regular maintenance, but will run just fine with less-than-perfect bearings, thus avoiding hot boxes. Given the need for absolute reliability on mainline steam locos, I'd rather have grease-block lube on non-roller-bearing locos.

- Doug Debs

I thought the SP only had two RB equipped GS series, but my memory is getting dim about the 4460. I knew the '58 and '59 were RB.
Grease block worked fine for many years when the petroleum companies made good grease for the railroads, like HY-TEX 8. It's a hit or miss operation today as far as finding grease that will hold up to many miles of track speed running.
We certainly tried our share of different greases on 1522 until somebody bailed me out with a decent supply of the old Texaco formula. I'm told it's dangerous to make the block grease the way it should be made. It's disapppointing to see your grease melting and running out of the grease cellar at normal operating temps.
Short line, museum running and lower speed running will tolerate most anything, but it's different in heavy service.

Dear Frisco 1522 -

Another alternative might be Wabash 2-6-0 #573 which is about the same size as the Katy American. And you might get some support from the Wabash Railroad Historical Society. Or the many model railroaders that have models of the engine running on their layouts. I do realize however, that the locomotive has an 1899 boiler, whereas MKT #311 has a "newer" boiler (from a 1920's rebuild in the Katy's own shops). And there are other 4-4-0's to represent that engine type while the 311 might be "off campus", whereas the Wabash locomotive is the only Mogul in the museums collection.

Of course, my own personal favorite would be Illinois Central Railroad 2-8-0 #764 but I realize that the IC engine is quite a bit heavier besides being the only Consolidation on MOT's roster.

Les

When SP4449 was here in Minneapolis last summer I was in the shop when the oil sumps were off the locomotive for new seals. If memory serves, I was told that the locomotive used a pressurized oil system for lubrication of the plain bearings. As far as I know, this system serves well enough that Amtrak and BNSF have no trouble allowing the loco on their system.

I climbed all over 4460 the only time I was at MOT in 2002. Couldn't tell how good condition she was in. Has anyone done an analysis?
It's a moot point, I'd bet. The people at MOT I talked with then were also very adamant they had no interestrunning a non-midewest locomotive. 1522 had run it's last trips just a few weeks before so I'm sure they collectively had a sour taste left over after that...

Frisco1522 has given a real good reason why the museum would not be interested in having SP 4460 available as an operational excursion engine. Without a train of cars for it to haul it becomes an "engine for hire," with the sponsor having to assemble a train with seats to sell. When Frisco #1522 was running this was often the stumbling block that turned prospective clients away. Once they saw the costs involved with assembling a train, car rental, paying to have them brought to St. Louis, insurance, and the cost of sending them home in addition to the costs of using the locomotive they walked away, usually fast. The folks with MILW #251 were wise to assemble a train so customers could get everything they needed in one place at one time, and they were more successful. Most of the trips run with #1522 were for the NS or BNSF, which could provide the train and also cover insurance for themselves. There were a few others, but not many. This takes nothing away from the crew, which did a superb job under difficult circumstances, but does say a lot about the business plan of the folks in charge of the entire effort.

with 4449 active, there may be not much need for a 2nd engine but all depends on the enthusiasm. I would not be so unadamant about the engine, if you want to get it going, you just start making your plans, ask for donations, find your restoration/operation crew and start, you will be ready in 4 years or so, and you work as money goes and don't worry take it step by step, if you get frightened about money, phooey. Keep chugging away, you will find support.

and no it aint easy.

I recall the issues of 4449 running thru chicago it had clearance problems, its a bigger engine, designed for out west there, so theres some reality issues about a west engine trying to run on midwest lines. Its just like a Big Boy could not run on the east coast, no turntables to turn it, engines were restrictive in length and size for clearances. Why the Allegheney was built like it was. So you don't want 4460 flying thru the country side only to rip away a nearby platform what you didnt know clearances.

Even before you start making your plans and asking for donations you need to contact the owners of the locomotive. All the enthusiasm in the world doesn't mean much unless the owners of the engine are willing to go along with your plans for their property.

You know, MOT has that 15 or 18 in. ga. C. P. Huntington amusement train and track running around the lower field. Why not work with the nearby Wabash, Frisco and Pacific grand scale guys and build a live steam replica of something from the region, say a locomotive type that was not preserved, to operate on that track occasionally? It would generate more traffic directly to the museum, and be big enough that it could provide the sights and sounds of a real, operating steam locomotive (turbines and compressors, etc.). A one-third scale standard gauge locomotive actually operating on-site beats all the daydreaming of never-happen full-size mainline excursions. Build a string of matching coaches or freight cars for it and you've got an operating exhibit of 20th Century railroad technology in miniature.

Or, a generic 0-4-0T to fire up and switch stuff around with for interpretive purposes. Not an easy thing given the track plan, but it will provide visitors with the visceral experience up close and personal at lower cost.

dave