Folks,

There is alaw on the books that prohibits foreign built ships from being operating in the US coastal waters.

Exceptions have been made for specific ships among others our BALCLUTHA
here in San Francisco.

Somebody has to find a Congressman or Senetor interested in historic preservation to sponser such a bill.

there is one steam engine at the Museum of Transportation which ran on the Chicago elevated before they went electric.

I am told there is another Forney in Cuba from the New York elevated. Now there is a rare steam engine for you!

Ted Miles

As I recall from the list of what the Spanish company was buying, NONE of the engines were standard gauge, so that rules out the elevated Forney. Few of the engines were 3' gauge, so there isn't much potential help here for the Georgetown Loop, either. Most were 30" gauge or smaller.

This isn't material for historic preservation, unless one is doing the historic preservation of a Cuban sugar cane plantation. These are fodder for amusement parks and rich peoples's toys. I don't see a very persuasive argument for making an exception for them.

Looking at the list, I count 39 standard gauge engines, and 7 3-footers. There are a couple of 2'3¾" gauge 2-8-0's on there, I wonder how easily one of those could be converted into a reasonable Sandy River 2-6-2.

Anyway, none of the known Cuban survivors with a U.S. railroad pedigree appear to be on the list, so that is a good point about the historical value of importing them for the sake of their own preservation. On the other hand, if the point was to use a generic operating steam locomotive as part of a bigger picture, say for example preserving the Georgetown Loop (mmmmm worms), then a good case could probably be made for that.

Richard Jenkins

Can we all relax a minute and think this through? These locomotives from Cuba have all been there for at least 75 years, subject to the vagaries of seasonal operation and maintenance by people who view them as tools, not as antiques. In returning any of them to the US of A, the first order of business would be a new boiler. Next would be complete mechanical overhauls. Bottom line: they would be very expensive to bring home and return to service, and when you come right down to it, there are an awful lot of fine locomotives already here that need TLC!

He has a good point. As we all can tell it is almost impossible for us to get these locomotives. Not to mention we have alot of locomotives already in the US that need A LOT of TLC! Dont get me wrong I would love to get my hands on a 3ft gauge 2-8-0 for NJMT but we have to much to worry about. Lets fix what we have before we try and get more.

-Eric

I will second Brother Laepple, up to a point.

I'm forced to point out that simply because the locos are 70-100 years old, does NOT mean that the locos have 70-100 years of wear on them. These locos survived because they were mothballed for six to ten months of the year, in a fashion in which diesels would not have fared well. There are even several locos that have been reboilered already, or have had boilers traded between frames. Thus, it would be best to examine each locomotive on its own merits. (There is even at least one century-plus-old loco that was pulled from a plinth and restored to operation--shades of our own park-locomotive restorations!)

The bad news is that, as far as I can determine based on updates from the British fans, all of the "best" American preservation candidates have been scrapped or are MIA. This includes an ex-PRR 2-8-0 and a couple other "Class One" steamers. At best, we can hold out hope for the New York City Elevated Forney and the NYO&W 2-6-0, and maybe the Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh loco (the P&LE loco is supposedly MIA as well). We are not--repeat, NOT--going to find any locos that dramatically fill any vast holes in rail preservation, like a NYC Hudson, a PRR T1, a SR&RL 2-6-2, or a Southern 4-8-2.

However, having said all that, should some legal means ever transpire to salvage any of these locos, I am not going to stand in the way of any enterprising party that wishes to apply themselves properly to the situation. Yes, there DOES arise the possibility of, for example, recreating an EBT 2-6-2, or salvaging a non-PRR steamer for the RR Museum of Penna., or for that matter another Strasburg or Grand Canyon RR stockpiling a strategic reserve for the 24th century. Far be it from me to stop them, as long as it doesn't rob PRR [loco I'm forbidden to mention for a month] to pay Papa Castro.

Actually, that seems to be the best reason to bring them back. It is either get recyclable frames and running gear, or start planning for replication what of our park hulk stock that is available wears out. I'd be very happy to see tourist railroads operating completely overhauled power with new boilers made by modern certified shops to current standards rather than going to heroic efforts to continue to use up the remaining margin in current stock in annual partial running repair programs.

Expensive perhaps when one considers initial capital cost, but far cheaper in the long run and more reliable. There's a reason the pros at Disney completely rebuilt their Mexican hulks rather than just patched them up and made them go - a beakdown for them is more expensive than an overhaul.

Replication which includes modern retrofits for efficiency, reliability, and environment would probably cost more but be even more cost efficient in the long run.

Are we in this business for the long run, or do we just want to play train this weekend?

dave

Maybe that's the answer!

If you travel to Cuba, such as on a humanitarian visa, you are allowed to return with Cuban cigars for your own use...you can't sell them or give them away. They can be declared and need not be hidden. Maybe you could make a case that the 2-8-0 is for your own use too? :-)

Erich

Wow
one Question?
If they were buildt here in the US how did they get to Cuba in the first place?
Andrew

In the past, the US used to export things other than jobs.

To be a little more explicit than Brother Gray:

The steamers in Cuba date back to a time when "Yankee imperialism" ran rampant over Cuba. Cuba was seemingly little more than an American colony in the early 1900s (look up a little thing called the Spanish-American War), and trade and commerce between Cuba and the United states was extremely heavy--Henry Flagler's FEC Key West Extension was little more than the extension of a humongously long pier towards Cuba for railroad traffic and even railroad car ferry service. Cuba exported crops such as pineapples, sugar, and cocoa to the USA, and Americans visited Cuba as a tourist destination, much as we visit Bermuda, the Bahamas, or Hawaii today (and look at the map--Cuba is a BIG place). Many of the sugar and cocoa plantations were owned by American interests such as U.S. Sugar, Domino, and Hershey. With that, it's easy to see how many American locos got to Cuba before "la revolucion".

Unfortunately for Americans, the fact that Cuba was viewed as little more than a labor and land resource to be exploited by prosperous American companies was the catalyst for the socialistic revolution of Castro and comrades, and we feel the repercussions to this day as rail preservationists (as do the Cuban people, reduced to abject poverty and automobiles powered by clockwork, rubber bands, or gerbil wheels).

Incorrect. Since the end of June 2004, you are allowed to bring back NOTHING except educational material- books, etc.

With respect and on the contrary Ed, perhaps some plans might be started once the real legal issue is completely understood, perhaps by some organization with representation on this board. I'd really love to have a genuine legal expert in this issue weigh in and make it clear. Planning for the possibility of the law cooperating seems like putting the cart before the horse - few of us have the luxury of time and resources to hire attorneys or make complex plans without knowing what is likely to work out. Therefore, a discussion that leads to an understanding of the law should not be out of place in my opinion, any more than talking about a point in CFR249.

Is there anybody out there who can demonstrate a need for repatriation who is willing to broach the subject with their senator or representative?It seems like just adding another category to the existing list might not be as politically unfeasable as talking about the entire issue of open trade.

dave

Hi Dave,

After reading this discussion, I wrote my congressman to get his opinion. When I get a reply, I'll let the board know.

Stuart