Can we add Inner Mongolia to your list? I think Tom Gears and I would have passed out had we seen a T-1 climbing Jingpeng Pass!

I'm still curious as to why the engine stalled so early on the hill. What I have read and put together from a number of forums is this;It stalled early on the hillThey did not try to use the helper.Two different people on two different days mentioned that it seemed to be "stiff."The first person was a witness during some moves in the yard on the first day they steamed it up. Second witness was at the hill. Second witness said it stalled, did not slip. But, in backing later it did slip a little. Also mentioned that it seemed to need excessive power moving forward even before the hill.Another person mentions hearing a radio message from the cab regarding using the helper to get up the hill. Part of the radio transmission from the cab said "...We've got bigger problems than that."Just a wild guess, but thinking something in the running gear has gotten disturbed in some way. Either during the move to Washington, or something done earlier than that. This is not meant to be a condemnation of the engine or crew, or any kind of nay saying. Just some food for thought. Mark D.

Ok here I go...The area where the 2100 started to have problems on the Hill, is also the same area where reportedly MRSR and Tacoma Rail had some problems with slipping this last weekend, so it's being looked into. These people, who reported the first day of testing last week that the 2100's running gear was "stiff", had no way of being able to tell, they were off property about 200 feet behind an fence from the 2100. I know from personal knowledge, that the closest a few these people had been to an operating steam locomotive was an cab ride on an logging engine, so anything from these people who reported the 2100 being "stiff", needs to be take with an grain of salt...Another report about the 2100 requiring excessive power for simply moving forward, is being produced by the same people that are "reporting" the 2100's running gear is "stiff". Once again they were viewing the 2100 from at least 100 ft and from behind an fence. I was onboard the 2100, as we were leaving Coast Engine & Equipment Co. (CEECO), the time in question. By my personal opinion, we were using a normal amount of steam pressure required to get something the size of the 2100, an aux. Tender and an MRL SD70Ace moving. When it was time for us to leave CEECO, we got up and moving fairly quickly for very little throttle use. Some of these people also started having an field day, when we slipped on the way out of CEECO, we slipped on the first crossing of an highway next to CEECO and I figure we slipped because there is usually quite a bit dirt and mud in the flangeways on the crossing, since the crossing some times is not used daily. One other thing is, people are saying "why didn't they take the brand new MRL SD70Ace as a helper", I don't think MRL would have been too happy with us and many others for taking an brand new locomotive out for an spin.... All we did was take the locomotive over to the yard and drop it off, as CEECO was starting to run out of room again, since just before we left, they got several new unpainted KCS SD70Ace's to work on.Basically, you've got to carefully review what you read on some of these "railfan" sites, there are some local people out here in our area, that are turning in to something like Dr. Jekyll and Dr. Hide producing false information and trying to back stab someone or a group one moment then the next moment trying to support someone or a operation. Who knew there was so much drama in railroading or railway preservation?2100 will make it up Tacoma Hill, remember all this is right now is simply test runs.Dan

Stalled without slipping. Not speculating, but going by what I read on this list.... didn't I read that the T-1 was converted to oil firing? When? Who did the conversion? who did the calculation to size the burner? Who engineered the damper? And, lastly, is the end result putting out sufficient BTUs to do the job?

Well, it's easy for any steam locomotive to stall without slipping. Actually, that is a true stall. I admit that much, more likely most, of what is posted on the internet about any subject you might care to mention is no more accurate than what you might read in a newspaper. But judging by the usernames given, it seems it was two different people who thought it didn't want to move. So, I took that at face value. That you were apparently in the cab at the time, BNsd40-2, your word counts over that of onlookers. I know full well how mistaken an onlooker can be. I've seen similar mistaken reports regarding things that were rumored to have happened with our engine. Since I was there, Johnny on the spot, I know the true story. I hope that I learn what actually happened sooner or later. Just too much load, then? So, maybe dropping a car or two, hitting the hill a little harder, having a helper, or? might do the trick. Hope it does. I, for one, want this to be a sucess. Selfishly speaking. It is good for the entire steam industry to have another success story. It is not good for the entire steam industry to have a failure. So, I fervently hope for a stunning success. It's good for me, you, and everyone else who works with it. Mark D.

It doesn't. I was told you took it off and put it on 614 Ross!

Bill Benson of Akron, Oh. headed up the 2100 restoration(1987-89) at the Hagerstown roundhouse. I was a minority partner in the engine with Mr. Richard Kughn of Detroit as the majority partner. We did not put the 2100's booster on 614. 614 has her original booster which has a broken bull gear that needs to be fixed when shes next returned to service. I'm not sure of the status of the 2100's booster but will contact Benson to ascertain. There's no question that 2100 will need her booster to successfully pull that 3.5% hill with any kind of train as the booster makes a TREMENDOUS difference at speeds under 15 mph. From looking at the track charts on that rr I'd rate the 2100 at 350 trailing tons without the booster and 900 trailing tons with a working booster. Ross Rowland

There are two good reasons posters like me have been quite critical of some of the more-troubled projects in this industry over the years (the recent escapade with the 2100 and the 1361 restoration come to mind, and there are others):1. These troubled projects, along with their broken promises, bad press, allegations of mis-management, etc. are VERY bad for this industry, and give a reputation among the public that this is a bunch of old junk that breaks down all the time. It also makes local businesses - which a regular operation will need - reluctant to deal with tourist operators.2. The money spent/wasted on these projects could frequently be put to much better use elsewhere. re: the 2100, how much money has been spent on Mr. Kughn's original restoration, deadhead moves, the purchase by Mr. Payne, the conversion to oil firing, etc.? I think $2,000,000 would be a reasonable figure. And how many revenue passengers has this engine ever hauled for $2,000,000 and 15+ years of restoration? Zero, as far as I know. I think there are better places to spend money like this - starting with musems and tourist RRs that have equipment (including steam engines) to restore.The bottom line is: I think operations like this would have benefitted from MORE public criticism over the years, not less, as some posters on the Internet have suggested.Am I completely off my rocker?Chris Jacks.

Ross,Is it possible you typed the wrong number for the tonage rating without the booster. I have been thinking 600 tons without the booster and you wrote 350. I am partially basing my number on WM tonnage ratings for their H-9 class engines at 850 tons on 3% with 22 degree curves and 71,500 pounds tractive effort. Just curious.John Bohon

I guess you could consider the money wasted if it actually would have been spent on another more worthy project. That also presumes one project is indeed more worthy than any other. There is some room for debate here as well. I think it is reasonable to assume in the cases of 2100 and 1361 most, if not all, of the money would not have been spent on another project. In the case of 2100 the money spent was all private if I remember correctly. Who am I to tell another man what to spend his money on? The public money being spent on 1361 is another story in that regard but so is any public money be it spent on 1361 or a highway.If the 2100 were not restored in the late eighties where would it be today? Before restoration started it was the worst looking big engine I have ever seen. Without the restoration it would likely still be sitting somewhere around Hagerstown looking like a rolling junk yard. Because 2100 was restored it now has a chance to start a new career in Tacoma. Frankly I am glad 2100 was restored and only wish I could be in Tacoma to help with the debugging and testing. In spite of the headaches that is the most fun part of the operation. Once things are debugged and running routinely the operation quickly becomes boring.If 1361 were not being restored it would at best be stuffed and mounted in Altoona. At worst it would be sitting somewhere out of sight and rusting away. A steam locomotive sitting on display does not convey much of an image the general public can understand when they are looking at it. When it is hot and rolling they get a much better idea of what a steam locomotive is and does. Considering Altoona is a museum I don't think 1361 ever has to haul a passenger to convey an important message to their visitors.I think we must keep restoring steam locomotives or we will lose them. If an opportunity comes up to run a locomotive and it is not restored there is no chance of operation. In most cases it takes to long to restore an engine in time to start a new operation or make a trip when it comes up. If we do not keep finding ways to return engines to service eventually there will be nothing to run when the opportunity arises. Perhaps I am the one who has lost his mind. It certainly would not be the first time I was told so.John Bohon

Chris,Constructive criticism is one thing, but so often complaints heard online and in photo lines are anything but constructive.In your first example, you use the word "allegations." What I often hear (not from you, BTW, so don't take this personally), I prefer to call rumor mongering and outright misinformation. Here's a good example: After #425 ran on NJ Transit, I heard folks say NJT would never let steam out again. Then #765 ran on NJT, and then all the experts KNEW NJT would never run steam again. But then #2102 came to NJ, but that WAS IT. It was all for sh*t now, NJT will never have steam again. And look out, they let #142 out, but no way will they EVER deal with steam again. Of course, then came #614 and that really did it. NOW THERE WILL NEVER BE STEAM ON NJT AGAIN! But wait, here comes #142 again!These are the kind of crackpot statements from ill-wishers that drive me nuts. They seem to have this burning desire (jealousy?) to see efforts fail.2100 getting up Tacoma Hill would have upset some experts. No doubt. The day #1361 walks up Nay Aug gorge will have the same impact on those who desire to see it fail. Rob

Unfortunately there have also been a few instances where preservation groups have chosen to disregard well intentioned advice from people with lots of experience in maintaining and operating equipment, resulting in a waste of years of effort and large amounts of money in pursuit of unrealistic goals.

In answer to Mr. ctjacks comments allow me to say; 1. All the monies spent on the 1987-89 full restoration of the 2100 were private funds of Mr. Kughn and myself. No taxpayer dollars were involved. The project was undertaken as Mr. Kughn wanted to see the 2100 run again and he intended to use it to promote Lionel Trains which at that time he owned. At about the time it was completed his lawyers convinced him that the liability risks were substantial even with insurance and this caused him to get cold feet. We then decided to donate the engine to the Ohio transit agency who promised Bill Benson they would work with him to get it into excursion service. Shortly after the donation the Agency got a new Executive Director and he killed the idea. They then put it up for auction at which point Mr. Payne emerged as the high bidder. I think most folks would feel that Mr.Kughn and I had the right to spend our own dollars on her if we so chose. I wasn't aware at that time that we should have gotten Mr. ctjacks blessing. Next time we'll know better. As to the sad saga of the 1361-I've said enough about this turkey already! May some of us only live long enough to see it boil water! As to John Bohons question on the tonnage ratings I compensated for the 14 degree curve at the base of the grade and for her FOA. With the booster she'll be able to get into the 15-18mph range(1750hp) and stay there,whereas without the booster she'll be struggling at 5-8mph(600hp). Again, let's give the GPRR guys all the support we can, they'll get the hang of it sooner than later! Ross Rowland