The two Santa Fe engines at CSRM are probably the two most restorable large engines in the country. They have been in-doors since they were retired, until moved to California. There is not any weathering damage to the boiler shells. The boiler interiors on these two engines are perfect, no scale and just a gamma-magnetite coating from proper water treatment. The flues are perfect as well and if the FRA would allow they all do not have to come out. These two engines were complete when delivered and all the stuff that now appears to be missing is in storage. The boilers were stripped of jacket and asbestos and painted with the orange anti-rust paint. No matter what is said this was a very smart move on the part of CSRM.

Someone posted that these engines were on house steam and moved occasionally. The later is true however they were never on house steam and there was not any reason for this. To put these engines on house steam would have put water in the form of condenstaion into the boiler, units and appliances. This would have been a bad move for an engine in storage.

Ultra-sound can be performed by anyone who is properly trained and shows proficiency with the instrument. The form 4 can be done in-house as well. The FRA would like a PE to sign the form after checking the work. Better yet the PE is there to observe then handed the entire package of readings so that he can crunch the numbers. No guess on cost.

I would guess that a complete flue job would be less that 100K. 50-60K of that being materials.

Depending on if the units were properly blown out by Santa Fe then they may not need replacing. A hydro and hammer test would tell that story. If so a complete set some years ago, made off site, was 100K, I couldn't guess what they would cost today.

I have seen the boiler interiors of both the 2925 and the 2926 and they are the best that I have seen in any "park" engines. Santa Fe was on top of the game in water treatment and these boilers show it. Santa Fe also maintained their engines right up until the end. They treated their engines like they would be in service the next day and so many engines went to scrap or to display with 10-20 thousand miles on a rebuild. What has killed many restorations then is what the outside storage did to the boiler shells. Once again these engines don't have any weathering problems.

The appliances on the Albuquerque engine, 2926, are completely dry inside. Santa Fe really did a job on laying up an engine. I would then suspect that all the appliances on the CSRM engines would be in the same state.

One area that I would be concerned with though is where the firebrick is up against the firebox sheets. The sulfur in the soot can form sulfuric acid which in turn can waste the sheet in these areas. That would be determined though after an inspection. The firebox would need to be re-bricked. 1000 dollars for brick, morter and castable refractory.

And before I am called on the carpet for making the statement about these two engines being "the two most restorable large engines in the country" I will concede that there will be others as well. I am just speaking about the 2925 and the 5021.

The unknown then is man-power, labor rate. This will equal the dollar number for materials needed, perhaps more.

This is a roller bearing engine and being that she was rolled and lubed there should not be any problems.

Valve and cylinders could have a problem though as these two engines were pulled 1200 miles with questionable lube. I do not have any knowledge of what was done for these areas though. Perhaps somebody else knows.

Tires are good, Santa Fe kept the tires on their engines good and fat.

For my dollars though the 2925 is the engine to restore. My opinion as well

How refreshing to see a positive posting regarding restoration of a preserved steam locomotive! I wonder how far BNSF would consider allowing either of these "babies" to operate? It would be nice to see something other than another 4-8-4 in operation, too.

... is exactly the kind of fact-based, informative, first-hand information that drew me to RYPN years ago. I appreciate that it is free of the foamer negativism that has infested this and many other boards.

The fact of the matter is, many seemingly "impossible" projects are doable. They will be done by people of positive mindset and can-do attitude, not by those who cast the first stone online.

Which is also the theme I was getting at a few weeks ago by letting bad press coverage slip off our collective backs. A positive message, of any kind, will do more to advance a cause.

Rather than throw bricks at the rumored CSRM/TV project, we should wait and see. Have any of the naysayers here or anywhere else reached out to the BLET to verify the story?


Rob

BobK's last name wouldn't happen to be 'Krieger' would it? It would certainly add some weight to his opinion if he happened to be that Bob K...

Nope, it is not. I am however associated with the 3751

Even better!

For the record, I just read two amazingly contrasting reports on the restoration of LNER 4472 in Britain: the one in our "Flimsies" from the York Press, and one in The Railway Magazine's November issue.

If you read the York Press account, it's pretty chirpy and optimistic. The RM report, on the other hand, details "the full extent of the loco's problems"--including a cracked "big end"strap, various failing frame crack repairs, an end-to-end split of the right-hand cylinder, and even the past application of various domestic copper house heating pipes and fittings now being replaced with proper piping! None of the latter are seen as insurmountable--especially as Alan Pegler had the foresight to purchase a spare right-hand cylinder in 1963!

There's unfortunately a fine line between not reporting "bad" news such as the above to those not intimately knowledgeable about railroading, versus hiding critical information or even "insulting the intelligence" of those with the proper knowledge. Also unfortunately, lots of people run amok with misunderstood information, or insist that anything done by Altoona/Paducah/Lima/Eddystone/etc. was the epitome of craftsmanship.

How does this apply to 5021? Completely objectively, I'm taking every last bit of information rehashed above with multiple grains of salt. It'd be nice to see another big engine run, but I'd insist on a coherent proposal and complete engineering analysis before I even get my hopes up, and all the money in place in advance before letting a "TV show" fix a loco, no matter how competent the crew and/or good the loco. I don't know "BobK" from that homeless guy who walked past my post office this morning, and that information is worth every cent I paid for it. If that supposed condition checks out AND someone has a place for that loco to go AND the money with which to fix it, fine and dandy. But let's remember that ATSF 3751 is already "all dressed up with nowhere to go"--ditto SP&S 700, SP 4449, C&O 614, N&W 611, Cotton Belt 819, B&LE 643, Reading 2102, and a bunch of other worthy locos.

"....all dressed up with nowhere to go"--ditto SP&S 700, SP 4449, C&O 614, N&W 611, Cotton Belt 819, B&LE 643, Reading 2102, and a bunch of other worthy locos."

Well, I'm not a steam expert by any means, but aren't some of those engines in need of full Part 230 work-ups before they are "ready-to-go"?? 611 is on static display, 2102 and 819 are stored by their respective owners with no on-going plans for the Part 230 work, 614 is a possibility for future operation if RER's project comes to fruition, and 643 is in some sort of storage.

700 and 4449 do get out on occasion, sometimes on regionals and shortlines.

Howard P.
TSY at MP 6

But let's remember that ATSF 3751 is already "all dressed up with nowhere to go"--ditto SP&S 700, SP 4449, C&O 614, N&W 611, Cotton Belt 819, B&LE 643, Reading 2102, and a bunch of other worthy locos.


Yessir - AND a couple of those engines operated successfully before-plus 2102 would have have high iron under her wheels, not subject to any Sarbanes-Oxley infused, litigation-fear fortified corporate risk management types. If it doesn't make sense for Mr. Muller-its a much tougher sell on a publicly traded "transportation enterprise".

I remember when we rebuilt 1316 way back when I remember how clean the firebox and boiler was and how "easy" the rebuild was. The air pump required little work,the running gear was in good shape and it was the cheapest overhaul at the Texas State Railroad ever. I remember seeing 5021 and 2925 in the Belen roundhouse and thinking these were the biggest locomotives on Earth (I was 12 so forgive me). The next year I got the see 2925 in Cleburne. The shop foreman said all he needed to make her run was a tender full of fuel and water and a match. A very bold statement to an impressionable 13 year old boy but also testament to the condition of the locomotive.

I have been told that the only major mechanical issue that faced the 2925 in Cleburne were 34 broken stays...

Regardless of the condition of any of the above engines (and from what I understand from ex-NS steam folks, 611 would need about $400,000+ for its Part 230 work), Sandy has made a critical point. The most important factor in any operational steam locomotive restoration is the track to run it on. Period.

IF BNSF wanted to restore a steam engine for itself, I am thinking having a place to run it would not be an issue.

Question is, therefore, why would BNSF want an engine that is not currently in operating condition.

Completely agree.

Thank you, Bob, for your input.

KL

[quote="Mgoldman) IF BNSF wanted to restore a steam engine for itself, I am thinking having a place to run it would not be an issue.

Question is, therefore, why would BNSF want an engine that is not currently in operating condition.[/quote]

IF BNSF does, probably because if they rebuild it and operate it in house, they can exercise oversight and quality control to the standard that they wish, and have complete autonomy concerning all operating criteria. From a mainline's perspectiive, more sensible than tying themselves up with an outside entity, especially a volunteer-based nonprofit, for a long-term programming commitment. I'm still in recovery from the effects of a made-in-hell partnership between an operator and owner. The buck needs to stop in one office without constant negotiation between parties of very different competences and motivations.

dave