"JIM1522" Even though this post is about the SP 4460 I want to say "THANKS" to you and the other members of the St. Louis Steam Train Assocation for bringing out the Frisco 1522 for steam lovers like myself to enjoy. I never did get a chance to see the 1522 acutally run in person but I have enjoyed the videos I have of that engine and just love the 1522's "Stack talk". Thanks again for some GREAT memories !!

Paul, I like your line of thinking and have shared it here many times but usually the silence is deafening. For all those who cry about the fact that no NYC Hudsons or Mohawks, Milwaukee Road Hiawathas or other such engines were preserved, it would be very reasonable for 6 to 12 guys to form a 501c3, pool there assets and talents, a build one or more "missing" engines in 12" or 3" scale/15" gauge.

It is interesting that you suggest they work on a scale replica of an engine in the MOT collection when just 2 years ago, WF&P unveiled a new 12" gauge 4-8-2. While it is a generic 4-8-2 built with House of David slide valve cylinders and small drivers, it only takes a couple good sharp heads with an eye for detail to turn give this engine that "Frisco 1522" flair and really connect with the local railroad history in the area. Maybe the two groups should talk? For starters, a set of Commonwealth trucks and a tender following the lines and profile of the 1522's, a pair of air tanks on top of the boiler, a proper Pyle National headlight with a silver graphite smokebox and you're on your way! BTW, I love what the WF&P has done for so many years and it is apparent that they are growing and thriving with a record number of steam engines in service or nearly in service and more RR under construction!

Rob Gardner

Which is the hard way to do it anyway. Seriously - museums do NOT want outsiders walking in with grand plans for their property. For one, they are almost always insulted that you think you can do better than they. For another they are miffed that you don't just participate.

The best strategy is to infiltrate the museum. Show up and volunteer, go along with whatever they are doing. Learn how they plan restorations - for instance at WRM, we do a study which determines scope of work, estimated time and costs. Then "go active". Generally groups don't mind if a trusted volunteer takes a special interest in a unit. Do the planning like they do it. A complete study that is "shovel ready" has a tremendous appeal.

then hod did the 261 or the 611 or 1522 get out of the museums

In the case of the 611, someone with a LOT more money and resources than the Virginia Museum of Transportation did--i.e. Norfolk Southern--stepped up with a firm business plan and the dollars. And it's happening all over again with 630, 610, and 4501 at the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum.

There are those who would make the argument that what the National Railway Museum in Green Bay did with regards to MILW 261--16 years ago and this year--was totally against "proper" museum guidelines and curatorial practices. Though the long-range outcome is certainly more satisfying to those of us trackside with cameras and riding behind 261 (or, as I did, "Lackawanna 1661"), such a practice can set the stage for having to "rescue" a prized, previously-"preserved" locomotive or car from a bankruptcy auction or scrapper several states away and several years later. (This is no criticism of either Sandberg or NRM, just a cynical look at what such practices could lead to if improperly executed.)

Edited due to gaining several years' maturity

C&O 2716 is an example of good intentions gone bad. It is my understanding the lease with Southern called for 2716 to be returned to KRM in operable condition. Unfortunately, the terms of the lease also made it too easy for NS to just sit on the locomotive instead of returning it in a timely fashion when they were done with it. Of course, everything worked out in the end but, it could have gone much worse.

(I should note that KRM probably wasn't begging to have it back all those years either as they had moved a few times and started up their operations. At the same time 2716 was stored indoors the whole time she was away from KRM.)

Mr. Hanson, your observations are wildly inaccurate, and misguided at best. I've been a volunteer at the Museum of Transportation (they haven't been the National Museum of Transport in many years, probably since before you were born), for over six years. Within weeks of moving to St. Louis to start law school, I contacted the museum office, and was asked to show up one day, fill out some paperwork and give them a copy of my driver’s license. I was 24 when I volunteered, so I know it isn't some sort of age discrimination. Since I started volunteering, we've welcomed other volunteers, and I always see new faces.

I would say 80-90% of the serious restoration work that goes on at MOT is done with volunteer work, including all of the streetcar restorations. The work on the MOPAC obs car was done by volunteers. Volunteers are working to repaint the NYC Mohawk. Volunteers operate the streetcars, and the track work and overhead work is done by, yep, volunteers.

Your observations about the paid staff are as off base as your observations about the volunteer corps. Many of the paid staff are employees of St. Louis County, and work in the parks department. For them, MOT is a job at a park. Nothing wrong with this, but they have a job to do, and leave much of the public interaction to the volunteer staff. The volunteer group I've been associated with at MOT has always received help and support from the paid staff, who often have gone out of their way to assist.

If you and your friends are serious about volunteering at MOT, contact me off list, and I'll put you in touch with the right people. Otherwise, if you intent is to just bash MOT and the dedicated and hardworking volunteer and professional staff, I advise you to move on and make your statements elsewhere.

One thing I've often been curious about is whether the single-headlight smokebox door from #4460 would fit on #4449. I've grown to love #4449's looks over the years, but have heard it expressed by others (and I can see their point of view) that the double-headlight smokebox door is pretty ugly compared to the original (and later) single-headlight versions. Borrowing #4460's smokebox door (or fabricating a duplicate) would really change up the look of #4449, and it could be temporarily renumbered, too, as other locomotives have.

Edited due to gaining several years' maturity

I actually had a chance last Spring to visit both MOT and the WF&P and ride behind the 982. Nice running locomotive, and a really nice group of people. Sort of what gave me the idea of suggesting a collaboration between the two organizations. I also enjoyed talking to the volunteers I met at the MOT the day before, mostly very knowledgeable, and most willing to talk in-depth when they realized I was not just another "daisy picker".

I've been in on other discussions on this forum before about the use of large-scale models in recreating operating locomotives that no longer exist. When you already have the basic grand-scale infrastructure like MOT does, as well as a skilled group of steam builders and mechanics close by, it strikes me as being a somewhat logical solution to getting something rideable built in a realistic timeframe.

Many volunteers work on Saturdays. Some prefer not to work during the summer, because of the notorious hot St. Louis summers. Many volunteers work during the week, like on Thursdays. Even more come on Sunday. Just because you don't see us, doesn't mean we don't exist. Let me know if you want to visit, and I'll give you a personal tour and show you all of the work volunteers have done over the past several years.

I don't work on the Mohawk, nor did I claim to. My group works on the streetcars. The group is well into restoring a St. Louis PCC car, where almost all of the extensive metal work was done by volunteers. We tend to hide in the shop, out of public view.

While I do not speak for MOT in an official or unofficial capacity, I do find the discussion fascinating.

However, to throw some water on the idea, how does such an expenditure of manpower, money and resources further your preservation goal? It seems to me that such a project is best suited for when the museum has restored all of the pieces of equipment in its collection, even just cosmetically, and there are no other pressing needs to attend to. How do you justify the project to potential donors, if you have one or more steam locomotives that need cosmetic attention? It seems to me that some could accuse you of just wanting to "play train" rather than do the serious work of railway preservation. Not my opinion, just an idea to throw out.

The discussion started out dealing with people who want to see a steam locomotive operate in conjunction with the MOT, partly as a way of elevating the profile of the museum and attracting more patrons. Doing those things would lead to more revenue for the museum, better PR, and hopefully more favorable treatment from the people in the county allocating resources to the museum so they can afford to restore more of the collection. My suggestion to build a smaller, but large-scale operating model of some type of locomotive that was not preserved, to operate on existing track at the museum, was intended to be an alternative to the nearly prohibitive costs of trying to restore a mainline locomotive to operation, and cover the overhead costs of trying to run public trips with it in today's environment. Trying to do that project does not preclude work on the existing artifacts in the collection. Hopefully, having the working model increases revenue and interest in the museum, making it easier to fund the other work - which was the original goal of restoring a full-size engine to operating, right?

If anybody can demonstrate through good business practices a need for an operating full size locomotive at MOT let him speak now or forever hold his peace.

dave