So what most of this sounds like is that in preservation, 0-8-0’s are fairly rare locomotives. And the ones that are preserved are ones that would require a lot more than most locomotives due to how worn out they are.

It’s not impossible, CNJ 113 was restored and that thing was beaten up, so if there’s a will, it can be done.

But, it’s unlikely.

It is absolutely true. The 31 offers a "shake and bake" ride.

0-8-0's are caught in a bad position when it comes to operational preservation. They were not the most saved class because they were viewed as small insignificant yard switchers during the steam era when everyone wanted a Pacific or Northern on display in their local park. 0-6-0's were versatile enough to get the job done on smaller routes and were easier to save than an 0-8-0 due to the amount they were worth in scrap and probably presented the problem that is the weight on the drivers as previously mentioned in the thread. GTW fans got super lucky when P.W Dillon, owner of NWSW at the time noticed what nice condition the GTW had kept them in and decided to use them until his death in 1980. They could be bounced around or even derailed without having to worry about any major repairs unlike a diesel which is part of the reason they stuck around so long. NWSW also had stockpiles of parts on the ready from when they scrapped a good chunk of the Midwest railroads steam fleet which is how GTW switchers at NWSW got their CB&Q Mars lights off of the 4-8-4's.


Most of the 0-8-0's that were saved from scrappers or mills who chose to use them after the steam era (were the L&N ones used at a mill? I haven't heard that story) were beaten up because these yards didn't have to follow FRA standards but instead only had to follow state boiler codes. Northwestern Steel and Wire when they donated the GTW 0-8-0's in 1980 made IRM promise they would never attempt to operate any of them again because the mill was well aware what poor condition they had kept them in. IRM made sure to pass this promise when they sold the other 6 they had on the siding in Galt, IL around 2007. I'd think if IRM chose 8380 when they had to pick one to move to Union that it's probably in the best condition out of all of the 0-8-0's in the lot. 8305 being the hands down worst condition even to this day.


Other 0-8-0's are just way too historically significant that museums that own them will see them leave the property "over my dead body". As for what constitutes for being "too nice to restore" that's a discussion for another thread but I'd argue there are some locomotives that deserve that title.

The best condition any 0-8-0's are in will be at the MOT in St Louis but those aren't going to budge, so that leaves you with 4 that could POSSIBLY run: DM&N 806, FEC 253, IC 3525, and KCS 1023. IC 3525 has the best shot at running because according to Steamlocomotive.com "Operated briefly at the Stone Mountain Railroad in 1969 until it was found to have too long of a wheelbase for the curves. From the North Carolina Transportation Museum, Spencer, NC" which probably means the least amount of work will need to be performed to get her running. I can't speak for the rest I have listed.

I don't think it's impossible to see another 0-8-0 run in the future, I think it's even possible to get one of the Northwestern Steel and Wire locomotives running. (yes, even 8305 even if it means replacing almost every part she has) If enough funds and dedication is there. Just takes the right group, the right place, and the right time. If we can see a Big Boy converted to oil to run, or a C&O Mallet running in WM colors up and down Maryland grades, I think we could see an 0-8-0 operate in the not so distant future.

GTW Dude -

I believe there even was a fairly recent attempt to restore Florida East Coast 0-8-0 #253 to operation. That attempt has apparently now been abandoned and the 253 moved to U.S. Sugar property there in Florida.

Les

IC 3525 has been on display in a park near me for quite a while now. Not sure of the condition. I keep meaning to swing by there and take some pics.

Greetings:

GTW Dude is correct: I chose 8380 to bring to the Illinois Railway Museum because it "appeared" to be in the best condition of the lot. It had a nearly new set of tires and the rod bearings weren't too loose on the crank pins.

Appearances can be deceiving.

After preparing the locomotive for it's trip, on it's own wheels, from Sterling to Union, we left late one afternoon on the C&NW in a freight train headed to West Chicago with a 25 MPH speed restriction.

We hadn't gone more than a couple of miles when the locomotive began to vibrate. The vibrations increased until I was unable to stand in the cab so I moved to the tender deck. The vibrations continued to increase, cab windows fell out.

Then, suddenly, the vibrations totally ceased, only to begin again. I signaled to stop. I inspect the locomotive and could find nothing amiss, so we continued on. The cycle of increasing vibrations, vibrations suddenly stopping and then repeating continued. I had the locomotive set out at Dixon.

I still couldn't find anything wrong but theorized that perhaps the crank pins were slightly out of quarter (NWS&W didn't have a quartering machine) so I dropped the side rods and loaded them on the tender.

The next day we set off again in the consist of a way freight and pretty much the same thing happened so I had the crew run at 10 MPH to the next town and set us off again and called the dispatcher. He didn't want to tie up their main line hauling us all the way to West Chicago at 10 MPH, but agreed to continue the move having the way freight move us along one town at a time each day, running at 10 MPH between towns.

Watching the drivers turn while setting us off (again), I saw what (I think) was the problem: the drivers weren't all turned to the exact same diameter so they didn't rotate at the same rate.

It took us several days, but eventually we made it to West Chicago where their line to Rockford (and Union) branches off. and the next day to Union.

8380 was the only locomotive to frighten me while moving it...

J.David

.

I pondered it as an aside earlier in this thread, but I am curious whether or not (and if so, to what degree) a third cylinder would help balance out the hunting. Or, is the hunting (or yaw) more of a direct result of the wheelbase characteristics and lack of lead truck, rather than the power strokes? The wheelbase/no pilot truck is probably more responsible, in my mind, but would that third cylinder have any effect whatsoever?

Sure wish the New Haven or IHB switch crews were still around to ask about how they liked their 3-cylinder switchers. Fortunately there is still one left, at any rate.

One question from a hazy memory about the engines from Northwestern Steel & Wire - How many of the 0-8-0's are truly that wheel arrangement? Weren't at least some of them shorn of a lead truck to fit around the mill's square curves? Being born in Rock Falls & growing up just across the river from the mill one heard lots of things but I did enjoy steam whistles at almost any hour. According to a family friend who was a machinist at the mill they needed to allow far more slop in the rod brasses just to get the 0-8-0's around those corners...........mld

Talk about yaw. IRM was running Commonwealth Edison 5, an 80 ton 0-6-0, during the years I was active, and I had a strange experience one night as switchman. I dismounted to line a switch, caught the cab steps, climbed all the way up to the deck (it was raining, and the cab was warm) only to realize that we were still going straight. Had I really forgotten to line the switch, or lined it twice? It had been a looong day, but I didn't think I was that fatigued. I pondered that for a couple seconds when, all of a sudden, all the scenery visible out the front cab window swung about ten degrees to the right. it had taken about forever before the engine started following the curve.

As much as I wish one had been a former GTW 2-8-0, they were all built as 0-8-0’s. I don’t know who said it but I recall somebody saying something along the lines of “They were the only steam locomotives you could hear the side rods clanking before you even got a sight of one.” I had always thought this was due to the minimal maintenance done to the locomotives, not because of turn radiuses in the yard.

Could we ask the Brits about this? Several goods locomotives in the UK were 0-6-0’s and occasionally 0-8-0’s. I’m not sure how many of them had more than two cylinders but I’d imagine there were a few that did.

(And I’m aware it’s a very different situation, considering these locomotives also had larger wheel spacing, but hey, just throwing out ideas here.).

I think you are conflating two different groups of engines. The 0-8-0 engines were used as built. However, I recall hearing the story that, before they came on the scene, NWSW tried removing the pilot and engine trucks from some ten coupled engines... with predictable results. Luckily, in a steel mill it's easy to make your engineering failures disappear quickly. Wish I could find a citation for the story.

Dennis -

One engine that I know of that had its pilot wheels removed was a short line railroad 2-6-2 originally built for the St. Louis & O'Fallon Railway by Baldwin in 1927. The engine passed through a couple of subsequent owners including the Manufacturers Railway and then the River Terminal Railway before ending up working for Republic Steel in Birmingham, Alabama. One of those subsequent owners loped off the pilot wheels converting the engine into an 0-6-2. The engine ended up being preserved at the Heart of Dixie Museum but she has since been moved to a small depot museum in Lynnville, Tennessee where, I believe, they set an axle with wheels in front of the drivers to make her look, at least, like the Prairie that Baldwin had meant her to be.

Les

The behaviour of a locomotive on the track depends what it was designed to do and especially whether the balance of the reciprocating masses has been worked out for a given speed.

Many British 0-6-0 designs - and 0-8-0 for that matter, had inside cylinders, even in industrial use, and were often quite steady at speed.

For example, a friend of mine admits to having driven an LMS 3F at up to 50mph; this is a long wheelbase machine and designed for such speeds; the interesting thing is that Hunslet built a batch of these and copied certain elements of the design into the Austerity saddletanks bult for the War Department, including the cylinder block, connecting rods and crank axle. However, the Austerities have smaller wheels and a shorter wheel base and are not designed for higher speeds; they are perfectly happy up to about 20mph but not higher and at around 25mph they will start consuming water at an alarming rate. These are good, strong and very robust engines for heritage use.

However, I also had experience of an outside cylindered 0-6-0t by Robert Stephenson & Hawthorns, nicknamed Zebedee after a TV puppet who violently bounced around on a spring. Someone at another railway had done calculations and poured about 3 cwt of lead into the drivers to try to improve the ride, but at around 15mph soup was off the menu in the dining coach. This is the same design as the "Flying Duchess", and built purely to shunt long strings of coal trucks into power station tipplers at a walking pace.