...along with:
Archbar trucks
Fox Trucks
Wood Beam Trucks
Paper Wheels
Friction Bearings
Cast Iron Wheels
Wooden Cars (Ohio)
Open Cars (Ohio)
Link & Pin Couplers
Glass Windows
No Corner Steps
Footboards (non-steam)

Etc. Etc. Etc.

PS: feel free to add to the list


lamontdc@adelphia.net

> The danger of the camelback was two-fold

> First, the location of the engineer. Being
> located above the drivers would be bad if a
> rod failed. Not as great an issue in
> excursion service w/ slow speeds and such,
> but the commuter power at 70 mph...thats a
> major concern

> Second, lack of communication between
> engineer and fireman.

Consider the engineer - sandwiched between the boiler and the cab body - who had no means of escaping an oncoming obstruction, such as a shifted load on a parallel track. In a traditional cab, the crew might survive such a side-swipe.

tr2manz@frontiernet.net

I have received permission from our board of directors to investigate the feasibility of restoring #4/1187 to operation using volunteer labor and Strasburg funds for materials.

I have struggled over the years to find some fiscally responsible way to get the engine into operation. The closest I was able to come was to convert it to oil with automatic controls so a fireman would not be needed. In this form the locomotive could possibly replace #33. The numbers just didn't quite make it and I was not too thrilled about the alterations.

As soon as time and space are available we will start dismantling the engine to conduct an inspection to determine what would be needed in the way of repairs.

IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE REPAIRS WOULD BE TOO COSTLY FOR US TO UNDERTAKE. We will find out.

If we go ahead with the project, the locomotive will be restored to it's 1187 appearance with a slope back tender and it will burn antracite.

I hope this works out. Our directors appreciate the historical significance but we still must justify the expense to the shareholders of the railroad. Hopefully we will be able to recoup our investment with photo freights and things like that.

At this point all we can do is keep our fingers crossed that we don't find anything that is too costly to fix.

Strasburg Rail Road
linnwm@supernet.com

> Once again this issue or myth has raised its
> head and again, any documentation is MIA.
> George Drury in his "Guide to North
> American Steam Locomotives" (p. 59)
> stated that he was unable to find either in
> Railway Age, trade magazines, or the
> Locomotive Cyclopedia any evidence
> supporting the truth of this allegation.

> Is anyone able to cite chapter and verse on
> this supposed federal "law"?

> Dan Cupper
> Harrisburg, Pa.

I think you will find it in either the Ashpan Act or the Safety Appliance Act, as amended, if not in ICC rulings.

The construction of new camelbacks, or the rebuilding of endcab locos into camelbacks, was banned, but the continued operation of already-existing camelbacks was allowed (i.e. they were grandfathered).

Otherwise, the railroads would have kept right on building these things.

> I have received permission from our board of
> directors to investigate the feasibility of
> restoring #4/1187 to operation using
> volunteer labor and Strasburg funds for
> materials.

> I have struggled over the years to find some
> fiscally responsible way to get the engine
> into operation. The closest I was able to
> come was to convert it to oil with automatic
> controls so a fireman would not be needed.
> In this form the locomotive could possibly
> replace #33. The numbers just didn't quite
> make it and I was not too thrilled about the
> alterations.

> As soon as time and space are available we
> will start dismantling the engine to conduct
> an inspection to determine what would be
> needed in the way of repairs.

> IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE REPAIRS WOULD
> BE TOO COSTLY FOR US TO UNDERTAKE. We will
> find out.

> If we go ahead with the project, the
> locomotive will be restored to it's 1187
> appearance with a slope back tender and it
> will burn antracite.

> I hope this works out. Our directors
> appreciate the historical significance but
> we still must justify the expense to the
> shareholders of the railroad. Hopefully we
> will be able to recoup our investment with
> photo freights and things like that.

> At this point all we can do is keep our
> fingers crossed that we don't find anything
> that is too costly to fix.
Hope the inspection has positive results. I remember seeing her in steam at birdsboro as an 8 year old in 1960. I'd definately pay for the pleasure of a photo freight with this little jewel.

bas1210@comcast.net

Linn,

Linn,

Thanks for responding to this thread. I'm sure we all appreciate hearing the straight story right from you.

By the way, nice job by you and your staff this past weekend!

-Alan Levy

alanl759@aol.com

The Lokie in Ashland has a wide firebox and burns anthracite. It's a 3' gauge 0-4-0T with an end cab but under the saddle is a genuine wide firebox.

The train starts back up on weekends in May. There's a mine tour with an electric mine motor as well. See http://www.pioneertunnel.com/

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

An old Trains magazine that I have from the early 1940's calls these locomotives "Mother Hubbards" not camelbacks. The magazine goes on to say that a true camelback had the entire cab on top of the boiler. These were apparently such in the mid 1800's, per what was written in the magazine.

dougnleffler@yahoo.com

> By the way, nice job by you and your staff
> this past weekend!

> -Alan Levy

Alan,

I could post a similar comment for every visit to Strasburg.

Linn, your team continues to impress year in and year out, good weather and bad.

Rob

rdavis@rypn.org

Steam REalist wrote:
> I think you will find it in either the
> Ashpan Act or the Safety Appliance Act, as
> amended, if not in ICC rulings.
> The construction of new camelbacks, or the
> rebuilding of endcab locos into camelbacks,
> was banned, but the continued operation of
> already-existing camelbacks was allowed
> (i.e. they were grandfathered).
> Otherwise, the railroads would have kept
> right on building these things.

Right, I have no argument with any of the reasoning on this, and what I've heard/read dovetails with all of it. One plausible tale is that the ICC, mortified when LNE bought new Baldwin camelback 0-8-0s 120-122 in Sept. 1927, reacted with this supposed ban on new construction. One month later, Baldwin began delivering conventional-cab 0-8-0s to LNE and did so through 1931. Nothing to prove the connection, however.

And that's what I'm getting at. Those who continue to cite this supposed government action (which, given the federal love affair with paperwork, shouldn't be hard to find) never seem to be able to pin it down. Was it law/CFR, rulings, understandings among inspectors? Nobody knows.

For something supposedly as black and white as a federal law, this one has taken on a hundred shades of gray over the last 50 or more years. With profound respect to those who've posted here on the topic, those shades of gray always seem to start with the words (me included--see above),"I think...", "I read that...", or "my understanding is...".

It would be great to be able to finally see this settled, so let's thank Erik in advance for his willingness to try to research this, and let's wish him success and happy hunting.

Dan Cupper
Harrisburg, PA



cupper@att.net

Just a thought. Could the supposed ban on Camelbacks and "deckless" locomotives have come from the United States Railway(road?) Administration? Government control of the railroads lasted for a while after the end of both World Wars.
mw


p_michael_warren@yahoo.com

> Just a thought. Could the supposed ban on
> Camelbacks and "deckless"
> locomotives have come from the United States
> Railway(road?) Administration? Government
> control of the railroads lasted for a while
> after the end of both World Wars.
> mw

It didn't last into the late '20's, though.

The ban resulted after several serious and some fatal accidents, and pressure from the BLE and BLF&E.

It was NOT voluntary.

> RDG rebuilt end cab engines into camelbacks
> as late as 1929. It was my understanding the
> ICC was leaning on RDG to get out of the
> road camelback business by the end of 1948;
> hence the rebuild program for the I-9
> 2-8-0's to replace I-8 camelbacks on local
> freights. (and new G-3 4-6-2's to bump G-1's
> to replace L-7 4-6-0's)

By 1948, the Reading had 30 nice shiny powerful T-1 4-8-4 engines and some new EMD FT engines to handle road freights. In addition, the drivers from the 30 I-10 2-8-0s that had supplied boilers and other parts for the T-1s were retrofitted to some I-9 2-8-0s. They had also jazzed up the big K-1 2-10-2s to speed them up, and even some of the old Bullmoose M-1 2-8-2s had been rebuilt. I suspect that the old I-8 class 2-8-0s were pretty well used up by 1948. I don't believe the ICC had much to do with the decision to retire those engines in favor of newer, more powerful steam or diesel power. As for passenger power, the Reading, like every other railroad after WWII, suffered a precipitous decline in passenger trains, thus allowing the Pacifics to run outtheir miles on commuter trains. Another note, the RDG had a class of 0-6-0 yard goats with boilers that "looked" camelback but sported end cabs. It would be interesting to learn why they ended up that way.

K4s1361@hotmail.com

> The Lokie in Ashland has a wide firebox and
> burns anthracite. It's a 3' gauge 0-4-0T
> with an end cab but under the saddle is a
> genuine wide firebox.

Isn't that line 42-inch gauge?

K4s1361@hotmail.com

Linn,

Thanks for the info. I am thrilled that you are taking a look at the possibility of restoring 1187. Who could ask for more? I hope that the numbers make sense, but if they don't, I will simply be happy that the attempt was made.

I have a question and a suggestion. If restoring it to operating staus is too costly, will it be cosmetically restored (possibly without new tender) as you mentioned? As for my suggestion, if the numbers don't work, will you consider starting a "Help Restore 1187" fund raising campaign. I know I would be willing to donate money and many people would as well, I am sure. I am no accountant, and maybe since the Strasburg Rail Road is not a non profit, this is not possible. But maybe an outside organization could be formed, something like Friends of 1187, that could accept donations and then funnel them to the "volenteers" who would restore it.

Thanks again for the effort and all the great work.

Paul

plc95@yahoo.com