That they can still milk the cow after slaughtering her for beef?

Regionality is nonsense when creating a national technological icon. Let's please transcend it.

dave

BTW- does anyone know if the main rods for this engine are safely stored somewhere? If they are, why hasn't the museum bothered to re-install them in the last ~30 years?

If they are gone, I'm sure Strasburg could turn out a set like they did for that Western Maryland engine.

Dave:

Of course you are correct. Regionality in this instance is irrelevant. I amended my post accordingly to acknowledge that fact.

But my question still stands in hopes that someone from NRM sees the question and fashions a reply. The question isn't an idle or rhetorical one, at least to me. I really want to know where NRM is coming from.

Thanks!

Clearly I'm misunderstanding something. So...if regionality is irrelevant then the Minnesota Streetcar Museum would find operation of, say, a Galveston, Texas streetcar appropriate and worthy of your efforts?

My understanding of U. S. geography includes Ohio and West as part of the Midwest, I believe encompassing 11 states altogether. I have always considered myself, as a native Ohioan, to be a Midwesterner, and I think most people I know here would also consider themselves to be Midwesterners. The Northeast is usually considered as starting at the PA state line. A number of Midwestern colloquialisms start around Ohio (like saying pop instead of soda, or tonic up Howard P's way). MD (don't get me started on Baltimore-eze, Hon, I might just want to come down and see your train garden outside your club room), DE and VA constitute the Mid-Atlantic, but NJ is sometimes lumped into that group as well .

I do think that for the Friends purposes, they are looking for locomotives from Railroads based in the Midwest, like around Chicago or West. The locomotives on the West Coast are probably too far West for what they have in mind.

Geez Louise!

If I'd known that my comment in a previous post about regionality would raise the dust this much, I wouldn't have offered my 2-cents worth. I've editted that post to eliminate any comments to re-focus on the question I really want to put out there. What is the thinking behind NRM's decision to take back the 261?

My comment on regionality related only to the situation with the 261. The mission of the Minnesota Streetcar Museum remains as stated in the various documents posted on our website. If you're interested you can go and see what they say. We have rejected cadavers in the recent past because they did not fit into our Museum's collection policy.

Thanks!

Slow down Jim, it's not about your mention of regionality. That comes from Mr. Sandberg's remarks as reported here that he wants a midwestern engine.

I observed that the discussion seems to center on lines going west of Chicago in light what generally constitutes the midwest. In case my understanding is distorted I consulted Wikipedia's definition which runs from the Dakotas to Ohio.

This will be a completely moot point since they don't exist but I believe that if there were nice, modern, roller-bearing engines extent from, say, IC, Alton, Monon, CGW, etc. they would be very low in consideration despite being solidly midwest. And there are engines from Grand Trunk which is 100% midwest.

ATSF and RI both had substantial mileage in the midwest as well.

Hence my point that maybe they really mean Twin Cities and not midwest. This is not a complaint; it's simply an observation. That's where they are based and it makes sense to prefer an engine that once ran there or at least was owned by a line that went there.

Steve

Keeping in mind that the Sanbergs are in the excursion business, I can see how regionality might be less important than it would be if they were strictly a museum operation. After all, the people who are really going to notice the difference are the ones out chasing, not the ones buying the tickets, or so the conventional wisdom goes. On the other hand, the trips with 261 pulling a mostly matched Hiawatha-livery consist on the former Milwaukee Road route along the Mississippi were a roaring success. Could the same be said for Reading 2100 in Tacoma with her goofy "Ferroeqqus" livery? I think not!

Ultimately, the importance of regionality in the selection of a 261 replacement is going to be up to Mr. Sandberg himself.

I think it comes down to this one fact... when you put your money where your mouth is you get to choose. Which is why there is an Alco PA being restored as a NKP engine and a blue pacific is pulling excursions here in the East. I am sure Steve and his associates will be choosing something that makes good sense but also something they are going to enjoy. After all, it is a labor of love.

IRM has CB&Q 3007 4-6-4, steam locomotive.com lists it as restoration candidate, IRM may probably be more friendly for outside help restoration work.
They may not be "hurting" that much as a museum.

There is a certain truth about regionality. First the railroads got a locomotive designed for their line, Run them on another line you will find various details that doesnt make them fit for that line.

The recently saved Lost Engines 4-8-0's were made and built chosen for the N&W needs. Near the end of steam one was sold to another railroad and it did not perform to their needs, eventually scrapped.

4449's recent trip to Owosso showed clearance problems at Chicago, 4449 is a wide bodied Northern, made for the SP. 4449 had to runaround clearance issues then continue to Owosso.

A Big Boy can't run on the East Coast, probably some too sharp curves and clearances and no turntables to turn it on. Even in the steam era. The Lima 2-6-6-6 is more powerful than the big boy but it had to fit on east turntables.
Fatter Boiler, larger tender but shorter with rear 8 wheel trucks to support the weight. Fits on east coast turntables and makes clearances and curves.

The choice of an engine to run still rides on regionality and where it can run effectively.

While I think it'd be great to see a Hudson in service again, I wonder how well they'd do with the typical 15-20+ car excursion train. My one ride behind #2839 on the Southern back in the 70's resulted in a stalled train trying to leave Columbia, SC that necessitated diesel assist to get out of town. Granted the CB&Q Hudsons are a little stouter, but 4 driving axles would seem to be the minimum acceptable size for reliably pulling excursion trains without always having to rely on diesel assistance.

Hmm, come to think of it, too bad none of the CB&Q 2-10-4's were preserved. Of course, that long rigid wheelbase would present a whole 'nother set of operating problems.

I think that narrows it down to only a few engines and classes.
There are some other 4-8-4's out there and 4-8-2's, I would even reccomend the C&O 2-6-6-2. A few 2-8-2's are around, the NKP mikado in Hammond is being restored cosmeticaly for now, the GTW 765 is at Gary.

I'll admit up front that I've never ridden a Sandberg excursion, so I may be way off here, but is anyone really getting away with running main-line excursion without a back-up diesel cut into the consist? Not that I necessarily want to advocate the R&N model, (which some people accuse of letting the diesel do all the real work with #425 on the point for show, which is a debate/argument/shouting match for another thread,) but if you have to have a diesel in the consist anyway, I wouldn't think it'd be a big worry to cut it in now and again if a 4-6-4 gets in over her head. A CB&Q Hudson is indeed fairly stout for three-couple power.

Personally, I can't help but advocate restoring actual PASSENGER power for excursion service. How many of the current crop of excursion locomotives were out-and-out passenger engines in regular service? 4449? I'm sure there are a few others but the Lima Berks are fast freight engines, 611 has been cold for 15 years now, and as "right" as 261 looked with that orange consist, the Hiawatha she ain't.

If we want to throw out some pipe dreams, what would be involved in reconstructing #4000's long-gone shrouding? ;)

Seems to this midwestern (yes, Ohio is in the midwest) boy NYC 3001 might be in the running. The WOW factor would be huge. It has the power, designed for dual use, the loco was inspected in detail some years ago and found fit for restore (and mainline use) and apparently is pretty complete. Too bad it isn't roller bearing.


http://www.columbusrailroads.com/photogallery/nyc1_1l.jpg


http://www.columbusrailroads.com/photogallery/nyc1_5l.jpg

"Personally, I can't help but advocate restoring actual PASSENGER power for excursion service."

Think about one of the key attributes (weakness) of steam that is often overlooked in the accounts of its demise. Power production is extremely dependent on speed,so a locomotive was designed to produce its peak power within an limited intended speed range.

It might be visually interesting to see an 75-80" inch drivered "actual passenger" engine, but the reality of the 21st century is that sustained speeds above 50mph-the "operating envelope" of steam era passenger trains isn't in the cards today.

Given that the vast majority of excursions will likely be going 40 or less most of the time, do you want a passenger engine that produces peak power @ 50 or a freight engine that's going to peak out at 30-40?

If you have 10 or more heavyweights, plus a canteen on your drawbar and you want to make it up a 1.5% grade, a heavy Mike or Berk with 60,000 plus lb of TE is the answer that maximizes passenger revenue and minimizes the risk of stalling.

If you read Baldwin sales literature from the 30's, they consistently treated steam's power production at high speeds as a strength, when an awful lot of railroading was done at far lower speeds.