I wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it...

From http://www.godfatherrails.com, the PRR in Columbus, OH modified the turntable to fit the borrowed Santa Fe 2-10-4's:

Links:
http://www.godfatherrails.com/photos/pv.asp?pid=515
http://www.godfatherrails.com/photos/pv.asp?pid=512

Pics:



See, there's the answer for Steamtown now being able to turn larger locomotives. :)

I saw that on the Godfatherrails site last night. I agree with the "if there wasn't photographs I wouldn't have believed it" thought. It is a great thing to have photos of, especially considering the two views of what it actually looked like and how it worked in service. I know that engineering calculations on the rail would show its limits, but I was surprised the rail withstood the weight as railroad rail is not a particularly rigid structural shape.

On another note, there are arguments for or against the 643's operation, but her remarkable condition certainly warrants a continued presence in an enclosed storage environment. Steamtown could provide that (as could other places). Hopefully the owner is looking for another location close by with indoor rail (a warehouse or unused factory, perhaps). I would certainly hope that the owner's personal eccentricities do not lead to another 5629 situation. I am sure many groups would have been happy to provided space for Jensen's engines and in retrospect would have figured out ways to fund the accumulated storage bills in exchange for the locomotive.

Hoping for the best...
Mike

Local railfan AJ Campbell covers these in his excellent Columbus Railroading website:

http://www.columbusrailroads.com/prr%20santa%20fe.htm

AJ says the tenders had to be almost empty and the get up was only used to get the 5000's in to the stalls for servicing, not for turning.

Bob

Jack -

Interesting idea. The B&LE 2-10-4's were nearly exact copies of a Chicago, Burlington & Quincy design. AND, 18 of them were eventually sold to the Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range. Supposedly one of Steve Sandberg's requirements is a locomotive from the upper midwest. Both the Q and the Missabe certainly qualify! I am not sure however, if the engine is roller bearing equipped (another Sandberg requirement). And she might be a bit slower and heavier than a 4-6-4 or Northern. But she sure the heck could haul a nice size train!

Les

The blind drivers were a concern, as long as the guardrailless frogs could guide them thru the frog like any other wheel (note the guardraillless frog pushes on the wheels, not the flanges. Usually the frog is not on a curve anyways.


If there was an issue on a wider tread, I would even suggest replacing the tread with a flanged one. I think Little River RR 4-6-2 had a blind center tread.
Consider what a 4-12-2 deals with, but its a west coast engine running less constraining curves.

Running on a 2 mile circle is a little far fetched, this engine is for the heavy main, cranking lots of passengers on long trains. If the druthers to keep it around Pittsburgh then there needs to be a push to run it in the region. Any existing railroad museums in Pittsburgh? Its a PCC Light Rail mecca still, so its a rail town for sure.

The 2 mile circle needs a small engine, theres still an 0-6-0 in the enginehouse at Mount Union at EBT. And BTW I was awed that the standard gauge yards at EBT were totally "there" and overgrown with large trees right in the middle of the tracks! That 0-6-0 was rather entrapped by all that.

I highly doubt 643 would fit the bill for Steve Sandberg. 643 is not capable of mainline speeds like 261, 844 or 4449. These engines were designed for slow to medium speed heavy freight trains. The drivers are less than 70" in diameter. Further, the counterbalancing on the CB&Q, DM&IR and B&LE engines were set for roughly 30 MPH. Any faster or slower and it will beat the track to death, primarily due to the lack of lightweight rods. Probably the most ideal place for 643 would be somewhere in the midwest on a shortline or regional that has former Class I mainline trackage with decent tie conditions, heavy duty CWR and few, if any, bridges!

Someone mentioned earlier that the axle loading of 643 is slightly less than 611. That may be true, but 611 was designed for high speed running and features light weight rods, something 643 does not benefit from. It's called dynamic augment...the added effect the reciprocating (non lightweigh) rods have on the track structure and add SIGNIFICANTLY to the engine's overall live load effect.

It's unfortunate that the ex-B&O/Chessie/CSX Glenwood engine and shop complex in Pittsburgh was leveled. This would facility would now be located on the AVR and have enough room and turntable length to handle 643 even it would be to bring her out in the sun periodically then put her away. I believe the restoration of 643 largely took place at this facility. The backshops had the overhead crane capacity to lift 643 when the heavy running gear repairs were done by DRS.

Edit: to answer Dave's questions: Glenn is still the sole owner as far as I know, but his intentions are an unknown. He's backed out of at least two deals where he could sell the locomotive to groups that could run it, in addition to "promising" it to the Carnegie Science Center here in Pittsburgh. Attempts to reach him today concluded that his phone's off the hook. The man can probably best be described as "squirrely."

Squirrely is not good. Just ask the CB&Q 5632 or the GTW 5629.

The CB&Q quickly rebuilt their M4 2-10-4's into high speed freight haulers by reducing the piston diameter from 32 to 28", adding roller bearings to all axles including the drivers, using light weight rods, and replacing the spoked main driver with a disc main driver.

According to my literature here, they rode smooth and caused no track damage at there maximum allowable speed of 55 MPH. They worked so well that the Q used them on heavy passenger specials, like troop trains. It's too bad none were preserved. I'd give up one of the O5's for one. I know this has very little to do with the 643, but it does show what was possible.

John.

Hello,

To comment on the last post, to my understanding, overbalance had been the standing problem with 2-cylinder steam locomotives. The revolving weight can be balanced, so to an extent heavy connecting rods were not so much and issue only that they increase crankpin stresses at high speed.

The huge problem was the reciprocating masses in the piston, rod, crosshead and part of the main rod. The heavier these masses, yawing (nosing) of the locomotive became an issue. Overbalance, helped counteract the reciprocating masses but through out the revolving balance. I believe cross-balancing helped minimize this issue along with lightweight parts. Of course the extremely impressive Timken roller rod design was the best example of applying lightweight parts.

Perhaps the C&O 614, N&W 611, NYC Niagaras, etc. had this science optimized to what was feasible. More radical designs like 3-cylinders, the ACE 3000 proposal and others would lessen or eliminate the problem all together.

Long ago, I believe I read the NYC performed high speed slip tests to analyze this phenomenon. I believe these tests were done on one of their Hudsons. They may have greased the tracks to induce slip but I believe on at least one instance, the slip was so excessive the overbalance caused the wheel to leave the rail vertically. The unbalance exceeded the axle loading. I am sure that would get interesting!

It sounds like the 643 is a thrasher (again, per Mr. Laepple's note...track squasher)

However, with those low drivers, huge cylinders and a trailer booster, she could drag half the world with her. Definitely drag-freight ready!

Imagine having full boiler pressure, the reverse gear in the corner, full rated drawbar load with a long ore train in tow. If you had good bite and were able to put almost full steam pressure to the pistons, a slip would be violent to say the least.

Regards,

Randy

If the engine does run,,, sometime.. seems obvious you will not be doing any high speed. You might look into modding the counterbalancing.
Definately the engine for the heavy freight crawl.

To me it it sounds like you pair this engine up with another engine like 765, let 765 run some speed trips and find something slow speed for 643, maybe a doublehead slow run. I don't think you could mainline 643, have to find some lesser used track.

I'm finding myself sitting here, trying to calculate how much someone like Peter Lerro, Carl Franz, or the Steam Railroading Institute would have to charge per photographer for a couple of photo freights and low-speed excursions of 643 and a loaded ore train anywhere in, say, Great Lakes or Pittsburgh territory in order to cover the costs associated with making B&LE 643 current on paperwork, etc.

[strums fingers, strokes chin, scribbles on back of envelope.........]

Ya know............. I jes' don't see it. You know?

On the other hand, maybe if the NRHS could charge per ticket to set a record for the longest/heaviest steam excursion train ever hauled by steam......... 30 or 40 cars? Maybe get Barnum & Bailey to loan their trainsets?

How do the low speed, track squashing, counterbalance concerns relate to 2-10-4 T&P 610? When it ran on the Southern in 77 and 78, I seem to remember this Texan running 55 mph (maybe 60), pulling everything in sight, and not damaging track enough that anyone noticed.

By the way, 610 will always be one of my favorites and I hope to see her again on Friday for the first time in 32 years.

David Kaplan wrote: "How do the low speed, track squashing, counterbalance concerns relate to 2-10-4 T&P 610? When it ran on the Southern in 77 and 78, I seem to remember this Texan running 55 mph (maybe 60), pulling everything in sight, and not damaging track enough that anyone noticed."

Dave, the T&P 2-10-4's were developed by Lima in their pursuit of Superpower. The CB&Q/B&LE 2-10-4's were designed and built by Baldwin. Simply put, Lima built an engine better-suited to higher speed running. Keep in mind the B&LE never improved their engines like the CB&Q because they were really not after speed, they were interested in pulling power and tractive effort. After all, they were only moving coal and ore trains less than 150 miles from Lake Erie to Pittsburgh so speed was not as important as the tonnage. 643 does not benefit from the refined, superior Lima counterbalancing advances so she rides rougher than other comparable engines. For comparison, Wes Barris' website shows that the B&LE engines were just plain bigger and heavier than the T&P engines. The B&LE engines weighed in at 524,832 lb with a TE of 84,600lb. The T&P engines weighed in at 457,500 lb and 96,700 lb TE.

Rob Gardner

As long as the 643 is well preserved who cares if it runs? I mean it will never haul a "Big Steam" passenger train at speed. And at 30 mph or so, whatever it is suited for how many people will come out other than hard core railfans for a slow trip? I would definately ride but to the public what is the appeal of a Big slow engine? I do hope that this engine finds a GOOD home sooner than later. Be it static or otherwise. I just hope it gets back under cover.

As a static display, the fully restored and complete 643 would be a more authentic exhibit than 90% of the other remaining locomotives in existence. Where most park engines have rust, 643 has painted steel. Where most park engines have either no lagging or rusted out jacketing, 643 has a full complement of lagging and jacketing, just as Baldwin intended. The big issue right now is that since its building has been demolished, how long will she sit outside? She is going to need a fire in her belly to dry out the lagging which was soaked in last weekend's rains.