I am not sure about the effect of oxidization. Certainly it will have had an effect, but I would guess that the majority of the mass remains. In any case, I am not suggesting that the locomotive be recovered. That would probably be cost-prohibitive in the physical task and impossible in the regulatory and legal hurdles.

The best accomplishment that I can imagine is to get very clear, high quality photos of the wreck site including inside of the cab showing the back head details. My point about the non-buried details of the wreck being coated with a layer of clay silt is that it would greatly hamper a visual inspection or photographs.

Aside from incredulity, people see differing purposes in lost locomotive stories. The most common purpose is that an existing locomotive has been found and offers the opportunity to make it like new again. Yet the typical reason why locomotives are lost is that they are hard to recover. This fact makes it impractical to use them to get a head start on building a new locomotive.

What I see in lost locomotive stories is a tangible remains of equipment born in an era that has long since vanished without a trace. If such a locomotive were recovered, I think it need go no further than to tell its story. A lost locomotive tells a small part about its history, but it tells in in extensive detail. So, in my mind, the point is only about history. They say we have to study history so we don’t make the mistake of repeating it. What a depressing way to look at it; as if history is composed of nothing but painful mistakes.

I am fascinated by history, and I study it to experience it. Indeed, I wish I could repeat it.

Not sure I follow this properly.

The 'typical reason locomotives were lost' is that they were not considered COST-EFFECTIVE to recover AT THE TIME, and under the conditions, they were lost. Think for example of the lost engine(s) used to ballast down the Kaw River bridge ... obsolescent already, and not really 'worth' repairing if discovered to have been 'speared' through the firebox or boiler with a piling. This is not the same thing as using standing PRR locoomotives as expensive riprap for a while ... knowing that you can easily fish them out, fix them back up, etc.

The 'alternative' to this is engines that are 'lost' because used for an alternative purpose, like the engines in New Zealand that were 'adaptively reused' for stabilizing rivers.

In both cases, the 'interest' in them both as historical artifacts and interesting stories is far greater than a bean-counting railroad would likely consider -- and the cost to investigate, document, or even recover them very different also.

I would be tempted to say that a considerable amount of the technique and approach used to recover the Hunley would be applicable here, with the further advantage that salt water is not involved. While I hesitate to recommend that some level of 'buzz' would build up interest and potential buy-in for a recovery, as long as a proper recovery protocol is developed and followed (vs. quick and expedient 'artifact extraction') I don't see harm in it. In fact, it's kinda fun to be able to trot out a refutation to the longstanding railfan 'saw' about lost locomotive stories being more or less bunk...