For the record, I no longer have the proverbial dog in this fight. I gave up long ago on the prospect of this problematic situation ever being reconciled to any wholly satisfying conclusion other than restoration for display.

I am not the one who claims it would be an affront to Altoona's memory if, for example, 1361's boiler were replaced. I recognize that you can have either a historic relic or a locomotive adapted to run in the 21st century, and that the two are largely mutually exclusive in today's rail environment (see PRR "7002" and 1223 as well). And, honestly, I stopped caring a long time ago, after hearing the various reports about the cluster[bleep] going on with her at Scranton.

I'm not the one who hyped the whole "Altoona's Legacy" aspect of the 1361 and its restoration; that was a large combination of Museum administration and politicians (most notably Rick Geist), aided in no small part by local media and "slobbering Pennsy foamers," in order to procure grants, donations, and "political capital" (such as getting Conrail to let them use their shop facilities) towards the restoration. Without that expended effort and promotion, 1361 might STILL be rusting away on the Curve, and we'd be griping about that instead.

As far as I'm concerned, the Museum administrators and politicians made their bed when they hyped the "legacy" aspect of the loco, and they have paid the price ever since. It has been a VERY serious cautionary tale for anyone ever since who has fancied the idea of throwing a fire into their local park's steam locomotive and getting it running.

[quote="PRR Forever"] It's a completely illogical mindset. *** When you approach a restoration from a rational perspective, progress can be made. But that's when you have people *** jump in who would cry and moan about destroying the "historic fabric" of the locomotive. *** When in reality...it's all in their head! [/quote]

But isn't the merit of restoring the K4 to operation all in your own head anyway? What's logical, or rational, about making any of this stuff run (outside of a successful tourist or preserved railway setting where it's a component of a sound business plan)? There's nothing particularly rational or logical about going through all of this just because you and some other people think it would be really neat to see, photograph or ride behind a K4 at speed (though convincing enough railfans to pay money to ride, er, to finance your dream of seeing this happen is, I suppose, itself rational).

What is undoubtedly rational and logical is for museums to have collection-management policies that result in the preservation of their collections in accordance with accepted museum standards, as opposed to "consumption for kicks." Now, if the K4 was not a museum artifact, but belonged to you, you could certainly do whatever you wanted with it. Obviously, such is not the case.

JGC, I am a mechanical engineer, just like you were (before you died in 1933).

There would be no point in building any replacement that exactly duplicates the existing boiler of this locomotive, which was found to have compliance issues.

PC

But aren't those issues resolved by a thicker wrapper sheet? Yes, then it's not the precisely the same boiler but an adaptation where no one can see the difference. But is that even necessary? If Strasburg has an appropriate repair for this situation then, if someone ponies up the cash, that would seem the way to go, unless the boiler has other issues that make it not worthwhile in which case what form a new build would take would need to be considered.

Steve

Let's see, cautiously I enter...

A) Untold funds spent partially restoring an engine that Strasburg shops prove restorable. Finish it! Besides being "fun" to watch, the engine will tell more of it's story to a much greater audience if able to make public runs between museum stays. And I don't think the former Altoona workers would regret seeing "their" engine alive and kicking well into the next century.

B) Historic fabric -
1) Shall we cosmetically restore her to as built and strip away any and all
modifications made during her career after day one on the PRR?
2) She's not the sole surviving example, either. There's PRR #3750.
So, redo the boiler, as Strasburg has done with the LIRR engine and
"save" the historic fabric (now removed) for a display that a select
few will admire.

C) Had PRR #1361 never retired, it likely would have had the needed mod anyway.
No one is suggesting putting a diesel engine in her, though I imagine someone
will find a spot for ditch lights.

RE: The original post - thanks for the heads up!

PS - on a side note, maybe an identical boiler could be made to the exact PRR specifications using the new "Rearden Metals Steel" that I read about in Atlas Shrugged? No, OK, never mind.

/Mitch

I've heard it mentioned that the 1361, if restored to operation, would be a monument to failure. That couldn't be farther from the truth. The fact is that if restored to operation again, the 1361 would stand for success against the odds. All the controversy surrounding the boiler work, and other components of the restoration efforts would prove that the Altoona crew is as determined as ever, and that would show that any project that has suffered it's share of blockades can be done, overcome, and come out as an absolute gem.

When I said it will always be a monument to failure, I meant that I conclude that it will continue to be a monument to failure as it is now. If it is restored to operation or restored for static display, then it will not be a monument to failure.

I know a lot has been discussed and written about the boiler problems that unexpectedly confronted the restoration. Maybe somebody could provide an overview. My impression was that it required a lot of additional work above the firebox. However, I don’t understand how it has evolved from that to needing an entirely new boiler built to an entirely new design. If that were the case, then I would say the restoration to operation is out of the question. It would amount to restoring an historic K4 as an experimental hybrid. That split purpose would compromise and befuddle each prong.

So maybe somebody could describe the boiler issue for us in order to get the problem into perspective.

Try this, and read all the pages of this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23495

[quote="PCook"] There would be no point in building any replacement that exactly duplicates the existing boiler of this locomotive, which was found to have compliance issues. PC[/quote]

No kidding ... I think everyone participating in this discussion is aware of that fact.

However, you stated your opinion that an entirely different boiler design should be used, padded out so that the jacketing resembles the original. When I pointed out several consequences of different and redistributed boiler weight, from which it should be obvious that further alterations and redesigns may be required, such that we are no longer even having an "original fabric" debate but are talking about wholesale design alterations (and hence raising even more directly the question of what it actually means to "preserve" something), your response is that you're a mechanical engineer? I'm even more surprised now; should we be genuflecting?

Maybe it's time to start a thread about the possibilities of museums using interchangable nuclear reactors as replacements for 567 prime movers in their "preserved" EMD F-units. This is, of course, "Railway Preservation News," not "what could we do with old trains if museums were not saddled with pesky ethical standards," so I'm pretty sure the discussion would be very similar.

I went back and read the thread referenced above by Bill. It sounds like the locomotive needs a new external boiler sheet above the firebox, including the square corners of the Belpaire design; and also new staybolts placed in a different pattern for the new sheet. I assume that would then require a new crown sheet to match the new staybolt pattern. That does not seem to rise the point of needing a completely new boiler built to a different design.

Surely this must have been fully analyzed and set forth in an engineering report. Can anybody link to such a report?

No, it was called Metra did not want to scrap the locomotive, but a court ruling left them with no other choice. The only options the court order allowed, was to deal with the status quo, or scrap the equipment on site. They were not allowed to seize ownershop of the equipment and/or auction it off.

In essence, the owner of the locomotive gambled and called Metra's bluff. He lost, and HE should be blamed for not moving HIS engine from someone else's property.

With regards to the Metra situation I believe it was the case that no fan group or museum was able or willing to get the thing moved without getting title to it. That seems reasonable as it would be a costly operation. What I do not think was reasonable was Metra only being allowed to scrap the machine in place. Sure, that's the story--that that was what the court ordered so Metra's hands were tied. But what did they ask the court? Most likely they went and asked for a court order asking the owner to move his property by a certain date after which they could junk it.

Does anyone seriously think if Metra went before the court and said this is an irreplaceable historic artifact... Please issue an order instructing the owner to move it in so many days after which time legal ownership should be given to us and we will then attempt to pass title to a not-for-profit group* which will then take custody and move it, with scrapping it only as a last resort. ...that the court would turn them down and say, no you can only scrap it in place? What court would issue such an order if there were other options on the table? If Metra really did bring up other options then I withdraw and apologize but I'll bet the court was unaware of options that would have saved the engine.

* Or better yet have a plan worked out where the title is passed directly to a museum group who then have so many months to move it themselves.

Back to 1361...without rereading everything I was under the impression that a thicker wrapper sheet enables using the existing stay spacing which means the firebox itself (the interior sheets) can remain. Or you could go with the thinner sheets but have closer stay spacing to meet the modern requirements. Since the latter means replacing all the sheets anyway the former solution was the logical one as it means only the wrapper.

This is not speculation if Strasburg is already doing one. Raise the money and get it done.

part of technological development is a changing in construction procedures, as there may be a new way to build boilers better, trusting the historical fabric becomes dangerous for a practical operating locomotive. It represents an older technical means of doing something and tried and true or failure sets the processes for improvement.
So we have a new way to build boilers, you have a brand new "historical fabric".
You learn the success/failures and move on, I would actually encourage if the engine would fare better with a new boiler would be a success in advancing boiler design, you need to tread new waters in the steam locomotive development, and if there is an opportunity to prove steam locomotive design, prove it with this engine.

Because of age you might be adjusting things like driver spring tension and so on, thats pretty much a given even if you used the original boiler. Theres no arguements on that.

It all depends on the laws covering the corresponding jurisdiction. The law may have only allowed them to scrap the locomotive. According to the various written accounts, it appears Metra made every effort to not scrap the locomotive, but had their hand forced by the governing law and a rather eccentric owner who didn't think a government agency would follow through on a course of action that "some" thought made no sense.

From the accounts I've read, Metra was attempting to move the locomotive in conjunction with IRM. But, the court ruled that because they did not hold title to it, and by the letter of the law, it could not be moved. Only the owner could do so. It was only after the original court ruling that prohibited an outside party (who did not hold title to it) from moving it, that Metra was later granted permission to scrap it in place if the owner refused to comply with their requests to remove his property on his own accord.

IRM had lawyers in court asking for the locomotive to be saved, with IRM offering to supply funds and labor to move 5629 to Union, and the owner retaining title, but this deal was ejected by both the judge, and by the locomotives owner.

The owner would not sell, the owner would not move it, the court could not force a sale, the railroads would not move the locomotive without the owners permission

Suffice it to say, the court was presented with several alternatives, but in the end had little choice.

For several years after the scrapping, there was a picture of the partially scrapped engine posted on the IRM steam shop bulletin board, with the notation "Cause of Death: Ignorance and Stupidity".

JD