| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| NG equipment possiblities for GeorgetownLoop https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10565 |
Page 1 of 6 |
| Author: | jd johnson [ Fri Aug 13, 2004 2:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NG equipment possiblities for GeorgetownLoop |
For those interested in available equipment, check out www.discoverlivesteam.com. On the For Sale page, there is a 36"gauge train for sale. It is a Crown Locomotive and comes with cars. Just trying to help because I know there are a lot of eyes on Georgetown at this point. Take care, JD mnfrailhist@hotmail.com |
|
| Author: | Ted Krumreich [ Fri Aug 13, 2004 6:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NG equipment possiblities for GeorgetownLoop |
JD, our locomotives at Georgetown develop between 23,000 and 25,000 pounds of tractive effort. The locomotive you see in that ad is suitable for service on flat track, amusement park operation, not a 3.5-4% mountain railroad pulling 9 cars. Ted Krumreich Engineer Georgetown Loop Railroad, Inc. tedloco@aol.com |
|
| Author: | Tom Cornillie [ Fri Aug 13, 2004 6:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NG equipment for GeorgetownLoop - Replica? |
Might this be a good time for an operator to team up with a historical society and/or railfan group to build a replica for operation on the loop. Off hand, I think a C&S or DSP&PRR locomotive would illustrate the line's heritage without destroying the historic fabirc of the few surviving locomotives. Likewise, a Utinah Mallett may be a good choice from an operating standpoint. altoonaroundhouse@umich.edu |
|
| Author: | Ted Krumreich [ Fri Aug 13, 2004 6:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NG equipment for GeorgetownLoop - Replica? |
> Do you have any idea of the costs of developing the patterns for casting parts such as cylinder saddles, truck frames, boiler supports, etc. from blueprints that possibly no longer exist, not to mention fabricating a boiler that meets modern code requirments? This is a nice idea in theory, in practicality, the costs simply are excessive and cannot be returned from a business standpoint for a tourist railroad. If they could be, we'd have already seen replicas of New York Central Hudsons roaming around!!! And again, the C&S and DSP&P locomotives did not develop enough tractive effort to haul the trains we currently do. Ted Krumreich Might this be a good time for an operator to > team up with a historical society and/or > railfan group to build a replica for > operation on the loop. Off hand, I think a > C&S or DSP&PRR locomotive would > illustrate the line's heritage without > destroying the historic fabirc of the few > surviving locomotives. Likewise, a Utinah > Mallett may be a good choice from an > operating standpoint. tedloco@aol.com |
|
| Author: | Wooly [ Fri Aug 13, 2004 6:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NG equipment for GeorgetownLoop - Replica? |
But Ted to listen to CHS they have the worlds largest money tree...........Wooly > Do you have any idea of the costs of > developing the patterns for casting parts > such as cylinder saddles, truck frames, > boiler supports, etc. from blueprints that > possibly no longer exist, not to mention > fabricating a boiler that meets modern code > requirments? This is a nice idea in theory, > in practicality, the costs simply are > excessive and cannot be returned from a > business standpoint for a tourist railroad. > If they could be, we'd have already seen > replicas of New York Central Hudsons roaming > around!!! > And again, the C&S and DSP&P > locomotives did not develop enough tractive > effort to haul the trains we currently do. > Ted Krumreich > Might this be a good time for an operator to wooly421@charter.net |
|
| Author: | Roger Mitchell [ Fri Aug 13, 2004 9:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NG equipment possiblities for GeorgetownLoop |
Just as important as the tractive effort to get a train up a hill is the brakes to get it down the hill in one piece. In addition to that is the skill reqired of an engineer to operate those brakes to accomplish that goal. You just don't take any greenhorn engineer, point him down a 4% grade, and expect him to make it to the bottom intact. Roger Mitchell Master Mechanic: Fort Collins Municipal Railway http://www.fortnet.org/trolley n0mcr@netzero.com |
|
| Author: | Jerry C Huck [ Sat Aug 14, 2004 1:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NG equipment for GeorgetownLoop - Replica? |
> Do you have any idea of the costs of > developing the patterns for casting parts > such as cylinder saddles, truck frames, > boiler supports, etc. from blueprints that > possibly no longer exist, not to mention > fabricating a boiler that meets modern code > requirments? This is a nice idea in theory, > in practicality, the costs simply are > excessive and cannot be returned from a > business standpoint for a tourist railroad. > If they could be, we'd have already seen > replicas of New York Central Hudsons roaming > around!!! > And again, the C&S and DSP&P > locomotives did not develop enough tractive > effort to haul the trains we currently do. > Ted Krumreich > Might this be a good time for an operator to Actually Ted, SVRR is seriously working towards building a pair of replicas of the "Uintah" mallets in their Sumpter Valley configuration. While expensive, the project is quite doable and plans are moving forward nicely. Jerry C Huck, Manager of Operations, Sumpter Valley Railway Sumpter Valley Railway lmcx@eoni.com |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Sat Aug 14, 2004 9:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NG equipment for GeorgetownLoop - Replica? |
> Actually Ted, SVRR is seriously working > towards building a pair of replicas of the > "Uintah" mallets in their Sumpter > Valley configuration. > While expensive, the project is quite doable > and plans are moving forward nicely. So then the REAL question becomes, would it be possible for the SVRR, CHS, Durango & Silverton, or heck even the EBT, to unite their efforts to bring down total costs? The SVRR stuff becomes cheaper, CHS gets an expendable loco to operate (and so would EBT), and, done right, there would be a pile of parts (cylinder castings, drivers, valve gear, etc.) that could be assembled into a couple different fully functional (albeit non-prototypical) free-design steamers for, say, Six Flags or Disney. Do the "marketing" up front and let the groups do the fundraising ahead of time, and it's possible that united contract work could bring down the cost of your Mallets by 25-40% At this point the construction of replica three-foot locos is becoming a priority. EBT, for one, can't continue to wear out its original 2-8-2's, and as big as the fleets at C&TS and D&S are, even they, too, could use "expendable" steam. LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net |
|
| Author: | dave [ Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | GLRR replicas etc |
There are some extant locomotives in other countries and used as static displays in this one that could potentially be reused. Realistically (and I am wearing asbestos) if we are concerned about using up artifacts how can we be less concerned about allowing them to rust away outdoors in the weather instead? At least we gain some usefulness from them in use while they are little by little used up, and might bring more interested people into the fold at the same time. There isn't much to intrigue people about cold rust. Besides, aren't the locomotives now at GLRR being used up? Hard to make an argument based on these conflicting considerations. The wild card in all the discussion so far is exactly how much useful fabric remains in the park hulks under consideration. being insular GLRR doesn't need to use FRA standards, but given the highly intensive operating requirements of the line, I certainly wouldn't start with them as anything more than minimal requirements. Can they be made to operate? Yes, but how reliably at what cost? Perhaps new boilers would be cheaper in the long run than constant repair to the existing ones? Unless I am misinformed, and please clarify of so, only C&S 9 is now under restoration at a facility experienced in large scale live steam construction. I don't know any more than that about this shop, but have they ever done an intensive restoration of an ancient full size locomotive before? Which brings me to the replication concept: if three identical 2-8-0's can be fabricated using wheel centers, cylinder saddles, and boilers which can be mass produced (as well as myriad small parts) and applied to 4-6-0s, 2-6-2s as well, just by varying the frames and running gear, stretched to standard gage or reduced to 3 foot, might it not be also more cost effective in the long run, especially when the lesser operating maintenence cost of using modern stuff like force feed lunbrication and roller bearings is taken in to consideration? IS anybody at CHS thinking about the long run right now? dave irondave@bellsouth.net |
|
| Author: | Wooly [ Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: GLRR replicas etc |
Dave, I think all that has been done to # 9 is asbestos abatement. there were some pictures on another board last week of it being coated with some thick white latex paint? to contain any fibres still clinging to it......Wooly > There are some extant locomotives in other > countries and used as static displays in > this one that could potentially be reused. > Realistically (and I am wearing asbestos) if > we are concerned about using up artifacts > how can we be less concerned about allowing > them to rust away outdoors in the weather > instead? At least we gain some usefulness > from them in use while they are little by > little used up, and might bring more > interested people into the fold at the same > time. There isn't much to intrigue people > about cold rust. Besides, aren't the > locomotives now at GLRR being used up? Hard > to make an argument based on these > conflicting considerations. > The wild card in all the discussion so far > is exactly how much useful fabric remains in > the park hulks under consideration. being > insular GLRR doesn't need to use FRA > standards, but given the highly intensive > operating requirements of the line, I > certainly wouldn't start with them as > anything more than minimal requirements. Can > they be made to operate? Yes, but how > reliably at what cost? Perhaps new boilers > would be cheaper in the long run than > constant repair to the existing ones? Unless > I am misinformed, and please clarify of so, > only C&S 9 is now under restoration at a > facility experienced in large scale live > steam construction. I don't know any more > than that about this shop, but have they > ever done an intensive restoration of an > ancient full size locomotive before? > Which brings me to the replication concept: > if three identical 2-8-0's can be fabricated > using wheel centers, cylinder saddles, and > boilers which can be mass produced (as well > as myriad small parts) and applied to > 4-6-0s, 2-6-2s as well, just by varying the > frames and running gear, stretched to > standard gage or reduced to 3 foot, might it > not be also more cost effective in the long > run, especially when the lesser operating > maintenence cost of using modern stuff like > force feed lunbrication and roller bearings > is taken in to consideration? > IS anybody at CHS thinking about the long > run right now? > dave wooly421@charter.net |
|
| Author: | Bill Farquhar [ Sat Aug 14, 2004 4:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NG equipment for GeorgetownLoop - Replica? |
The key factor here is the color of the money. GLRR is a for profit business. The company either makes money, or the owners pony up the difference. SVRR has the ability to spend money on a project without being constrainted by the numbers at the end of the year. If it takes ten years for SVRR to recreate a mallet, it does not matter on the balance sheet, or the tax forms. The "value" is in historic preservation/interpetation, which is a very different "value" than cash. I assume that your Board of Directors approved the project with the idea of "A mallet would improve our railroad's value by providing a more complete interpetation of what the SVRR was, and it's impact on the local communities", not "A mallet will increase the number of passengers we can haul in a train, thus reducing operating costs." And the board did not ask "How many months will it take for the reduction in operating costs (taking taxes and other costs into consideration) to justify the expenditure?" Another quick point. Lindsey was fortunate enough to find two fairly large, off-the-shelf, Baldwin export locomotives for Central City. When the Loop was compelted, he had the ability to operate longer trains with a single engine than the C&S ever did. Replicas would not do the job at the same costs. Rembemr, the CHS has made it clear that the Loop is expected to operate at a profit, without financial assistance from the Society. Bill Farquhar billsdnr@yahoo.com |
|
| Author: | Jeff A. [ Sat Aug 14, 2004 6:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NG equipment for GeorgetownLoop - Replica? |
I believe the decision to replicate the mallets* as opposed to other types of SV power was driven in part by the concept that 1/2 of a mallet would make a versatile generic mogul. I've no idea whether additional locomotives will be built, but a mallet would be eminently suited for service over Cumbres or the GTL (a nod here to clearances & weight restrictions) while a mogul might well be ideal for Silverwood, Knott's or the Huckleberry. *Their historically correct handle though they were in fact simple articulated engines. J jeff_acock@hotmail.com |
|
| Author: | Stephen Peck [ Sun Aug 15, 2004 8:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | CHS still has no train |
Dave, Before getting CHS all excited about visiting other countries for their dream choo-choo, things have changed since the time when Lindsey bought #40 and #44. With the removal of several railroad items throughout many South and Central American countries, local rail historians in these countries have lobbied successfully to remove railroad equipment an act of treason. So say goodbye to the briefcase of money and the CHS rep. carrying that money if they find themself at the wrong place to buy trains. Maybe we should keep this to ourselves and let them try? >"Besides, aren't the locomotives now at GLRR being used up? Hard to make an argument based on these conflicting considerations." The locomotives at GLRR in operation do consume parts and do have to have replacement parts made. As an example, #44 had new tires pressed on to her drivers. The biggest point with this is that GLRR is creating the colorful history of the equipment they are using. C&S # 9 has had her glory years and would be beat to pieces trying to haul 115,000 people a year = # 9 is underpowered. YES, restore # 9, but not for daily operations. Additionally CHS states that they want to restore and operate C&S coaches for daily use. The tare weight of these cars is more than current GLR consist, making revenue daily operations impractical with the current public demand. Additionally, how long do you think it will take for the general public to destroy the original fabric of these railcars? The best news release yet is that the town of Silver Plume wants a chunk of the profits, so they have offered up their C&S 4-wheel caboose for daily runs on the Loop. This caboose might seat four people (two of which will have no windows to see out of) and this caboose has not turned a wheel since 1939. This is how ignorant this greedy mess has become. So, yes, GLRR uses their equipment and must maintain and replace material with their equipment, but the equipment we use is well-suited and sized for the operation. CHS states boldly that "WE HAVE A TRAIN". They do NOT have a train. That's a bold-faced lie. If they do have a train, show us that train! They have a dream for a train, but have failed to listen to reason. With wreckless abandon, they will tear into every option that they can to save face with no regard to destroying historical one-of-a-kind railroad artifacts. Now, is that a true "historical" society? domino_p@yahoo.com |
|
| Author: | EDM [ Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Generic steam |
> At this point the construction of replica > three-foot locos is becoming a priority. > EBT, for one, can't continue to wear out its > original 2-8-2's, and as big as the fleets > at C&TS and D&S are, even they, too, > could use "expendable" steam. That was one of the ideas behind the Valley getting the SY several years ago, per some of the people up there. Why "use up" the 40 and 97, when you can buy a generic steam locomotive off the shelf? My understanding is that the economics just didn't work out, and that was the reason that the SY went to NYSW. It would be nice if something "Generic US" could be developed from some of the Chinese or Indian designs. The look of a 1920s Alco or BLW 2-6-0, 2-8-0, or 2-8-2 export engine, but with roller bearings on all axles, mechanical lubrication, modern state-of-the-art welded boiler, etc. Stoker and superheater could be an option. (I've heard that Strasburg prefers saturated engines, as the maintenence costs associated with superheaters are more than the efficiency gains would be in their particular service.) Possibly another good design would be the U.S Army Transportation Corps 2-8-2s, built in meter gauge, but I'm sure convertable to three foot. The S-160, with some detail changes, could be a decent generic standard gauge engine; look at the 1702 or TVRM 610. For that matter, the SY, with a more American cab and tender, would also be a good candidate. One of my favorite locomotives is the CP G5, mentioned in another thread. A 1918 design, with 1948 construction techniques and appliances. (I may be a bit off on the dates.) The same idea could be applied here. I think the basic design is out there. Someone, or a group of tourist lines, has to come up with detailed specs and an order. Here in NJ, and I'm sure elsewhere, when the State Police order new vehicles, the local police forces add on their own vehicles, built to the same specs,to keep costs down. The concept could work with tourist steam (and coaches) as well. edm5970@earthlink.net |
|
| Author: | dave [ Sun Aug 15, 2004 2:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | GLRR situation |
Steve - I completely agree about 9 and the C&S cars - I am intimately familiar with them. Any potential operator under the impression that consist can operate as reliably and productively as a set similar to the current one should be disqualified for irrationality or ignorance before going any further. I am not aware of any current tender by CHS to any Latin American country, or anywhere else for specific stuff, but there is stuff out there. Availability is dependent on lots of different things falling into place. I wouldn't assume a blanket total inavailability until it has been tried by competent people properly. Tripleheaded Crown 4-4-0's may have a certain appeal but would be murder on the bottom line. Leaving the somewhat amorphous category of park hulks in this country, or replication. Given the two choices, replication seems to me the best way - capitalization may be higher up front, but will be much lower over the operating life before the first major overhaul, which will then be cheaper than with ancient teakettles too. Which leaves the question nothing more than a business decision about whether or not the numbers add up under which set of circumstances. If I were CHS, I would be sourcing competent builders of replica steam and buying up all the old 3 foot gage cars D&S or CATS would turn loose of to supply coach hardware. Without a set of rolling stock capable of carrying the marketable passenger load, any operator would have trouble turning the profits anticipated as requirements in the CHS business plan model. dave irondave@bellsouth.net |
|
| Page 1 of 6 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|