See attached link. This engine for sale??? Any information regarding current status, ownership, etc, has been really tough to come by, so this seems like quite a surprise. Who exactly is "James" from Cleveland? Is this "sale" for real?

Anyone have any information (i.e. facts)?

http://www.railswap.org/cgi-bin/classifieds/classifieds.cgi?search_and_display_db_button=on&db_id=4150&query=retrieval

I think James is attempting to start a brokerage business. He has or had a business called Viking Equipment Exchange, hence the "VELX" moniker.

Generally, his railswap ads are for older first and second generation switchers. Alcos and EMD's

On the other hand, this posting is sort of amusing, IF TRUE. As I recall, Mr. Campbell paid 80K for engine in '95, outbidding Steamtown. Now he wants 500K after demonstrating through inactivity there's no workable business model to support the restoration of the engine.

Of course a 1995 verbal OK means nothing in the new 49CFR Part 230 days..

Another big engine with no where to go. Guess it hasn't been priced in the open market- no bidders for the 2100, the 614.. even the fully ready SP 1744 with a train didn't sell.


To bad-all that tractive effort comes at a pretty low speed- if there was an appropriately manicured roadbed and a potential to sell enough tickets..its not a high stepper which would be misused at 30 MPH...

Superheater,

Cut the #643 a break. Didn't you read the ad? It comes with a "large water bottle." Cleary that's worth an extra $200K right there.

Now if she came with a large Rolling Rock bottle...

Anyway, in all seriousness, this is an engine that has no business in a business, but is perfect for a private owner or national park. Problem is, here in the US not many individuals buy locomotives as private quarry and the national parks already have a few engines to deal with.

I really can't think of any place she belongs operating, but she'd be a great addition to the RRMofPA as a static exhibit.

Rob

Rob, I always thought of you as a Yeungling Fan...

Anyway, onto a more serious note. This serves as a cautionary tale to those who think they can start their own excursion program if they just add water (so to speak). After the backroom deals that kept the engine out of Scranton in 1995, I'd hate to see someone make a profit on the engine.

As a short line Dispatcher/Supervisor with some operating experience, I'm relieved it never did come to Scranton... She would make a fine interpretive piece in Strasburg, or the Museum of Industrial History, should it ever be constructed at Beth Steel.

Dave Crosby

Am I the only one that would like to see this engine run. This engine is in better shape than many of the engines running around America right now. It has been in doors for most of its life and right now has new side sheets in the firebox and the running gear has been overhauled. It was only fired once and hasn't moved under its own power for a long long time.

I don't care what happened with the deal with Steamtown. I'm glad it didn't go there. Right now it's undercover and I doubt Steamtown would have found a place inside for it and I know the RRMofPA wouldn't put it inside. They don't even have the K-4 inside.

I think it would be awesome to see this engine on the head of a coal drag. There are many places that this engine could be useful. Let's face it, most of the places where steam runs right now doesn't get much above 30 or 40. I hope whereever this engine finds a home, its somewhere that it can do what it was meant to do and has been rebuilt to do again. Not much work would be needed to get her going again. Boiler jacket off, flues out, ultrasound, flues in, jacket back on and light her off. What has become of the steam railroad world where all you guys would rather see this engine static in a museum than fired up and running.

My ten cents,
Greg Udolph
gu292901-nospam-@ohio.edu

Several reasons this isn't a good cantidate for operation:

1. Extremely high operating and maintenance cost due to size alone.

2. Not a good cantidate for operation for operation over anything but the best of track. Long wheelbase, driver set up will not permit the locomotive to operate over self gaurded frogs which are in common use today.

3. High cost to re-calcualte Form 4 and perform complaiance work, not as easy as it sounds. Ask the owners of engines like the 614, 587, 1522, 819 and many others.

4. Not a good cantidate for excursion operation due to its slow speed. Sure it would look sweet pulling a coal drag, but the occasional special run won't cover expenses.

5 There are a dozen more practical engines that need the $$$ to have them hit the road again.

6. The 643 is an unproven commodity, since it never turned a wheel, who knows what problems may be present.

The money's just better spent elsewhere. 500K to buy, 500k to get running, and thats conservative.

DBC

Hey Dave.. nor to be disagreeable, but..


63 inch drivers big enough to go 40 mph. Thats plenty fast enough for most people. At the end of the NS program the 611 was limited to 40 or 45 in some or many places.

No steam engine is economically efficient.

That having been said I like the just add water line

WHAT HE SAID!! But....who, where, and when? The person that can answer thses questions will have the bleeings of all steam fans. I'd love to see 643,614,2100, and the rest of the big engines out there doing what they were meant to do. Now all we've got to do is buy NS and get at it.

Probably every reason in the "Why not..." posting, but for a heavy locomotive that is already to go, one might try leasing her to a major railroad for a freight drag and publicity purposes. Even with NS out of the steam business for the present, I'm thinking a 2-10-4 spending a few days lugging freight up and down the Curve would be an impressive sight. It would bring in a great deal of interest, attract outside focus to rail service, and be earning revenue at the same time. I am not suggesting that NS re-enter steam service for a lengthened period, but I am saying that a railroad edifice such as Horseshoe Curve would be the perfect setting for a win-win operation over a short period of time. The railroad needn't retain and service the locomotive, the owner gets to operate, the fans and other public get to see steam in it's most natural setting. It would be worth investigating and sending out feelers. Bring the local community and some commercial shippers into the bargain and it could end up as a well orchestrated publicity bonanza.

I think it's worth playing out on paper, at least.

At the risk of adding foam to the fire, two words come to mind here... "Ohio Central". How 'bout it, guys?

Steamtown, Strasburg, Horseshoe Curve, Ohio Central... Am I the only one here who would like to see it in its native B&LE roundhouse in Greenville, PA, where it probably should have never been taken from in the first place? Of course, no one will speak up for that authentic steam-era facility, and CN will probably bulldoze it.

http://www.trainweb.org/rmr/pdf/April2004.pdf

The major logistical problem with running this locomotive for the Ohio Central or anyone else that is not a Class I is two-fold. First, it is a heavy, pounding, drag freight locomotive that will beat the hell out of track. Second, it has a rigid wheelbase far too long for a lot of curves, and most wyes. The Ohio Central already runs into problems finding places to turn 6325, and it has a wheelbase equivalent to an SD40.

If those weren't problem enough, you really have no idea about the condition of the locomotive, and 500k is probably nearly double the market value of the engine. So you pay an extra 250k on the purchase for a black box that could require 50k of work, or another 500k. And all this for an engine that won't draw people to come see it. Who, other than diehard railfans wants to come see a slow freight locomotive that isn't particularly eyecatching trundle slowly down the tracks? Sure, it was look great pushing the rear of a loaded coal train pulled by 6325, but how is that going to make enough money to recover the costs of operation, let alone restoration? People will pay to ride behind a high-stepping Northern, but will they pay to ride a sluggish Texas?

Don't misunderstand me, I love to see steam locomotives run, and I spent this past summer traveling from state to state watching and riding steam after assisting with 33 at the OC. I just believe that the preservation industry needs to become more prudent about what restorations are attempted and all of us railfans need to realize that there are economic realities associated with operating big steam. We all love to chase big steam on excursions, but that doesn't provide the operator with any revenue that can be used for maintainance, so steam restoration then begins to boil down to a free-rider problem, whereby there are so many people just looking, and not buying tickets, that revenues fall to a point of a project ceasing to be economically viable.

In conclusion, a Texas type locomotive is not a good candidate for restoration because of the simple economic realities that would be associated with its restoration and operation, and it would be folly for anyone without money to burn to engage in such a restoration. That said, kudos to Jerry Joe and the Ohiio Central, and all the other lines out there for continueing to operate big steam even if it is not economically viable.

The Railway & Locomotive Historical Society put out a wonderful piece on these 2-10-4 locomotives, and the problems they had with track load and dynamic augment. These 600's are a seriously heavy locomotive somewhat copied from the Burlington 2-10-4's, and they were built without lightweight rods due to wartime material restrictions. Big-time problems with hammerblow.

http://www.rrhistorical-2.com/rlhs/rlhs ... nl24-3.pdf

The B&LE had a great track and bridge structure that could take it. Not many do today, and few, if any, railroad chief engineers are going to risk their careers on something that has the potential to damage a bridge for the sake of a fantrip. This is no ordinary steam locomotive in terms of loading statistics.

I remember it at Greenville, and would side myself with the 'I really wanna see it run' guys ... until I looked at the numbers and went WHOA! Don't beat up on your local sympathetic tourist or shortline railroad if they don't seem too excited about this one.

"I am the thoroughbred of steam - Born to Run - Born to be Free, For give them lord. For they know not what they do" That statement was taped under the cab window of NS 611 on its last run (Which was ten years ago this December, but we can save that for another post later on) I think the same goes for B&LE 643, even more so. The engine had a resteration completed 10 - 15 years ago, fired up and never ran!? This engine is a star waiting to be born, they just need to have the right scout put it out on the court. Here's to that engine seeing some game time.

-Justin Franz

As to some postings in this strand:

"Extremely high operating and maintenance cost due to size alone."

Same number of appliances as 765 or 614. Same size boiler as 614. About the same coal and water consumption for the same size train over the same railroad. One more driving wheelset than a 2-8-4 does not add up to extremely high cost.


"Long wheelbase, driver set up will not permit the locomotive to operate over self gaurded frogs which are in common use today."

FALSE. Trip from B&O Glenwood Shop to P&LE McKees Rocks yard included traversing 19 degree curves and NUMEROUS self-guarded frogs. I was there with movie camera in hand. Having also filmed 2102 and 765 navigating wye trackage at McKees Rocks, I have no doubt that 643 can go places 765 can't.

"High cost to re-calculate Form 4 and perform compliance work... not as easy as it sounds...."

The 643 was retired and stored indoors with a zero mileage boiler. Assuming damage from condensation between jacketing and boiler wall during extended storage proves minor, compliace work for Form 4 certification should be negligible.
The Form 4 recalculation work is not expensive. I've done several to date.

"Not a good cantidate for excursion operation due to its slow speed."

Lateral motion on No. 1 driver plus blind No. 3 driver means that Nos. 2, 4, and 5 drivers comprise the "fixed wheelbase" on the engine, and the increased distance from the pilot truck to the first "fixed" driver means easier tracking going into curves. Lightweight rod package and Boxpok disk main driver reduce dynamic augment. Critical speed (unstable lateral augment, at the same drive wheel rpm for all steam locomotives) for the 643 is about 43 mph. In revenue service on the B&LE, the 643 was a 60 mph locomotive.


"The 643 is an unproven commodity, since it never turned a wheel, who knows what problems may be present."

Try to never say never. In the course of "zeroeing the clock" on inspections and certifications, boiler and machinery would be examined for defects. A disqualifying defect ($$$) would disqualify the engine, but I prefer the notion of "presumption of innocence" going in -- this engine was deemed to be in excellent condition when it was put away in Greenville.



"The money's just better spent elsewhere. 500K to buy, 500k to get running, and thats conservative."

The golden rule applies -- money talks.