Supposing that Graham Claytor had been successful in getting 1401 out, would she have been able to handle the typical SR excursion train of the 70's, with out diesel helpers?

tvasbinder@hotmail.com

The excursions of the 1970s that were handled by 630, 722, 4501: probably.
The excursions of the 1980s that were handled by 611 and 1218: no way, except on level track with sluggish acceleration.
Would the steam excursion program have survived with shorter trains and smaller power? Doubtful.

LNER4472@gateway.net

> The excursions of the 1970s that were
> handled by 630, 722, 4501: probably.
> The excursions of the 1980s that were
> handled by 611 and 1218: no way, except on
> level track with sluggish acceleration.
> Would the steam excursion program have
> survived with shorter trains and smaller
> power? Doubtful.

Ted, since the consists of the 60s and 70s were 8-12 cars, 1401 would have been a natural on those. Like Sandy says, crank up to the 80s and 90s and you've gotta have a couple of FP7s along for the ride...look at how A&WP 290, basically a Lima-built Ps4, on its 1991 romps for NS took along a couple of covered wagons for help.

http://nctrans.org
Wrinnbo@aol.com

I agree with the above comments and only add another insight regarding the subject, which is the 2839. When it ran on Southern (78-80) it was happy with a shorter consist and no grades which is what they were designed for. On many trips Southern had to add an FP7 behind the 2839 including the trips I rode out of Cincinnati. I did catch a one-way trip from Cincinnati-Louisville and photographed 2839 without diesel helper on Erlanger Hill. I thought it was going to stall....made a great show. Unfortunately the lack of power was probably what sent it back home in 1980 in favor of bigger engines. The farewell trip Atlanta-Alexandria in November 1980 was a perfect 10-12 car train for 2839 and she went out in style! One of my favorites from that time period, and I just wish the BCR guys could have worked a deal to get her, especially now that 2860 is down! Maybe someday I'll transfer some movies! Would like to have seen 1401, but remember if she had run, where would she be today....In Roanoke Shop with 1218 or in Spencer!
Food for thought!
Greg Scholl

Greg,

"Size matters" is a great reason to pin on Southern returning #2839. Ask everyone who worked on her after she was returned, and you might find out that she was beaten up pretty badly down south, and that also contributed to her return.

Bob

> I agree with the above comments and only add
> another insight regarding the subject, which
> is the 2839. When it ran on Southern (78-80)
> it was happy with a shorter consist and no
> grades which is what they were designed for.
> On many trips Southern had to add an FP7
> behind the 2839 including the trips I rode
> out of Cincinnati. I did catch a one-way
> trip from Cincinnati-Louisville and
> photographed 2839 without diesel helper on
> Erlanger Hill. I thought it was going to
> stall....made a great show. Unfortunately
> the lack of power was probably what sent it
> back home in 1980 in favor of bigger
> engines. The farewell trip
> Atlanta-Alexandria in November 1980 was a
> perfect 10-12 car train for 2839 and she
> went out in style! One of my favorites from
> that time period, and I just wish the BCR
> guys could have worked a deal to get her,
> especially now that 2860 is down! Maybe
> someday I'll transfer some movies! Would
> like to have seen 1401, but remember if she
> had run, where would she be today....In
> Roanoke Shop with 1218 or in Spencer!
> Food for thought!
> Greg Scholl

> Greg,

> "Size matters" is a great reason
> to pin on Southern returning #2839. Ask
> everyone who worked on her after she was
> returned, and you might find out that she
> was beaten up pretty badly down south, and
> that also contributed to her return.

> Bob

You may be right, as I had heard it was in bad shape, and in fact it never ran again.

On the size issue, look what happened next. After 2839 there was 2716, then in 1982 611 was reborn. Then in 1987 we got 1218. The train sizes kept getting bigger, and 611 and 1218 were pulling way more (at least 611 was)than they were designed for. We had 611 pulling 25 coach trains up both Erlanger Hill and Peebles Hills south and east of Cincinnati. Finally, in 1990 with no run for the hill, plugged sanders, and a downpour 611 stalled twice on Peebles hill. From then on every trip had diesel asssist. The J's and K's never pulled more than 10-15 cars in normal service, and under more favorable conditions(super-elevated track, and on-line servicing facilities).

My point is that the excursion trains got to be such monstrosities that even a great engine like 611 was no match for them, let alone 2839, which didn't stand a chance. Both were great engines in their rights! I miss them all, but am glad I made the effort to see and ride behind them when I did. No regets there!
Steamingly,
Greg Scholl

P.S. One of my fondest memories was riding the farewell trip from Charlotte to Salisbury after dark. I took my cheapo tape recorder and stood in the dark baggage/recording car behind the loco, and enjoyed a sound picture which included some nice 60 mph running. I can still hear the whistle bouncing off the buildings as we left town that next to last day she operated. Sometimes pictures don't capture all the memories!

> You may be right, as I had heard it was in
> bad shape, and in fact it never ran again.

> When 2839 was returned to her owners, I have heard that the firebox was leaking badly enough to threaten the fire.

tvasbinder@hotmail.com

It did, sort of, run once on the Blue Mountain & Reading.

Bob

> You may be right, as I had heard it was in
> bad shape, and in fact it never ran again.

> On the size issue, look what happened next.
> After 2839 there was 2716, then in 1982 611
> was reborn. Then in 1987 we got 1218. The
> train sizes kept getting bigger, and 611 and
> 1218 were pulling way more (at least 611
> was)than they were designed for. We had 611
> pulling 25 coach trains up both Erlanger
> Hill and Peebles Hills south and east of
> Cincinnati. Finally, in 1990 with no run for
> the hill, plugged sanders, and a downpour
> 611 stalled twice on Peebles hill. From then
> on every trip had diesel asssist. The J's
> and K's never pulled more than 10-15 cars in
> normal service, and under more favorable
> conditions(super-elevated track, and on-line
> servicing facilities).

> My point is that the excursion trains got to
> be such monstrosities that even a great
> engine like 611 was no match for them, let
> alone 2839, which didn't stand a chance.
> Both were great engines in their rights! I
> miss them all, but am glad I made the effort
> to see and ride behind them when I did. No
> regets there!
> Steamingly,
> Greg Scholl

> P.S. One of my fondest memories was riding
> the farewell trip from Charlotte to
> Salisbury after dark. I took my cheapo tape
> recorder and stood in the dark
> baggage/recording car behind the loco, and
> enjoyed a sound picture which included some
> nice 60 mph running. I can still hear the
> whistle bouncing off the buildings as we
> left town that next to last day she
> operated. Sometimes pictures don't capture
> all the memories!

There is one thing I do want to point out in this "they were plumb wore out when we got 'em back" thread:

The implication is that 2839 and 610 were in pristine condition when they first ran on Southern rails. I can vouch for the fact that this isn't true.

610 was "overhauled" by a mostly volunteer crew under Dick Jensen, and it was supposed to run only a handful of days on the Freedom Train in Texas. (It missed its first day or two, and I believe it failed at least once.) 2839 was given a bit more thorough treatment, but neither got running gear work or any serious boiler work.

In those days, an "overhaul" usually consisted of pulling off parts, knocking off the rust and unfreezing the air pump, yanking a couple of tubes and the lagging for a quick FRA boiler inspection, and putting parts back on. The paint job was the most thorough part of the work.

Bill Purdie inherited two engines who had had just enough work done to pass an FRA inspection. Running gear problems plagued 610 for its time on SOU, and 2839 had firebox problems after only a few months on the road. In fact, there were running jokes that 610 couldn't even finish an excursion. I recall riding one November 1977 trip in particular, from Birmingham to Sheffield, AL. We were barely out of town before troubles started, and we stopped frequently due to injector and feedwater problems, running gear problems, etc. We finally arrived at 4:20pm, almost twice as long as the scheduled running time, and 20 minutes after our scheduled departure time. A 6-axle diesel whipped us back to Birmingham for a very late arrival.

Yep, they were wore out when the owners got 'em back. They were pretty damn close to wore out when they sent 'em off, too.

There simply isn't any comparison to the work done to 610, 2839, 759, et.al., then and what is being done to 1522, 2719, 6325, 1361, et. al. today - it's an order of magnitude of difference.

JAC