| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| RDG 2100 4-8-4 For Sale https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1647 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | R.L.Kennedy [ Wed Apr 18, 2001 2:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RDG 2100 4-8-4 For Sale |
Tom Payne has given up on RDG 2100 after trying to convert it to oil. No place to run such a BIG engine. Shortlines etc. cannot handle 404 tons! D F Barnhardt is the broker. Since they could not sell Ross Rowland's C&O 614 (which is also too big for a branchline operation such as the E&N where he is operating diesel tourist trains on V.I.) and JJJ has 6325 ready to go (he wanted 2100), just who is going to buy 2100? http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains oldtimetrains@rrmail.com |
|
| Author: | Wowak [ Wed Apr 18, 2001 4:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RDG 2100 4-8-4 For Sale |
> who is going to buy 2100? Maybe Andy Muller, who was the high-bidder on 614, will add a second T-1 to his collection. It would give me one reason to go home to Eastern PA once in a while. Wowak.Railfan.Net mrwowak@yahoo.com |
|
| Author: | Mike Pearle [ Wed Apr 18, 2001 6:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RDG 2100 4-8-4 For Sale |
> The real question is how expensive will it be to convert back to Coal? |
|
| Author: | Seth Jackson [ Thu Apr 19, 2001 10:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Double-headed T-1s? I'm drooling, Wowak! N/M |
> Maybe Andy Muller, who was the high-bidder > on 614, will add a second T-1 to his > collection. It would give me one reason to > go home to Eastern PA once in a while. N/M sethajackson@hotmail.com |
|
| Author: | Bob Yarger [ Thu Apr 19, 2001 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RDG 2100 4-8-4 For Sale |
While it is good that No. 2100 is in apparently operable condition, what a waste of time and money it was making all those non-authentic modifications and moving it so far from its proper home. Another case of "big kid with a full-size Lionel set", that seems so much a part of our field of interest. Tom Payne has given up on RDG 2100 after > trying to convert it to oil. No place to run > such a BIG engine. Shortlines etc. cannot > handle 404 tons! > D F Barnhardt is the broker. > Since they could not sell Ross Rowland's > C&O 614 (which is also too big for a > branchline operation such as the E&N > where he is operating diesel tourist trains > on V.I.) and JJJ has 6325 ready to go (he > wanted 2100), just who is going to buy 2100? bobyar2001@yahoo.com |
|
| Author: | Rick [ Fri Apr 20, 2001 9:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Should Have Known Beforehand |
Wouldn't it have been more prudent for Tom Payne to make a simple contact with potential shortline operators and ASKED if the 4-8-4 would exceed the weight restrictions on their railroad, before all that effort was made? Why can't anyone see farther than 2" in front of their faces when it comes to restoring and running steam locomotives? (A couple of notable operators excluded) Remember Glen Campbell and his 2-10-4, the ultimate in all dressed up and NOWHERE IN HELL to run. Now I hear that a group wants to restore C&O 2776 to operation. In the words of James Traficant and Scotty, BEAM ME UP! rickrailrd@aol.com |
|
| Author: | Rob Gardner [ Fri Apr 20, 2001 10:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 2776 |
Concerning 2776, I would have to say that is not the poorest choices of steam locomotives to restore. Politics and power struggles aside, the exDTandI mainline from Washington Court House to Springfield would be an ideal line for an engine of this nature to run. There are wye's at both ends, I believe, and the track is owned by the West Central Ohio Port Authority who has spent money to keep it in decent shape. It may not be in the best shape possible, but from what I've seen it's not that bad. Let's just hope that the people in W.C.H. have a solid plan and stick with it. I thought quite a bit of money had been raised already towards its restoration by Paul Keller and the group. Maybe things have changed, don't really know. Rob Gardner train@nls.net |
|
| Author: | Angie Morefield [ Fri Apr 20, 2001 11:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2776 |
I've been recently to visit 2776 and see no signs they are planning to do any serious work yet. This may be a good thing because they may be deciding not to tear into a project they are not equipped yet to handle. It may also be a bad thing because there may not be enough monetary interest gained from enough people. I'll check all this out as soon as I can and get back to y'all. I don't live too far from Court House and have recently made friends there that get me into town for visits. Until then, the website about the 2776 restoration project is as follows: www.nkprr.railfan.net/co2776.html If there are problems getting this to come up for you, go to netscape and input the web address, it should come up then. I am not a part of this project but I may get involved. Don't know these folks yet or if they need any help. One thing is for sure, there is no more need in this country for half torn down restoration projects and shortsighted rebuilds. This old engine is in nice shape right now and it would be a shame to see her reduced to a basket case. Ladypardus@cs.com |
|
| Author: | David James [ Sat Apr 21, 2001 11:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should Have Known Beforehand |
> Wouldn't it have been more prudent for Tom > Payne to make a simple contact with > potential shortline operators and ASKED if > the 4-8-4 would exceed the weight > restrictions on their railroad, before all > that effort was made? Why can't anyone see > farther than 2" in front of their faces > when it comes to restoring and running steam > locomotives? (A couple of notable operators > excluded) > Remember Glen Campbell and his 2-10-4, the > ultimate in all dressed up and NOWHERE IN > HELL to run. > Now I hear that a group wants to restore > C&O 2776 to operation. In the words of > James Traficant and Scotty, BEAM ME UP! very well written and obviously well thought out reply,I volunteer where the 2101 is stored in canada and it is a monstrous engine that takes up a lot of room ! dave.james@sympatico.ca |
|
| Author: | dave [ Sat Apr 21, 2001 10:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should Have Known Beforehand |
> very well written and obviously well thought > out reply,I volunteer where the 2101 is > stored in canada and it is a monstrous > engine that takes up a lot of room ! The Wootten firebox has enough room for a dinner party. I wonder how the oil conversion worked on that huge grate area? Dave irondave@bellsouth.net |
|
| Author: | R.L.Kennedy [ Sun Apr 22, 2001 1:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should Have Known Beforehand |
> The Wootten firebox has enough room for a > dinner party. I wonder how the oil > conversion worked on that huge grate area? > Dave Not too good I understand. A huge device sticking out inside the cab and burning forward but apparantly didn't get flame far enough towards tube sheet to fill entire firebox. Was some plan last fall to reverse this setup but it never happened. Some talk also about two burners. Stoker has been disposed of. It has been stored indoors all this time. There is an auxiliary tender as well. He also owns 3 stainless steel psgr cars for this proposed train but not sure if they are for sale. http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains oldtimetrains@rrmail.com |
|
| Author: | dave [ Sun Apr 22, 2001 2:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should Have Known Beforehand |
> Not too good I understand. A huge device > sticking out inside the cab and burning > forward but apparantly didn't get flame far > enough towards tube sheet to fill entire > firebox. Was some plan last fall to reverse > this setup but it never happened. Some talk > also about two burners. Stoker has been > disposed of. Maybe a chinese stoker? I didn't hold out much hope for oil firing that beast with the customary burner technology. Maybe one of the Welsh or African, or even Swiss central burners grown up to a large size? Should be able to make her steam again somehow. Dave irondave@bellsouth.net |
|
| Author: | Rob Sterne [ Sun Apr 22, 2001 6:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should Have Known Beforehand |
> Stoker has been > disposed of. No it hasn't. It's sitting on the floor right beside the engine for display purposes. robsterne@hotmail.com |
|
| Author: | T.J. Gaffney [ Mon Apr 23, 2001 2:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Why didn't they try a CN 4-8-2?? |
In regards to Mr. Payne and the 2100- It still goes back to one basic thing: he shouldn't have started it in the first place if he didn't realize the costs involved. He could have saved himself a lot of aggrevation if he had only contacted someone with a good working knowledge of what a T-1 is and isn't capable of. I remember seeing her sitting at the OC backshop in Coshocton my senior year of college (1997). I still think the same thing now that I though then: that's a heck of a lot weight to push down the track. If OC couldn't figure oout how to operate her feasably with the crack group they have (Jason Johnson and the guys are tops in my book) what made them think they could do it in Canada???? The OC saw the beauty of having one of the lightest 4-8-4's ever made; less wear and tear on the track, high speed, and an excellent engine alla round. I think we will see just how well there gamble paid off this summer (hopefully). Heck, why didn't they go for a CN Mountain? Then again, last I heard 6060 wasn't making too many trips either. Heck, there's a sister of her (6069) sitting across the river here in a park in Sarnia that would have made a heck of a lot more sense to run behind! Port Huron Museum peremarquette@hotmail.com |
|
| Author: | dave [ Mon Apr 23, 2001 3:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why didn't they try a CN 4-8-2?? |
Many possible reasons. I don't know the people involved, but in other cases I have found the following scenarios: 1. emotional - no idea about costs or operating issues, just wants to see a particular engine run. 2. political - "It's our engine, dammit!" 3. ego driven - "It's MY engine, dammit!" 4. Bad advice from people driven by one or more of the above. ALWAYS get advice from a disinterested profesional. The web site from Rannoch Corp. has some interesting information Nat Turner gleaned from his adventure in finding and buying a steam locomotive. Wise words on the difference between real costs and fair market value. That half million investment in restoration may result in a locomotive that will sell for 150K. The only way these beasts recoup the capital is through operating revenue. I have to chuckle when I read the asking prices I find for average used engines in sales circulars - values seem to be from other parallel universes. Some junk locomotives cost more to move than they are worth at any sales price. Dave irondave@bellsouth.net |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|