| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| C&S 9 and 30 boilers removed https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18203 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | bobyar2001 [ Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | C&S 9 and 30, boilers removed |
At Strasburg (Colorado, that is):http://www.savethetrain.org/id24.htm |
|
| Author: | Lightning Slinger [ Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: C&S 9 and 30, boilers removed |
Let's see....A lap-seam boiler with a large PATCH on the crown sheet that hasn't run in 56 years?I hope the CHS has the insurance paid up before it gets someone seriously hurt... |
|
| Author: | prr643 [ Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: C&S 9 and 30, boilers removed |
I thought I read in Trains that one of these engines was getting a complete new boiler? maybe I'm thinking of another. |
|
| Author: | softwerkslex [ Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: C&S 9 and 30, boilers removed |
So, HOW MANY engines are they rebuilding? No.s 9, 30, 74, and 111. Four engines? Where is all the money for this coming from?Seems like the CHS is paying a lot of money to save face from the operator change. |
|
| Author: | Wooly [ Wed Aug 03, 2005 6:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: C&S 9 and 30, boilers removed |
30 & 74 are the same locomotive that was numbered differently by different owners....................................................................................Wooly |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: C&S 9 and 30, boilers removed |
FWIW, back when I worked for CHS over a decade ago, there was already a long-term plan in the works for restoration of #9, and if memory serves, the boiler was actually in pretty decent shape. The patch isn't particularly onerous, and was installed by the Burlington back when they knew how, as was the rest of the overhaul for the fair. It didn't get much use after the fair, and wasn't too badly worn or damaged. The tender was the only really nasty thing about it. One can't fault CHS for wanting to have their original locomotive available to run on their railroad. 30, OTOH, was rode hard and put up wet only after having died in the traces. Lots of boiler rot, almost every moving part about used to condemnable tolerances - I would anticipate a new boiler made for this one, hopefully incorporating some more modern combustion design features than the original. I don't think 111 is actually on the table at this time (other than as an object of discussion) from what I hear from Colorado. Anybody with newer intelligence please do correct me. dave |
|
| Author: | Lightning Slinger [ Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: C&S 9 and 30, boilers removed |
So, you are saying the Colo Hist. Society is going to operate that thing without a federal boiler inspection? Or are you saying that they are somehow exempt? |
|
| Author: | Ed Kelley [ Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: C&S 9 and 30, boilers removed |
The Loop is insular (as it lacks any public road crossings and any other criteria calling the FRA's direct involvement), hence the feds do not extend jurisdiction over their equipment. Unless this is a special case, this should be a matter at the state level for boiler codes/inspections. Steve Torrico of Railstar may chime in with more, as they are the folks operating this railroad and would be operating this locomotive (CHS just owns the park) |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: C&S 9 and 30, boilers removed |
When I was MM at the old Loop, Hartford did our boiler inspections and the state rubber-stamped them. I am given to understand the State of Co inspector is now directly inspecting the boilers - or at least inspected 12. The line is insular and is not ordinarily subject to FRA inspections or regulation. At the same time, i recall a posting recently that alluded to a courtesy inspection of the line by FRA (after a derailment due to rotten old ties) which found no exemptions or other noncompliant issues, had they been regulated. I am pleased to see CHS doing some real work on the railroad, and Railstar seems to be doing a good job in a pretty stressful environment. Isn't it time for us as an industry to stop fighting an old war that most of us didn't have a financial stake in anyhow, and wish everybody who is now involved, or was formerly involved, well? It isn't about competition between railroaders, guys - it is between tourist railroads and other entertainment venues. Good tourist railroads breed more business for all tourist railroads. Bad tourist railroads turn off potential customers for everybody. I am all for constructive criticism that improves any one of our venues and makes the industry stronger as a whole, but sniping about money being spent on improvements that build better railroads (no matter by who and for who) does a disservice to us all. dave |
|
| Author: | Lightning Slinger [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 3:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: C&S 9 and 30, boilers removed |
Sorry, but we are not about to "forget it and move on." The Colorado Historical Society is a corrupt state bureaucracy that has ruined a good operation and wasted at least $350,000 of taxpayer money on one teakettle, and is about to waste that much or more on a beat up, dangerous relic that could barely haul two loaded cars in its prime. The number 30/74 was in a junkyard when the Rio Grande Southern got it and who knows how many hundreds of thousands of hard-earned taxpayer dollars it will take to make it dependable, if at all. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: C&S 9 and 30, boilers removed |
Lightning Slinger wrote: Sorry, but we are not about to "forget it and move on." The Colorado Historical Society is a corrupt state bureaucracy Not touching the allegation of corruption due to my ignorance, but I certainly hope you have evidence to back up this allegation. Lightning Slinger wrote: that has ruined a good operation and wasted at least $350,000 of taxpayer money on one teakettle, and is about to waste that much or more on a beat up, dangerous relic that could barely haul two loaded cars in its prime. When I visted there recently, 12 hauled 5 cars up the hill and was about tapped out. 12 has a tractive effort of 15,400 pounds. 9 has a tractive effort of 16,351 pounds (both according to Conrad bible). If 12, having less power can haul 5 cars, how is it possible 9 can only haul 2, assuming both are overhauled to good condition? Have I been misinformed or do I not understand the concept of tractive effort? Lightning Slinger wrote: The number 30/74 was in a junkyard when the Rio Grande Southern got it and who knows how many hundreds of thousands of hard-earned taxpayer dollars it will take to make it dependable, if at all. What would you rather have tax dollars support than railroad preservation? And I don't know either. However many, it beats converting more tracks to trails from my POV. Whether or not you like the deal, it was made and any objections to its being made are moot - might as well encourage it in hopes it will evolve into another operation as fine as the one you miss. dave
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|