Does anyone know the current status of ex-Quincy & Torch Lake #3, the 2-6-0 that was left in a partially disassembled state since the line shut down in 1945? I had heard that it was acquired by the Huckleberry Railroad. Will this engine be restored for operation?

RTK

What is left of Quincy & Torch Lake #3, along with the new boiler built for Q&TL #4, is scattered around the yard behind the HRR Shops. It is on a 99 year lease from Quincy Mining Company. Having just completed the re-build of ex-D&RGW #464 and seeing how difficult it was to get the financing for that project I don't see much chance of restoring Q&TL. It would be far easier to build a replica. The frame has been broken and re-welded in many places and the left cylinder has a crack that goes from the frame rail to the mating flange.

Wait?
How many of these engines are there?
I knew of the 2 still at the mine,
1 in NJ,
and 1 at the Huckleberry (or so I thought.......)

Are there more?

Interesting facts on Q&TL locos:

#1: 2-6-0, oldest- first AND last Q&TL loco to run- named Thomas F. Mason (after the principle financier)
#2: scrapped pre WWII, was virtually identical to #1
#3: 2-6-0, heavier & more power than 1 & 2, used for bucking snow, slide valve steam chests canted outwards
#4: scrapped in 30s or 40s; similar, but not identical to #3- minor differences in frame & firebox
#5: 2-8-0, only loco aquired used, from Hancock & Calumet- named Opechee- was nicknamed "Jumper" by some crews because of its tendency to derail (which was encouraged by blind drivers on axels 2 & 3)
#6: 2-8-0, only outside frame loco, newest

1-4 were Brooks built, 5 & 6 were Baldwin built

For more Quincy & Torch Lake info & pics, see these sites:

http://www.copperrange.org/qtl.htm
http://algomacentral.railfan.net/old_qtl.htm
http://www.railroadmichigan.com/coppercountry.html
http://info.detnews.com/hotbox/hotboxst ... cfm?id=152
http://www.nmia.com/~vrbass/steam/c25/gallery.htm

Quincy Mine: http://www.quincymine.com/ (no pics of the steamers...)

Q&TL Locos in Hancock, MI:
Photos from May 2004:
http://www.rypn.org/boyd/QTL/Quincy%20and%20Torch%20Lake%20RR%20Equipment.html
This photo is a couple of years older:

When ever I think the weather in WI is bad, I just think of the Copper Country in the U.P.. I am not sure if that was a picture I took, but I think I was up there in April or May of 2003. Regardless the snow was 6 ft deep in places, especially up by the 2 loco's. If anybody from the "world" ever gets to view these in person, check out the engine/boiler repairs. It is a true testiment to how close to the edge the folks who worked on the Q&TL were. Having witnessed farmer welding and running repairs on lot's of different equipment I enjoy looking at old repairs. Like Huck said about the #3, these engines are more then in tough shape. I highly recommend touring the Houghton/Hancock/Calumet area of Upper Michigan. A treasure of mining railroading and history.

It is -15 with 18mph winds this morning in WI, I bet my bottom dollar the weather is worse in Hancock, MI. Cheers, John.

Sorry about leaving the photo credit off John. That is your photo of the locos.

No problem at all, glad to see it actually. It looked awful familar.
Regards, John.

I realize that the condition of #3 would make it extremely unrealistic to attempt to rebuild it for operation. But that was the well known consensus going way back. So why did Quincy Mining and The Huckleberry Railroad enter into a 99-year lease for #3 with the effect of merely transferring the pieces of the locomotive from one property to the other? I don’t see what either party gained by the deal.

RTK

> with the effect of merely transferring the pieces of the locomotive from
> one property to the other? I don’t see what either party
> gained by the deal.

Ron:
Such movement activity versus actual restoration is fairly common I believe. There is quite a thread on this site on stalled restoration attempts. Its just part of the business.

As to the condition of the #3, yes it is rough, or perhaps beyond rough is probably the better way to put it. With deep enough pockets its would be doable and would be one of the prettiest engines you ever saw hit the rails. But such money (lots of it in the case of the #3) is hard to come by.
J.R.

Thanks for the information Mr. May. I take it that the acquisition by Huckleberry was done with the intent to restore the engine even though that has not yet come to fruition. I certainly agree that a restored #3 would be an uncommonly handsome engine. Both #3 and #4 struck me that way. I did a pen and ink rendering of #4 on a rock train and became very familiar with the appearance of that engine.

RTK

The Q&TL was taken apart by the shop crew at Quincy, from what I understand she was in the middle of an overhaul when the Q&TL shut down. The Huckleberry RR leased her starting in 1979,with the intention of restoring her for operation. Once we got 464 in 1981 the decision was made to devote efforts to getting the Mudhen running.

Thanks Marty,

Yes #3 was in a partially dismantled state since the Q&TL shut down in 1945. They had that brand new boiler sitting outside that I understand was purchased to use on #4, but #4 was scrapped and the boiler was never used. I have always assumed that the work underway on #3 when the line shut down was intended to include the installation of #4's boiler on #3.

Now I am not actually certain if that assumption is correct. I understand that there is a fairly significant difference between the corresponding features of the firebox on the boiler for #4 and the frame of #3, and that putting the two together would involve substantial re-work to the frame of #3. Not to mention the fact that the "new" boiler has gotten a lot older during 60 or so years in the weather.

RTK