| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| SP 771 question https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21883 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Tim Gautreaux [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | SP 771 question |
Does anybody have any information about what the Tarantula Train operators have done with SP mike 771, if anything? Are there plans for the 2-8-2's future? Where is the engine currently? Tim Gautreaux |
|
| Author: | survivingworldsteam [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: SP 771 question |
Tim; 771 is still sitting by the enginehouse, no change in it's status since it was moved from Victoria. The following is second hand information, so take it for what it is worth. It is my understanding that the Fort Worth and Western Railroad sold the Tarantula Train operation to the City of Grapevine. In the process, the steam qualified engineers were let go, so there are no qualified steam engineers to run 2248, much less 771. What's more, there is talk of running commuter trains on the tracks used by the Tarantula Train. If that occurs, the operation is no longer being used exclusively by the Tarantula train; at which time the Tarantula train would be shut down because it cannot meet colision standards required by the FRA for a mixed operation. At that time, the Tarantula train may be ran in some sort of Amusement Park setting. As I said, this is all second-hand; I hope someone closer to the actual operation can confirm or deny all of this. -James Hefner Hebrews 10:20a Surviving World Steam Project |
|
| Author: | softwerkslex [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: SP 771 question |
There was a flimsie posted here just recently profiling the show crew maintaining the 2248, so the steam crew status seems inaccurate. |
|
| Author: | Erik Ledbetter [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: SP 771 question |
Dear James-- no offense I hope, but I think that version got at least somewhat gargled on a few points before it got to you. The TT operation was sold by FWWR to the City of Grapevine about five years ago if not longer. The City of Grapevine took over locomotive maintenance, but continued to contract with FWWR for operating crews, including steam-qualified engineers. When I was there twice in 2002 that was how things stood: railroad train service cre-FWWR, maintenance crew-City of Grapevine. Can't speak as to what may have happened since. TT never operated in an amusement park. It did cross over the line of an amusement park train on a grade-separated crossing. TT's equipment is all-steel full-scale former heavyweight commuter equipment, so I can't on the face of it see anything incompatible that would prevent it from sharing the track with a modern commuter operation under FRA regulations. Now, there may be scheduling issues and competition for schedule slots that prevent the two from coexisting, but that's different from the kind of FRA regs that prevent, for example, heavy rail and light rail from both operating on the same line without mutually-exclusive time separated operating windows being established. |
|
| Author: | hi-plains [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Grapevine [with: SP 771 question] |
[quote="survivingworldsteam"]771 is still sitting by the enginehouse, no change in it's status since it was moved from Victoria. The following is second hand information, so take it for what it is worth. It is my understanding that the Fort Worth and Western Railroad sold the Tarantula Train operation to the City of Grapevine. In the process, the steam qualified engineers were let go, so there are no qualified steam engineers to run 2248, much less 771. What's more, there is talk of running commuter trains on the tracks used by the Tarantula Train. If that occurs, the operation is no longer being used exclusively by the Tarantula train; at which time the Tarantula train would be shut down because it cannot meet collision standards required by the FRA for a mixed operation. At that time, the Tarantula train may be ran in some sort of Amusement Park setting. As I said, this is all second-hand; I hope someone closer to the actual operation can confirm or deny all of this.[/quote] Concerning #771, the engine received a modicum of cosmetic repair since its arrival. The locomotive will not be restored for operation for financial reasons. Concerning Grapevine, FWWR did in fact sell the Tarantula Train and associated assets to Grapevine. The tourist train is no longer the Tarantula, but is officially the Grapevine Vintage Railroad. The likelihood of GVRR's demise when the commuter train operation is implemented [the former Cotton Belt line on which GVRR operates, and on which FWWR still provides freight service, is owned by DART] is considerable. The "amusement park" notion of GVRR's survival stems from the 36" narrow-gauge steamer donated for display at the Gaylord Grapevine Resort. They've discussed a narrow-gauge line running between the Resort and downtown Grapevine..but only discussed... |
|
| Author: | survivingworldsteam [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Grapevine [with: SP 771 question] |
hi-plains wrote: The likelihood of GVRR's demise when the commuter train operation is implemented [the former Cotton Belt line on which GVRR operates, and on which FWWR still provides freight service, is owned by DART] is considerable. The "amusement park" notion of GVRR's survival stems from the 36" narrow-gauge steamer donated for display at the Gaylord Grapevine Resort. They've discussed a narrow-gauge line running between the Resort and downtown Grapevine..but only discussed...
My understanding is that the existing freight service runs at night; while the GVRR runs during the daytime; so the possibility of a collision does not exist. But, when commuter service begins, that is not the case; and I think it is the end vestibules of the cars are not designed for crumple resistance. I could all wrong about this; I freely admit it is second hand and it could be quite wrong first hand information. I have been wanting to ride the GVRR again since I rode it a few years ago. -James Hefner Hebrews 10:20a Surviving World Steam Project |
|
| Author: | Txhighballer [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Grapevine [with: SP 771 question] |
This is the TRUE story of what is happening in Grapevine. The trainset and the 2248 are being leased to own from Bill Davis,owner of the Fort Worth and Western Railroad. Grapevine did indeed become it's own railroad due to my negotiating a trackage rights agreement between DART,Fort Worth and Western,and the Grapevine Vintage Railroad. Grapevine,against my recommendation,decided not to retain the steam qualified crew and instead hired several people with no railroad experience for their "amusement park" feel for the railroad. They did hire one gentleman who formerly worked for Union Pacific who serves as engineer (Their only enginner). Much of the difficulties can be traced to Grapevine's "loyalty" to Tommy Feifer and the distrust all of the experienced and qualified steam personnel (myself included) had in his abilities to properly maintain the 2248 to what we would expect from a railroad operating steam locomotives. This is the same gentleman who literally destroyed 771's brake gear with a cutting torch when it was moved to Grapevine. Several qualified steam personnell were recruited by myself personally to come and put the railroad on a firm,safe footing,but upon learning that repairs would be handled by the gentleman mentioned above, interest dried up rather quickly. If commuter rail does come,the plan is to move 2248 to Gaylord Resorts and run her on a big loop around the complex,which would be attached to the current Fort Worth and Western main line. That was the plan when they bought the narrow guage engine but they had not checked to see if she would actually pull the grades with any size train,so she sits in the Grapevine enginehouse,along with 2248. There is more to this story,but I think you have the gist of it here. All of what I have said here can be easily proven,and this is not meant to slander or demean anyone. It's just the truth |
|
| Author: | jasonsobczynski [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Grapevine [with: SP 771 question] |
I understand the kind of situation you speak of...and now doubt, with what i have seen over the past several years all over the country, you are correct and justified in your statements on all fronts. But do be careful as it is not acceptable to speak FACT in this industry or on this board if it contradicts the OPINION or perceived reality of anyone. This attitude IS leading to the end of steam operations in this country so just soak up what you can while you can. I don't know how long we have left...years or a decade...but with the course currently being followed by the majority, it is ending. |
|
| Author: | hi-plains [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Grapevine [with: SP 771 question] |
[quote="survivingworldsteam"] But, when commuter service begins, that is not the case; and I think it is the end vestibules of the cars are not designed for crumple resistance.[/quote] To be clear, the GVRR equipment won't be involved at all in the commuter operation. That will be derived from TRE's fleet of equipment [RDC & locomotive-hauled trains]. |
|
| Author: | hi-plains [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Grapevine |
Txhighballer, are you directly involved with GVRR's operation? |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Grapevine [with: SP 771 question] |
On the other hand, Jason, we now have two like-new QJs imported specifically as an alternative to continuing to use-up-beyond-economic-repair the existing crop of old iron, most of which is now on its second or third economic life cycle beyond design expectation. Your outfit is pursuing technological developments to make steam more justifiable into the future. I am personally aware of two new or revitalizing diesel powered tourist operations planning to start using steam as part of their business plan. Yes, the clueless can be led astray by the worse than clueless, and nasty and disastrous situations can result, but isn't it a fine idea to hope and encourage their operations to cease before things do reach critical mass - which could result in real problems for our entire industry? You'll never make it to my age if you are this much less optimistic than me already. dave |
|
| Author: | Txhighballer [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Grapevine |
hi-plains: I was involved with with GVRR from October 2005 until earlier this year beofre the takeover. I still have contacts in the area I talk to from time to time,but as I sad before,I can prove everything I said in my previouos post. |
|
| Author: | survivingworldsteam [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Grapevine [with: SP 771 question] |
hi-plains wrote: survivingworldsteam wrote: But, when commuter service begins, that is not the case; and I think it is the end vestibules of the cars are not designed for crumple resistance. To be clear, the GVRR equipment won't be involved at all in the commuter operation. That will be derived from TRE's fleet of equipment [RDC & locomotive-hauled trains]. That is correct; the problem as I understand it is that the GVRR will be sharing trackage with communter equipment that will be running at the same time. When that situation arises; all passenger equipment has to meet collision standards in the event of a possible collision between a passenger train and another train. The problem is that the GVRR equipment doesn't meet modern standards. With txhighballer now posting; I will leave it to him to clarify or deny this. -James Hefner Hebrews 10:20a Surviving World Steam Project |
|
| Author: | Txhighballer [ Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Grapevine [with: SP 771 question] |
The equipment they plan to use is not conventional commuter equipment..e.g light rail. It cannot share the same track with conventional rail equipment at the same time. They have to be seperated temporally,which means that the current operations of GVRR will either be heavily curtailed or stopped. |
|
| Author: | Clem [ Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Grapevine [with: SP 771 question] |
I won't comment on the mechanical condition of the 2248, other than to say I was part of the crew on her a few years back. I was there for the Coe fiasco and left shortly after that misadventure for them began. I spent a lot of good times on that engine. I miss the old girl still. I still keep in touch with some of the folks there as well as it is my old stomping grounds. The 771 is not in a state to be returned to service. There were a lot of "hasty" things done to her to get her moved to her current location. This included the improper removal of her brake linkage. Victoria was hardly the ideal place to lay an engine over for an eventual return to service. Cosmetic restoration would be the best thing for the 771. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|