| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| PRR 2-10-4 headed for scrap https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22356 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | bobyar2001 [ Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | PRR 2-10-4 headed for scrap |
A sad sight at Pitcairn, Pennsylvania in 1957: http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?a ... enColl.jpg |
|
| Author: | Richard Glueck [ Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: PRR 2-10-4 headed for scrap |
Terrible shame Pennsy didn't save one of these great locomotives for history. Perhaps she was not yet condemned when this photo was taken, as PRR held onto several of these and several I1sa Decapods until around 1960, in "just in case" mode. Unlikely they were immediately serviceable, but could have been brought back to life if Diesels couldn't handle traffic loads. Ah, what might have been. |
|
| Author: | NHRDC121 [ Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: PRR 2-10-4 headed for scrap |
While I would agree with the previous posts that the "J" class 2-10-4's were nice locomotives, one must also remember that the J's were not "true" Pennsy engines, but rather copies of a C&O design. Since the WPB during WWII would not allow the PRR to spend the money or man-hours working up a design of their own, they were forced to accept a design from "out-of-house." It is a fact that the Pennsy was more amenable to preserving examples of THEIR steam power than other railroads, notably their arch-rival, the NYC. How many J class Hudsons still exist, arguably the Central's most well-known steam locomotive? So, I think it fair to assume that the Pennsy didn't save a "J", since it really wasn't "one of theirs". |
|
| Author: | Les Beckman [ Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: PRR 2-10-4 headed for scrap |
I have heard this argument before, but it still is the one "hole" in the otherwise great record of the PRR steam preservation program; the lack of a Class J1 or J1a. Even though not designed by the Pennsy itself, the locomotives were a tremendous success lasting well into the end of the steam era. Arguments could be made for a T1 too, but in fact, the T1's were not a particularly successful design and were basically retired early by the railroad. If the Pennsylvania HAD saved a J, then its steam preservation program would have received the absolutely highest mark. Les |
|
| Author: | Dougvv [ Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hindsight 20-20 |
I agree it would be nice to have preserved a J1. The GG1 was not a complete PRR design, it started from the EP 5 (?). If I had my druthers, I'd have liked to have seen a Q2 4-4-6-4 duplex preserved instead of a J1. I'm actually greedy though and would want both. FWIW. Doug |
|
| Author: | NHRDC121 [ Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hindsight 20-20 |
The running gear beneath the frame of the New Haven EP-3 was the "blueprint" for the GG1's, ie. 2-C+C-2. |
|
| Author: | junior [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hindsight 20-20 |
Why "preserve" such a large engine?....so it can sit out in a yard and rust away or sit in a park somewhere with no hope of ever running again? If we in America were anything like those of our foreign neighbors in terms of preservation of steam, then we might have had a chance with this hulk...but otherwise, I just see this engine slowly returing to the elements in its' "preserved state" Aside from a limited few, most of our preserved steam is used on Tourist operations....I can't see a 2-10-4, a 4-4-4-4 or a 4-4-6-4 toting a few coaches up a branch (if you could FIND a branch for such a large loco) on Sundays.. making it worth while |
|
| Author: | Dougvv [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hindsight 20-20 |
Why is a Big Boy 4-8-8-4 at Scranton PA? |
|
| Author: | Joshua K. Blay [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hindsight 20-20 |
Because F. Nelson Blount wanted one. If I have this correct, UP would not donate to an individual, so a non-profit organization was started. Steamtown USA was born, and Blount got his "four thousand." Joshua |
|
| Author: | Kevin Gillespie [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | A Sadder Sight |
A couple of years ago, I saw a photo of a B&O 4-8-2 and EM-1 at Butler, PA. It is dated May 28, 1961!!! That one existed that late and did not survive is truly tragic. Here's the link. http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/rr2.html |
|
| Author: | bobyar2001 [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | The 4-8-2 |
Taken 2/26/61, at Butler, Pennsylvania: http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/bo/bo-s704br.jpg Definitely a loss. Also this lineup at New Castle, Pennsylvania, on 5/24/59: http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/bo/bo-s732.jpg |
|
| Author: | Les Beckman [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Sadder Sight |
Kevin Gillespie wrote: A couple of years ago, I saw a photo of a B&O 4-8-2 and EM-1 at Butler, PA. It is dated May 28, 1961!!! That one existed that late and did not survive is truly tragic. Here's the link.
http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/rr2.html The Baltimore & Ohio had a great museum and a great preservation program. But it receives "black marks" for not preserving at least one of the B&O's later "modern" steam locomotives; a 4-8-2, a 2-10-2 or an EM-1 2-8-8-4. One of each would have been perfect but at least one of these three should have been earmarked for the museum. The B&O was rebuilding 2-8-2's into class T-3 4-8-2's into the late 1940's with the last one coming on line in 1948 as I recall. And the EM-1's were the last new steam purchased from a commercial builder. The lack of either a 4-8-2 or a Yellowstone is the one major shortcoming of the B&O steam locomotive preservation program. That 2-8-8-4 #659 was still in Butler in 1961 was perhaps an indication that she might have been earmarked for preservation in Baltimore. If so, then some high official at the B&O probably nixed the deal. If so, shame on him! Les |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Sadder Sight |
*sigh* No good deed goes unpunished, as they say. The PRR saves a HUGE steam collection, and they grouse that they didn't save a J1 or T1. The B&O starts its OWN RAILROAD MUSEUM, fer gawd's sake, and later has a steam excursion program, and they complain about the lack of a 4-8-2 or an EM-1. Let's all hear it for the Western Maryland......... or the New York Central....... or the Delaware & Hudson............ or............ [No wonder some rail officials give us a wide berth.........] |
|
| Author: | Dave Lewandoski [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Sadder Sight |
I think what wasw meant was as long as they were saving some. why not save a few more. One man can make a difference. If it were not for U.S. Air Corp General Hap Arnold, we would not have some of the great WWll aircraft with us today. The RRs that did save some, are to be thanked whole heartily. But I can't help but wonder why more didn't save at least a few. |
|
| Author: | Dougvv [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Sadder Sight |
I was always surprised that so much of the D&RGW narrow gauge equipment was saved but with an exception of an accident (or luck) with a used ex-D&RGW loco from the SSLV, no standard gauge locos were saved. Doug |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
