2317 : "Rumors of my demise have been greatly exagerated... or not?"

There have been several rumors regarding the future of Steamtown's CP 2317. From what I had heard from a park ranger a year ago, the B&M 3713 was going to be used for "special" occasions to bring in the crowds while 2317 would be the main engine used for excursions. The CN 3254, I was told, would be used only in a pinch, perhaps when the 2317 was down for service. I was told CN 3254 was a "rough riding freight engine" while the CP 2317 was preferable and more suitable for running excursions. Baldwin #26 I was told will finally be ready this Fall, maybe.

Now that the 5 year service is due on the 2317, I have a few questions.

Will 2317 be stuffed and mounted, per some rumors, or restored to operation resulting in an absence of long duration?

When was the last time either the 2317 or 3254 was up for a 5 year and how long did it take?

After a shop tour, we were told the cost to date (which I can't recall, nor count to) for the 0-6-0 Baldwin restoration. The amount was seemingly so high that one might question if instead another engine of percieved greater value or attraction could've been restored.

Would restoration of an American engine at a US National Park such as the NKP 759 or the Reading Northern be practical as opposed to tearing apart and rebuilding the CP 2317? Note; not advocating running engines to the ground and leaving them, the 2317 is a great looking engine, but for a US National park, perhaps an alternate would be viable?

/Mitch

Now that the 5 year service is due on the 2317, I have a few questions.

Will 2317 be stuffed and mounted, per some rumors, or restored to operation resulting in an absence of long duration?

When was the last time either the 2317 or 3254 was up for a 5 year and how long did it take?

CP 2317 last came through a 5year rebuild just in time for the 1998 double header for the NRHS convention special, hosted by the Central NY chapter in Syracuse. Since that time, she has been down Dec.2000-July 2002, when she was brought in compliance of the Form 40 rules, along with derailment repairs. From Dec 2005 - May 2006, she was delayed in rather simple repairs and inspections by the need to keep 3254 together.
CN 3254 is in compliance, having come back for a 1472 day inspection in 2001.

After a shop tour, we were told the cost to date (which I can't recall, nor count to) for the 0-6-0 Baldwin restoration. The amount was seemingly so high that one might question if instead another engine of percieved greater value or attraction could've been restored.

I don't know who keeps all these numbers straight in their heads, but this is a very full restoration. New firebox, new staybolts, new cylinder sleeve and piston rings, new ashpan hopper, new tires, new wood in the cab, and a lot of built-up worn out areas of the boiler and valves. This is far from a "simple five year" that Steamtown workers had performed in the 90s.

Would restoration of an American engine at a US National Park such as the NKP 759 or the Reading Northern be practical as opposed to tearing apart and rebuilding the CP 2317? Note; not advocating running engines to the ground and leaving them, the 2317 is a great looking engine, but for a US National park, perhaps an alternate would be viable?
Mitch

I make no speculation as to what the future holds, or even what a term such as "stuffed and mounted" means for 2317. What we have noticed is that a larger engine wouldn't serve our needs all the time. Perhaps a 2-6-0 or 2-8-0 would be more our size. Most of our trips are in the yard. People are not showing up in large enough numbers to justify more long trips. They just don't have the time to give that a longer train ride requires. Steamtown has many problems. I have disected them to the nth degree. If we on this board and in the NPS are true historians, we can't just get caught up in one favorite steam locomotive or another. True history is replacing nostalgia in our steam world, and we have to adapt to these changes, plus meet the demands placed on us from a budgetary standpoint. The NPS is not exempt from having to pay for coal, water, plumbing, sewage, heat or upkeep repairs, or track usage fees. Your tax dollars are stretched to the limit
I hope this helps, Mitch.

Tim,

A long, long time ago, one of our friends (and one of your co-workers) had what I thought was a great plan (this was before #2317's mid 1990's 5 year). The idea went like this: since #2317 was (rumored) to be a tough case after she flipped over decades ago, fast track another decent-sized passenger engine and store #2317 "serviceable" as a back-up. Ahhh, hind sight!

Has there been any effort to get another long-term visitor like the MILW #261 was? Seems like that might be a near-term win. There certainly are candidates out there.

Rob

Has someone at Steamtown been reading Erik Ledbetter's article on six-coupled engines?

Wesley

Assuming that Steamtown eventually decides that a smaller locomotive DOES make more sense, which of the engines in their collection is considered in the best shape? The N&StL 2-6-0? Illinois Central 2-8-0 #790? Or......?

Les

I vote for the CPR Jubilee 4-4-4!

Somewhere, perhaps on the Steamtown website, I remember reading a detailed analisis of the condition of their engines. If you can find that information you would have a pretty good idea which engines are in the best condition.

Do I remember correctly that part of the Steamtown mission is to provide a mainline steam experience for their patrons? If so I can think of no locomoitve more appropriate than a pacific regardless of which one you choose. To me pacifics are what passenger engines should look like and probably were the design most universally used on passenger trains. Unless you go back to the turn of the last century a 2-6-0 does not provide a mainline steam passenger train experience for very many operations in the US.

John Bohon





John Bohon

First of all, in the interest of full disclosure, I am an avid fan of the Canadian Pacific Railway. IMHO, their unique blend of British streamlining, and North American aesthetics made for some of the best looking steam locomotives on this continent. Add to that CP's cachet as Canada's original railway, and you have an extraordinary heritage to proclaim.

Now I know as well as anyone on this board that in all probability, CPR #2317 never turned a wheel in revenue service in the United States. Had Nelson Blount had the financial resources to go locomotive shopping five years before he did, only God knows what he might have been able to purchase on this side of the border. But he did not have those resources until many American steamers worth preserving had met their unfortunate end.

Now, forty years after Mr. Blount's untimely demise, we have a question about what to do about the future of one of the stars of his Canadian collection.

#2317 has provided yeoman service to Steamtown visitors for the last 15 years or so. She is a genuine 4-6-2, the locomotive most favored by North American railways for passenger service during the era of the heavyweight passenger train that Steamtown is trying to preserve. I suggest that she be given the 15 year restoration she needs as opposed to restoring a smaller engine for three reasons.

1. The 4-6-2 type as stated above was the standard passenger locomotive of the heavyweight era. It doesn't matter that her tender says "Canadian Pacific." Passengers of that era would have seen a Pacific at the head of almost any passenger train worthy of its name at that time.

2. Restoring a smaller engine would limit the size of the consist, plus the fact the 2-6-0's and 2-8-0's were historically found at the head end of freight trains. Steamtown already has an operating steam freight locomotive in the form of ex-CN 2-8-2 #3254.

3. Restoring either the 2-6-0 or the 2-8-0 after they have sat outside in countless Vermont and Pennsylvania winters would be far more costly than properly rebuilding #2317.

Here it is:

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/onli ... n/shst.htm

The following is my OWN OPINION, I speak for nobody but me-my speculation is somewhat informed by affiliation, but still it must be accompanied by $4.50 to get something @ Starbucks...

2317 : "Rumors of my demise have been greatly exagerated... or not?"

Greatly exaggerated. Too useful an engine to let sit.

There have been several rumors regarding the future of Steamtown's CP 2317.

Rumors: idle and uninformed speculation which serves to fill a void in the minds of those without actual knowledge. So?

From what I had heard from a park ranger a year ago, the B&M 3713 was going to be used for "special" occasions to bring in the crowds while 2317 would be the main engine used for excursions.

That presumes that the park service could expend the time and resources in order to have a working engine sit around. Trust me, there's no excess resources, there's no votes in old trains and there's nobody in PA's current congressional representation that has the influence that Joe McDade did. Rep. Kanjorski should be way up on the depth chart given his longevity and the 2006 election results, however, everybody knows PA is losing seats and power is concentrating around Philly & Pittsburgh. Additionally, the way that assertion is phrased-its sounds sinister, with decisions made on the basis of intentional deceit.
That having been said, it appears the days of running 160 mainline trips a season are over-until/unless trips are regularly sold out-which would dictate considering an expanded schedule. Right now, there's days when the 25-30 trips we run now don't have enough BIS (butts-in-seats), so as long as excursions are special events, you can bet an 80 inch drivered engine will be used only for special events. Context is important.

The CN 3254, I was told, would be used only in a pinch, perhaps when the 2317 was down for service. I was told CN 3254 was a "rough riding freight engine" while the CP 2317 was preferable and more suitable for running excursions.

In theory, a 63 inch drivered engine that gives peak power at 25-30MPH (my guess, no dyno car available), rather than 75 inches and peak power at a higher speed would be the best for modern excursion service, where 25-30 is kind of the highest speed we generally attain. In reality, 3254 does ride rougher in my opinion, has a few quirky battle scars from its revenue service days and doesn't steam or fire as as well as 2317. Get behind on that engine, its really, really tough to get it back. You'd think an extra 8,000 pounds of tractive effort would be a huge advantage, but 2317 seems to be as good or better than 3254 for the average 6 car train and it also seems to fill the coaches with fewer cinders. 3254 is a cantankerous freight mule, 2317 is an eager quarter horse.

Baldwin #26 I was told will finally be ready this Fall, maybe.

We'll see. A lot of TLC is going into that engine, which is in many ways is being more renewed than restored. Don't think for a minute Baldwin or Jackson Iron & Steel gave it any better coal than "cheapest cr*p that'll burn, thats what I want". After arriving in Scranton and being worked almost all the time for better than a decade-it was tired. Its return will also be a boon to the other engines-which need to run a speed to get properly lubed.

Now that the 5 year service is due on the 2317, I have a few questions.

Will 2317 be stuffed and mounted, per some rumors, or restored to operation resulting in an absence of long duration?
There's a lot to be done on 2317, in addition to the 1472 day. It may, in fact be back for the fall, but my guess is after 2007, it'll be out with the idea of "getting it right", rather than just running.

When was the last time either the 2317 or 3254 was up for a 5 year and how long did it take?

DKDC. Has no bearing on next "5 year", each one is different.

After a shop tour, we were told the cost to date (which I can't recall, nor count to) for the 0-6-0 Baldwin restoration. The amount was seemingly so high that one might question if instead another engine of percieved greater value or attraction could've been restored.

If you don't remember the number, how do you know it would be adequate for "another engine of percieved greater value or attraction"

Would restoration of an American engine at a US National Park such as the NKP 759 or the Reading Northern be practical as opposed to tearing apart and rebuilding the CP 2317?

759 has been idle since the early 1970's. The 2124 since 1964. Now before you do anything with them, we have to remember that it cost of 30 grand for asbestos abatement on 3713 a decade ago. 2124 was trotted out for publicity, so we can guess Reading said "look, we just need to run it:. make it run" -I'll bet both will need tires. Look at the K-4. It ran late into the steam era, was given just enough care to keep it running until the next set of EMD's came in and then sat outside for 30 years. Don't forget the core of that sexy roller bearing 4-8-4 is a much older Baldwin freight hog, with a lot of similarities to the K-4. 759 is as about as modern as it gets but 759 ran a lot of miles in excursion service far from the friendly confines of Conneat (sp?). You don't know what you'll find.
But even if you waive a magic wand, get the funding, find a way to get staffing to work on these monsters and provide absolute assurance against "unpleasant surprises", what standard makes you call these engines as "percieved greater value or attraction"? Sure they could charge up the Pocono mainline with 15 cars, but a train that long well filled is a 750 person event. Right now 300 is a great day. Its all economics. Maybe a big engine will suddenly spike visitation, then again maybe not. The history of NEPA is grand showy gestures which come with messianic promises by politicians- but never seem to work-the Steamtown Mall, The Red Barons, National Westminster "Nat West" Bank, Prudential and my personal favorit-Corning-sold before it was opened.
The excursion is important, its the crown jewel of the experience but Steamtown is about getting up close and personal-and if it was up to me, I'd work on a saddle tanker and an engine that LOOKS big but would be comfortable in yard service IC 790, perhaps. The BIG engines would 5 minutes of attention locally, maybe regionally, but be lost in the next oil price spike or celebrity DUI. Sure it'd be great to see it, but the value is to the railfan press and the hardcore fans- and unless either or both ponies up big bucks, labor (and lets not forget one group already promised to help with 759, but was trying to get it to Ohio, before a single thing was done, so don't be suprised if you're asked for a BIG surety bond with your plan) and a working plan to get BIS, then they'll stay on a wish list, unless there's a massive change in visitation and ridership.

Its was only 12 years ago, but it seems like an alternate universe, when Steamtown bid on the BLE 643-when they thought they'd need something that powerful to pull 20 car trains. I remember 10 car trains, 400 plus passengers, and so many windows to put down in July/August...I almost miss the windows now.

Of course the N&W 1218 would have been a lot more practical for than purpose-more power, less ridgid wheelbase-but its home and thats OK, but it should would've been something to see Pocohantas visit the Poconos..

Bravo! Superheater, you're spot on!! Seems to me that within the confines of todays realities what you've said is the way it is.
It is instructive and valuable to learn from the 1361 experience that one never knows what lies ahead when one tears apart one of these magnificent monsters!!!
My WAG is that in Steamtown context you're probably looking at at least a 10 year, $5-$10 MILLION dollar effort to return either the 2124 or 759 to service.
In todays realities as the old saying goes---fergetaboutit!!!!

IMHO-Ross Rowland

How about a light Pacific? FEC 148 was available for many years, but is now far from home in Colorado for what I hope will be a successful career. FEC 113 is available at Gold Coast RR Museum. Based on my last observations, someone needs to get that locomotive out of there before major parts (many of which are separated from the engine) disappear in a "site cleanup" effort. Heck, we (Thronateeska Heritage Center) might even talk with Steamtown about Georgia Northern 107 (ex-FEC 88) if they would rebuild and then let us have her back after a few years of service. :>)

My opinion based on current operations:

Thoroughly examine overhauling 2317 vs

Restore to operation CN 47 (4-6-4T)
Reasons for:
--it was designed for the reverse trip (an end to goofy wheel wear issues?)
--it's unique
--it's a passenger loco
--create CNJ decals to run periodic CNJ consists, I am not saying return to the Lackawanna everything days, just something different since CNJ ran the same loco type
Reasons against:
--Probably in rough shape
--Canadian
--Small water tank

Restore to operation Rahway valley 15
Reasons for:
--light 2-8-0s often outlasted modern steamers due to bridge loadings and tight clearances
--Documented as having been worked on by the DL&W
Reasons against:
--Short line loco; probably beat up bad
--Fishing it out of the stuffed and mounted line may be prohibitive

Just my two cents

--Joe Bania

Now that it appears the 425 will be operational again, it would be neat to see that engine run at Steamtown from time to time.