Railway Preservation News
https://www.rypn.org/forums/

A Hypothetical Question Re: K4s #1361 and #3750
https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24446		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  davew833 [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:19 am ]
Post subject:  A Hypothetical Question Re: K4s #1361 and #3750
Purely hypothetical question, but if we had a time machine and went back to 1985, would RRMPa's K4 #3750 have been a better restoration candidate than #1361? Could a swap have been made? I remember 1985 or thereabouts to be the year that the Friends of the RRMPa did considerable cosmetic restoration on #3750- I wonder what kind of condition it was in mechanically at that point. Also #3750 was stored inside at Northumberland for maybe 10 years after #1361 went on display. I don't want to stir up any new controversies, I'm interested mainly in the comparative mechanical condition of the two.
Author:  co614 [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A Hypothetical Question Re: K4s #1361 and #3750
One would SUSPECT that the probable answer to your question is yes, based on the very bad mechanical condition that the 1361 was found to be in AFTER she was torn down.
That's the fundamental risk one always takes when considering a restoration project. You can have a world class pro do a thorough external inspection and get a pretty good BALLPARK guesstimate of the work you're looking at to get her back in service BUT you won't have a solid work list 'till she's totally apart. Therein lies the rub.
As it turns out (with the benefit of hindsight) almost any other engine would have been a better choice than the 1361 in terms of work needed to return her to service.
Hindsight is always 20/20!!!
Ross Rowland
Author:  Mike Tillger [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A Hypothetical Question Re: K4s #1361 and #3750
I can not answer your question about the mechanics of the two locomotives, but I can provide an answer about the boiler conditions, both suffer from the design flaw inherent to the PRR Belpaire design, as do the Long Island G5 class. The staybolt sleeves on both boilers were severely corroded and would have required almost 100% replacement with new flexible bolts. I doubt if a swap would have been possible, nor do I believe there would have been any benefit to a swap.

Mike Tillger
( I was not a part of the conspiracy if one existed which I highly doubt, mentioned in a prior post(big grin), but did spend 4 years working on the 1361)
Author:  Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A Hypothetical Question Re: K4s #1361 and #3750
One issue to remember, in both this question and others concerning 1361, is that at the time of initial retrieval from the Curve and restorations towards service, enormous effort (I would probably more accurately call it propaganda) was expended towards raising civic pride and involvement in 1361 as Altoona's "pride and joy". Bluntly put, the powers that be in the process--politicians, museum folks, local former PRR employees, etc.--basically made 1361 an icon, an idol, and almost a fetish, as if the very metal, etc. was sacred to the memory of everyone who ever worked at Juniata/Altoona, and by extension the whole PRR. Does anyone else remember that 1361 was formally named "the Official State Steam Locomotive"? And the billboards to that effect? (I kid you not, young guns.)

I must say that, without these efforts--which I should remind you are are all right out of all the fundraisers' and PR textbooks, and are also among the same techniques that got the B&O Museum rebuilt after the roof collapse--that 1361 probably would never have operated at all. Better than the alternatives? You decide. I would also say that the same idolatry that raised the 1361 so high is also collapsing around the heirs to this project and bringing the loco back on top of their backs, what with the somewhat well-deserved indignation of the loco not having steamed in nearly 20 years despite shipping it off to Steamtown, etc. Would anyone in the "Altoona cult" (sorry) have accepted the declarations of Brothers Moedinger, Anderson, et al if the loco had been sent to Strasburg and they ended up declaring the loco unfit for further restoration work, and instead proposed building a replica as cheaper and safer?
Author:  Dave [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A Hypothetical Question Re: K4s #1361 and #3750
Begs another hypothetical question - or maybe not?

Why is it better to restore and then use the best example, rather than restore the worst while preserving the best as-is?

It seems obvious from reading about the situation that an operable K4 today will be very different than an operable K4 was in 1945. Preserving the best example remaining of state of the art PRR 1945 K4 and rebuilding the worst makes sense in every way but economically - and rebuilding any machine that won't earn its costs in revenue service makes no economic sense in any case, so if the K4 kit is the worst K4 available, sacrificing it to alteration to make it operable while conserving a better preserved example of historic fabric makes good sense to me.

dave
Author:  Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  The REAL reason a swap was impossible:
1361: Juniata.

3750: Baldwin.

Wasn't gonna happen.
Author:  PRRK4s [ Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The REAL reason a swap was impossible:
3750: Baldwin????

I don't think so.


Fact: 3750, Built 3/20, Juniata.
Author:  Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The REAL reason a swap was impossible:
Ooops, my bad. I was referring to a discussion I had with a long-ago Pennsy steam restorer, who answered thus when the question of a swap arose (his comments about 1361 as an icon/fetish in Altoona were similar to mine). There *are* some odd ducks in the Museum situation--I'm amazed that a Lima (H10s 7688) got preserved by the PRR........
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/