Ok I called a friend out at Strasburg yesterday, He told me, the locomotive is former Lewisburg & Buffalo Creek No. 1500. It is an SW8, that was built in 1953.
Here's a pictures of the locomotive when it was still with the L&B C RR.
Len.
| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| I'm curious... https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26046 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | PRR Forever [ Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | I'm curious... |
In light of the GCR news, is this something that we could unfortunately see more of in the future? What factors are making people drop steam from their roster? I hope and pray that kind of news never gets uttered out of Strasburg... |
|
| Author: | Tom Richards [ Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: I'm curious... |
Strasburg just bought a diesel big enough to haul a train. |
|
| Author: | Schuylkill Valley [ Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: I'm curious... |
Strasburg is not getting out of the steam for their trains, they bought the Sw-800 for help in their freight service. or if for say a Steam loco brakes down. They can pull the whole train in. The Center cab they own will not pull a whole train with steam locomotive and passengers aboard, it's just not that powerful like an SW-800 is. Len. |
|
| Author: | junior [ Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: I'm curious... |
Actually, it wasn't for freight service. It was bought indeed to 'replace' the 9331 since, as stated by SRR personel, that the engine is mostly in tact as built, their thoughts to preserve what is possibly the last fully intact, fully servicable as built 44 tonner in the country overpowered the potential to rebuild it with new materials. I would consider it a very well thought out preservation effort by Linn and his crew. And, as stated by Len, it was not the most effective motive power for 8 car passenger trains in the even steam was not available. Snails pace at best, and a struggle too. SRR would never survive if the went diesel. Too many steam operations nearby to compete with. It will never happen to the extent it did on the GCRY. GCRY seves a direct purpose...it is indeed a transportation mode....the SRR is just a short out and back operation. No one really NEEDS to ride it to go 4 miles. GCRY is not a needed operation either, but the luxury of not having to deal with the traffic into the park and the uniqueness of it, will continue to draw passengers, steam or no steam. |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: I'm curious... |
Schuylkill Valley wrote: Strasburg is not getting out of the steam for their trains, they bought the Sw-800 for help in their freight service. or if for say a Steam loco brakes down. They can pull the whole train in. The Center cab they own will not pull a whole train with steam locomotive and passengers aboard, it's just not that powerful like an SW-800 is. Corrections: SW8, not SW800. EMD built SW8's, SW600's (only 15 of those), SW7's, SW9's, and SW900's, but not an SW800. (Sorry, nitpicking is mandatory in this field.) Second, the 33 HAS pulled an entire train with steam locomotive at least once, if not several times. I personally witnessed it rescue 90 and train sometime in the late 1980s when (as I recall) 90 broke a spring hanger or some such breakdown, and 33 gamely brought the train back in and then handled the next round trip or two on 90's schedule. Damn, I wish I could find those photos I took of 33 and train passing the lame 90 sitting outside the enginehouse with crews working on it......... The difference: back then, 33 had both Cat D17000 engines operable. Now it has one at best, plus a host of other issues (wiring, etc.). In other thoughts, I believe Strasburg Plymouth #1 is supposedly honorably retired, and there's #2, the propane-fired Plymouth as a shop switcher. I wonder how desperate things would have to get to see #2 on a train? <:-) CORRECTION: I've been informed by Strasburg personnel that both of 9331's engines are currently operable. |
|
| Author: | G. W. Laepple [ Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: I'm curious... |
I am more than pleased to report that Strasburg #1 is still in service. I saw it shifting the tender of RGS no. 20 around the shop area when I was there on Aug. 4. |
|
| Author: | Schuylkill Valley [ Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: I'm curious... |
Ok I called a friend out at Strasburg yesterday, He told me, the locomotive is former Lewisburg & Buffalo Creek No. 1500. It is an SW8, that was built in 1953. Here's a pictures of the locomotive when it was still with the L&B C RR. Len. |
|
| Author: | John Bohon [ Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: I'm curious... |
Sadly I think you may be able to add Spencer Shops to the list of no longer running their own steam enignes. They have not run steam in several years and while BC&G 4 is under repair they have no money to fund the project and little, if anything, is being done. Once an air compressor is reinstalled on the GC shay it will at least be complete as a display item. They still rent real steam Thomas for DOWT and did bring in Flagg Coal 75 but I do not see them operating their own steam locomotive in the near future. I hope I am wrong about the prediction but I think that may become forever. John Bohon |
|
| Author: | Stephen Hussar [ Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: I'm curious... |
There are also more and more people who see coal and oil smoke as incongruous with nature. Just last year a good friend of mine who is an avid hiker in the White Mtns of New Hampshire expressed her outrage at the sight of a smoke-belching steamer going up the Cog "polluting the entire valley." She suggested they convert it to electric... I told her that would only serve to move the "pollution" somewhere else (for the generation of the electricity needed). I'd be worried about Cass as well as places in the Pacific northwest. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: I'm curious... |
Steam is an easy target for cost savings for operators faced with increasing expenses and declining revenues as the private car-centric tourist economy shrinks due to fuel cost increases. Cost of locomotive fuel is much less important than gasoline prices - marginal in relative terms. Putting steam on hiatus while continuing to file out of service paperwork allows for its reintroduction in the future with little difficulty - depending on where in the 15 calendar year framework the locomotive in question may be. Where can steam work? In locations easily accessable to or within major SMSA's with tourist and local markets already in cost effective proximity, or as part of destinations somewhat immune to $4.50 per gallon gas - Disney World, for example. They can juggle hotel room costs to make up for travel cost increases and maintain visitation. Steam is THE attraction at some places - history in others, which requires steam sometimes. How many attractions are really good time machines, taking their visitors back to a visceral experience of an interesting period in history? Too few. Perhaps if we do a better job of this we could become more relevant? Makes me wonder if such attractions as Renaissance Faires and Colonial Williamsburg are seeing less or more audience attrition than we are. Public sector supported attractions are hard hit because they never were market oriented, but more process than result dependent. You don't take a bureaucrat and convert him into an enterpreneur overnight, even if the system in which he operates encourages it (which to a large extent it doesn't). I've been told in plain English by someone in a position to know that Spencer Shops is not only having its operational funding not increased, but also the private foundation supporting it has cut out all overhaul budgets, and will only fund running expenses and maintenance. Too bad, because Spencer Shops is a pretty forgiving operating environment, where a bulky 2-8-0 or a 3 truck Shay could run around the yard for years before wearing out, and in a good location to appeal to local educational and regional tourist markets. The major green consideration isn't locomotives exhaust, but the exhausts from all the cars that bring riders. Any other claim is pretty well bogus in comparison. If Grand Canyon wants to be green, let's see the catenary go up and the GG1's hauling passengers out of Williams. Two masters served........otherwise, let's stop pretending. Strasburg connecting with light rail at Leamon Place - wonderful idea, nice of more of us can also connect to public transit systems. Current leadership talking seems to be more attuned to trying to maintain our sprawling suburban cultural and community design model by replacing gasoline with other car fuel sources, while the little voices in the wolderness are the ones recommending we reconsider and rebuild our communities on a less energy extensive, more cooperative transit-oriented model - in other words, back to the future in a 1920 style with new technologies. If new car fuel works, it will extend the operating life of our current models on an increasingly marginal curve, if things change we can be an integral part of the past-modeled future. What steps are we taking in either direction? Radical idea - do both. dave |
|
| Author: | Stephen Hussar [ Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: I'm curious... |
Dave wrote: The major green consideration isn't locomotives exhaust, but the exhausts from all the cars that bring riders. dave Dave, I tried to make that point as well... but that stuff's invisible (for the most part) and she just wasn't buying it. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: I'm curious... |
Good try anyhow, no PR person worth the name would ever let reality interfere with the spin cycle on their brainwasher. dave |
|
| Author: | Chris Salmonson [ Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Save money |
Run smaller steam locomotives. Remember that Trains article about six coupled steam? |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: I'm curious... |
Smaller steamers also require fueling and watering facilities, specific maintenance requirements and skills, which pretty much make them only marginally less costly than larger ones. Possibly more costly, if you beat them up doing the work that requires larger ones to do without rapid destruction. Grand Canyon isn't a little tourist line on a backwater branch, its big time railroading. As such, it needs bigger power to do the bigger job. Locomotive fuel costs are only marginal in the greater picture. dave |
|
| Author: | S. Weaver [ Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: I'm curious... |
We bought the SW8 for two reasons: (a) to replace 9331 in her regular yard and road duties, and (b) to position ourselves for an uptick in freight business. The SW8 was not purchased to haul timetable trains. However, things happen from time to time and we will stoop to a temporary motive power replacement until the standby steam locomotive is hot. One of 8618's redeeming factors is that she has pushpole pockets ... =o) |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|