Her second career as an excursion engine had some real ups and downs. This recent photo show her resting at the Kentucky Railway Museum under cover and not looking bad. Maybe one day she will be called back to work.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 51&nseq=27

For awhile, there was the possibility of seeing a genuine C&O Kanawha and Greenbriar, hot and steaming near each other. I would think it wouldn't take too much to bring 2716 up to operational standards again.

Richard,

You would think that would be the case but to get a boiler of that size into current FRA compliance is not an inexpensive undertaking. I've heard it more than once from guys at KRM that they think she's too heavy for the 90# rail on their line. I think it's open hearth rail which is not control cooled and tends to get more brittle as time goes on. Not a good combination for such a heavy engine as the 2716. Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong on all of this!

There would be nothing better than to see a NKP (or two), a PM and a C&O Super Power 2-8-4 all lined up side by side in Owosso!

Rob Gardener

Since it was brought up here, I must ask... Why has it become perception that the "new FRA codes" result in much higher cost than previous rebuilds?

-An ultrasound survey must be done, new but not expensive
-Form 4, not new
-2 sight glasses, new but not expensive... 2716 may already have 2, don't remember
-Interior inspection, not new and one may not have to remove but 20% of the tubes if the condition can be proven good. Given the fact that 2716 ran very little following the rebuild I would expect the tubes to be in good condition.
-Etc, Etc...

My point is this, there are a handful of new requirements in part 230. However, these are not cost prohibitive and at large the newer codes offer many opportunities.

I do want to point out that I am not saying the engine should be rebuilt... There is no reason to do so at this point.

Fact or Fiction? I heard years ago that her firebox was cooled down using a garden hose during a steam test after the fire was dropped for some repairs and that contributed to her never running again. Anyone else hear of this? Not sure who's care she was in during this incident, if it really happend at all.
Rob Sundberg

Maybe someday, someone with a huge load of money will come along and decide to revive 2716 to operation. Of course with 2789 returning to service in the not too distant future by the Hoosier Valley guys in Indiana, the need or want of having another C&O K-4 run again might decline. Just my two cents.

Martin

Martin,

I'm not so sure Hoosier Valley is moving forward with a full operational restoration. I've heard second hand that they lost on their most recent request for TEA funds as they could not prove the historical relevance of 2789 to Northern Indiana as the 2700's never operated north of Cincinnati into Indiana.

Rob Gardner

For the record, KRM's mainline is not laid with 90 pound rail. The line, a remnant of the L&N "Lebanon Branch" was actually more of a secondary mainline. The line, seperating from the Louisville-Nashville main stem at Lebanon Jct., KY traveled to just north of Corbin on the Cincinnati-Knoxville mainline. The line provided Louisville with direct access to the coal fields, and as such always saw heavy traffic during the steam era. The mainline is laid with 120 pound rail, most from TCI with mid to late 1930s roll dates. I believe the rail on the main was control cooled. About the same time the bridges were all rebuilt for 100 ton capacity as well. The L&N regularly ran their 2-8-4s (which were slightly heavier) up and down the branch as a way to easily access the South Louisville shops. (I know the specs of the line firsthand, because I spent several years of my teenage years helping the chief engineer walk and inspect the line, as part of early ISTEA grant applications to develop the specs for trackwork). Very little of the line's specifications have changed since the steam era, and nothing physically about KRM's track would prevent 2716 from running.

What, other than money is keeping the 2716 inactive isn't the railroad structure, but can be attributed to the fact that L&N 152 does more than an adequate job as the main steam locomotive. Most trains are 4-5 passenger cars long, and the 2716 would be overkill for the operation in that it would be more locomotive than you could ever need for the line.

As for the many rumors concerning the firebox, I can say that the problems were repaired by Ft. Wayne, and probably could have been repaired by Southern. It is key to remember that 2716's last season conincided with the Sou/NW merger, and company politics, and the push to restore 611 had more to do with 2716 running again than anything else.

keep donations going anything can happen.

2 berks now operational, we have potentially nkp 763 and the C&O 2789. 4 running berks. Owosso could be nuts.

Of course the Owosso event was a fund raiser for the PM berk, perhaps setting up such an event for 2789 would help it. Fooey on govt grants.

Rob -

I have been a member at the Hooosier Valley Railroad Museum for something like 18 years now and I don't ever recall the museum seeking any kind of TEA or ISTEA or other funding for a restoration of the 2789. That does not mean we have not done any work on her over that time. We received a complete new set of donated flues a number of years ago, which have not yet been installed. We also sent the cab out for a complete rebuild a few years ago. Repainted the tender and parts of the engine. And some other things have also been done. I believe we did request landmark status for the Kanawha some time back and that WAS turned down because the C&O never operated their 2-8-4's through Indiana in regular service.

Les

Les,

Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense about seeking landmark status and having trouble getting it.

Can you give us a realistic estimate, if one exists, of what it would take to get 2789 in running condition? At one time, HVRM's website had a figure of around $27,000.00 for firebox work that they thought would have to be raised. Are there any other major boiler costs that have been indentified such as superheaters, staybolts, etc.?

Rob Gardner

Jason

Did you get an answer to your question?

Robby Peartree

Rob -

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Scott Lindsay of Steam Operations Corp. did an inspection of the 2789 many years ago; maybe about 1994 or so. I can't lay my hands on a copy of that report right now, and I haven't yet heard back from someone at the museum as to its exact date. The current HVRM website states that we first need about $7K for the back tube sheet and $20K-$25K for the right sidesheet inside the firebox. We have had a brand new set of donated flues sitting in a couple of our boxcars for a number of years now. We have the original set of superheaters, but how good these are I don't know. I remember that there are certain wheelsets that need to be replaced on the tender, and possibly on the engine itself. And I know that there are staybolt problems. The engines welded boiler was actually in good shape as I recall, and the engine generally sits inside these days out of the weather. I asked if perhaps we just couldn't put Mr. Lindsay's complete report on our website so that interested parties could see just what needs to be done, but I have had no reaction to that as yet. I will follow up on it and see if we can't at least get that done. Although railfans might think that it would be nice to see 1225, 765 and a restored 2789 steaming together side by side, the bottom line is that there would be 3 Van Sweringen 2-8-4's in same general area (southern Michigan/northern Indiana), and the two that are currently running, are probably not making a decent return on their investment at the present time. I myself have long hoped that we could start on 2789's restoration, but there are certainly realities that must be lived with.

Les