Railway Preservation News :: View topic - It doesn't look good for B&M 3713

I would follow Dave's report by adding that just because she's stripped down to such a meager state, don't suspect the worst. If the shops had 600 skilled steam men working on three shirts, ala' 1938, she'd have been back years ago, as would the 1361. Alas, steam rebuilding has become a specialized and expensive proposition. Patience, and look at how far she's come.

We now have a dedicated website up and running at project3713.com which has some updates from this summer explaining the current work.

Dave Crosby

" 759 and 2124 were also left out because they were "railfan" engines. They were built for freight service and had little attention in regular use before the 60's and 70s, when they were reactivated specifically for fan trips."

Gee isn't Steamtown a railroad museum? You might think they would want railfan's , because you would have packed trains each time, or don't they want to make money?
759 was built to haul fast passenger and freight. and I know 2124 wouldn't get restored she's to large for the turn table.
"Also, in 1995, it looked as though 3713 was in better condition than any other US steamer."

The IC No. 790 is in good condition and that be a good locomotive to have restored to operation. I have been on tours at Steamtown and the Ranger that was giving us the tour even said that wasn't much wrong with her. That she just needed some routine shop work.

Without going to far off course...

With the convention, we did try VERY hard to get a certain maroon and blue 4-6-4 to Scranton, but it wasn't meant to be. Moving any other "big" engine to Scranton while perhaps remotely possible under the best of circumstances, would have driven our ticket prices through the roof. We didn't want that to happen, as we wanted to appeal to the broadest audience possible within the framework of an NRHS convention.

Dave

Author:	PRRforLife [ Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:27 pm ]
Post subject:	It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
After taking a trip to Steamtown and doing a shop tour, I was horrified to see 3713's boiler being just the outer shell with no crownsheet, tubes or anything. The guide said that Steamtown is hiring a new contractor to work on it but the way it looks now, this engine won't be running for a long time. On the bright side, Baldwin #26 is coming along fine, the shop is about ready to put the tubes in and the work on the cylinders is almost done. Hopefully this engine should be out and running by next year if nothing goes wrong.

Author:	Steve Singer [ Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
Hoping to see #26 again soon. While I love all steam & have travelled to many countries to ride & photograph, it always struck me as odd that after all these years a US National Park only runs Canadian engines.

Author:	Dave Crosby [ Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
I'll admit the 3713 looks like its got a long way to go (and it does) BUT most of the missing firebox components are being fabricated off site and are expected to return later this year. The contractor that was working for the NRHS full time was hired by the NPS and moved over the the 26 and other projects. We've got a few irons in the fire for a new NRHS funded contractor and the last time I spoke with others in the project, they hoped to have a contractor in place by the time the firebox components start returning late in 2010. We now have a dedicated website up and running at project3713.com which has some updates from this summer explaining the current work. Dave Crosby

Author:	Richard Glueck [ Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
I would follow Dave's report by adding that just because she's stripped down to such a meager state, don't suspect the worst. If the shops had 600 skilled steam men working on three shifts, ala' 1938, she'd have been back years ago, as would the 1361. Alas, steam rebuilding has become a specialized and expensive proposition. Patience, and look at how far she's come.

Author:	dinwitty [ Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
Richard Glueck wrote: I would follow Dave's report by adding that just because she's stripped down to such a meager state, don't suspect the worst. If the shops had 600 skilled steam men working on three shirts, ala' 1938, she'd have been back years ago, as would the 1361. Alas, steam rebuilding has become a specialized and expensive proposition. Patience, and look at how far she's come. total true, the old rail shops would have run it over in maybe 2 weeks. But these old engines may sometimes take heavier re-habbing than just a basic re-tube and some boiler tweaks. Be glad its in the shops awaiting its future shopwork and glory and be back...eventually ---->

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

It doesn't look good for B&M 3713 https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29950	Page 1 of 4

Author:	Newriver400 [ Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
Dave Crosby wrote: We now have a dedicated website up and running at project3713.com which has some updates from this summer explaining the current work. Dave Crosby Dave, The website looks good. Got a quick question - any chance she'll get her Constitution name back? Sure would be nice since it is under care of NPS. I for one would buy a replica (for your online store, along with number plates??). Hope all is well with you in Scranton, Mike

Author:	Dave Crosby [ Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
I believe she will get her name back, and if I'm not mistaken the original plates are on hand. Great idea for a fund raiser, those replica plates..... Dave

Author:	tim o'm [ Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
Many reasons were behind the decision to restore B&M 3713. At the time the choice was made, Steamtown only ran to Moscow, PA, and a locomotive similar to 2317 in size and power was considered ideal for such a short distance. 759 was way too much engine. She still is. 759 and 2124 were also left out because they were "railfan" engines. They were built for freight service and had little attention in regular use before the 60's and 70s, when they were reactivated specifically for fan trips. 3713 was built as a passenger locomotive for passenger service and would fit into NPS passenger operations better. 3713 will haul 6-8 cars up the hill and back, whether the destination is Moscow or Tobyhanna. Her new tender will have capacity to go to Delaware Water Gap, but like the other locos, probably need a refill to come back. Rarely will we need to sell more than 8 cars. Also, in 1995, it looked as though 3713 was in better condition than any other US steamer. She had only seen 20 years of service, was rather well protected from the weather, and was a prominent display at the Boston Museum of Science for about 15 years. She looked like an "easy" engine to fix. As far as Sen. Kennedy, or any other senator, I will let the conspiracy theorists hijack this thread with those comments.

Author:	Dave Crosby [ Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:43 am ]
Post subject:	Re: It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
In addition to Tim's spot-on comments there were some very simple reasons the 3713 was chosen over 2124 or 759 back then: Those reasons were called RDG 2102, RDG 2100, NKP 765 and PM 1225. While the 2100's are no longer running, they were more or less operational back then. The reasoning was to offer something different. As far as any Senator's influence, if there was any I haven't heard, or more importantly, seen any money as a result. Dave

Author:	Dave Crosby [ Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
John Sad truth is that Railfans don't bring in the $$$ like the general public does. Any number of threads here will cover that subject. B&M 3713 was/is a more practical engine for Steamtown's operations than a RDG 2100 class or a NKP 700 or even the IC 2-8-0. I'm sure we'll have full trains when the 3713 runs again. Dave

Author:	Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:15 am ]
Post subject:	Re: It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
Lackawanna_Fan wrote: " 759 and 2124 were also left out because they were "railfan" engines. They were built for freight service and had little attention in regular use before the 60's and 70s, when they were reactivated specifically for fan trips." Gee isn't Steamtown a railroad museum? You might think they would want railfan's , because you would have packed trains each time, or don't they want to make money? 759 was built to haul fast passenger and freight. and I know 2124 wouldn't get restored she's to large for the turn table. "Also, in 1995, it looked as though 3713 was in better condition than any other US steamer." The IC No. 790 is in good condition and that be a good locomotive to have restored to operation. I have been on tours at Steamtown and the Ranger that was giving us the tour even said that wasn't much wrong with her. That she just needed some routine shop work. First, I have to agree with the mentality of "Railfan engines" versus "real" engines. This is much more a practical decision on the order of what would be more practical to keep in your backyard, a horse or an elephant? Sure, the elephant would be "cooler" and attract more attention, but it's also much more costly to feed..... If there were some stunning need for "bigger power" to handle a lot more than just one big, epic steam excursion somewhere out of Scranton, it would be FAR easier and cheaper in the long run to "hire in" NKP 765, PM 1225, or Milwaukee 261 from afar than to fix up 759 or 2124. Hey, guess what--they did JUST THAT with 261 in 1995-96! And let's not forget (as every foamer seems to ) Reading 2102 sitting cold in the Reading & Northern's Port Clinton roundhouse. You really NEED a 4-8-4? Fix that up and hire it for a while! Note that the NRHS just had a NATIONAL Convention in Scranton, and for whatever logistical reasons--money, unavailable locos, or just not deemed worth it--Steamtown and the NRHS simply "made do" with what was available in town. Was it a successful convention? The NRHS and Steamtown and Lackawanna & Wyoming Valley Chapter seemed to think so. Were there complaints that there was "nothing new," "been there, done that" and all? Of course, but some folks wouldn't have been satisfied with anything short of UP 3985, SP 4449, MILW 261, NKP 765, AND Britain's A1 Tornado. Most importantly: Was there some big 20-car train to and from Hoboken or Albany or Altoona that justified the use/need for a big 4-8-4 or 2-8-4, in spite of a national rail convention? No. Could they have assembled one even if the railroads had co-operated? Only with the help of an APPRCO convention, I'm wagering. One last note: The allegations/rumors I have heard are that 759 suffered some major freeze damage in the 1970s, and thus either will "never run again" or needs the equivalent of a new cylinder casting or similar repairs to operate again. 765 is operable out in NKP territory. Jerry Jacobsen has 763, and has a good chance of restoring it to operation if he so chooses. Can anyone present a better argument for throwing massive repair money at 759 other than "I wasn't there when 759 ran the first time, and I think it would be so cool if I could ride the same tracks behind her!" ???

Author:	Dave Crosby [ Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:39 am ]
Post subject:	Re: It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
Without going to far off course... With the convention, we did try VERY hard to get a certain maroon and blue 4-6-4 to Scranton, but it wasn't meant to be. Moving any other "big" engine to Scranton while perhaps remotely possible under the best of circumstances, would have driven our ticket prices through the roof. We didn't want that to happen, as we wanted to appeal to the broadest audience possible within the framework of an NRHS convention. Dave

Author:	Newriver400 [ Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
Dave Crosby wrote: Without going to far off course... With the convention, we did try VERY hard to get a certain maroon and blue 4-6-4 to Scranton, but it wasn't meant to be. Moving any other "big" engine to Scranton while perhaps remotely possible under the best of circumstances, would have driven our ticket prices through the roof. We didn't want that to happen, as we wanted to appeal to the broadest audience possible within the framework of an NRHS convention. Dave It's a shame that the Empress was not made available, but I understand that it would have been a real hike from Calgary and that CP was apparently busy with other things and getting the engine ready for the 125th Anniversary stuff. She should get back to Steamtown on occassion, though, as it was Mr. Blount that saved her. One thing's for sure - she is a real beauty! Waiting on a train at Beaverville, er Bensenville, Mike

Author:	robertjohndavis [ Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
John, It is probably worth noting in this thread that this is not a railfan board. The perspectives here are generally based in reality. Most of us here have the understanding either from direct practice or observations of such that railfans are not the target ridership of any tourist operation. Railfans are the target for volunteering and keeping things moving, but there simply are not enough to make an impact at the farebox over time. Once in awhile, sure. Consistently, never. Rob

Page 1 of 4	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	limejuice [ Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: It doesn't look good for B&M 3713
I've heard that 759 only fits on the turntable if they take the railings down. If that is true, then it would be very impractical to use that engine in regular excursion service. Obviously 2124 wouldn't fit, so are they supposed to store it outside after spending millions of dollars on a restoration? Before you criticize, maybe parse your complaints with a healthy dose of reality. This forum is about preservation professionals sharing ideas, not foamer complaints. There are several other forums for that. It is very disheartening to read such negativism being expressed by those who haven't bothered to make the slightest attempt to understand why things are the way they are. I wish the same time and energy could be put toward preservation efforts. Just think - 3 hours spent droning online about why such-and-such isn't running could be spent at your local vocational school in a metalworking course.