So after having some discussion revolving around the RRHMA and some of their projects, it dawned on me that we're going to go from having really only one operational 2-10-2 to around five in the next 5-7 years.

- IAIS QJ #6988 (about to have its 1,472 started)
- IAIS QJ #7081 (should get its 1,472 after the 6988)
- UP #5511 (I'm assuming this one will be a little bit, but it'll get restored after 3985 is done)
- SP (T&NO) #982 (I've been told they're looking for a facility, but I'm betting they'll make good progress once started)
- RJC QJ #2008 (donated to KY Steam but I don't think its been moved yet. Its only ran a limited number of times, so the 1,472 should be a breeze after they finish 2716)

Upon some further discussion, some friends were wondering if there are any of the other surviving 2-10-2s that could be potential restoration candidates in the near future. Not that we really need any more since we'll be going from one to five, but are there any others that logically would make sense?

Yes we are looking for a facility for the 982, but we have not officially announced the kickoff for fund raising yet, but that will be pretty soon once we have a couple of other pieces in place which are in flux at this time. Stay tuned for those.

As far as other 2-10-2's, there is the 975 at IRM. Actually, 2-10-2's like the QJ's and the F1's are not bad candidates for restoration. They have the tractive effort of most 4-8-4's, and most excursion speeds (40 -60 MPH) would be right in their wheelhouse, especially when operating on regionals. It's gonna be a fun ride the next few years...

Kenneth Cotton

President

Texas Railway Preservation Association

The 975 at IRM is about as beat up and bad of a candidate as you could choose. It's in really rough shape.

As far as QJ 7081, I've been told by those heavily involved with that group that, while they'd like to do it, they are having enough challenges with getting the money and manpower (mostly the money) to get just the 6988s 1472 inspection done- and the 7081 needs a lot more work done than the 6988. I wouldn't hold my breath to see both under steam.

As for additional surviving 2-10-2's, there are the two Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range engines; numbers 502 and 506. Although both unfortunately, had their distinctive Elesco feedwater heaters removed, both are probably in good shape mechanically. One is at the museum in Green Bay and the other at MofT in St. Louis. And then there is the older AT&SF engine which is, I believe, preserved in Oklahoma. I think her number is 940, but I may be wrong on that.

Les

You would be correct, Les. The 940 is a brute from the original class of ATSF 2-10-2's. Equipped with a six axle tender to boot. Her only drawback is the class had a tendency to kink rail above 40 or50 MPH, if memory serves me correctly.

I'd vote for the DM&IR 506 in Green Bay, because it's an USRA engine.

Okay, I'll be the antagonist here. Chinese locomotives are newer and probably in far better shape, but they are Chinese locomotives, looking distinctly Chinese. This is not a political grievance, it's just that if you are going to spend that kind of money restoring a 2-10-2, restore one of the U.S. locomotives which has languished for 60 years. Not only does it return a big American locomotive to operation, when it is no longer going to be operated, it's in far better condition for any long term preservation.
Just the same, you are looking at a relatively slow, long wheelbase, and heavy engine. As an operating locomotive, consider all options.

The ATSF engine is 940, but isn't it one of the original tandem compound 2-10-0s that were rebuilt with a trailing truck to help tracking backing down Raton Pass?

Dylan -

The 940 was part of the order to Baldwin in 1903 for 86 2-10-2's (numbered 900-985). The wheel arrangement may well have been in part to aid reverse moves for helpers on Raton Pass. These were the first "as-built" 2-10-2's and as such, were given the name "Santa Fe's". The engines had been built as compounds but all were simplified between 1916 and 1923. The 940 is displayed in Bartlesville, Oklahoma near the joint AT&SF/MKT "Union" depot. A "standard" AT&SF offset cupola caboose (# 2259) and a single dome tank car (A.O.X. # 930) make up the engines "train". The story of the tank car is very interesting in itself, as it was built with the "Flying A" logo of the Associated Oil Company (later Tidewater Associated Oil) and when taken out of service and sold to a cattle feed plant, it was mounted on concrete supports with its frame and trucks scrapped. Many years later it was discovered, after the cattle feed plant was abandoned, with its original lettering (and logo) still visible! It was rescued, similar trucks to the originals found, and a new welded frame built for it, with the original frame rivets duplicated with plastic. The display is tastefully done, with the lettering on 2-10-2 # 940 replicated extremely well.

Les

I'm actually somewhat surprised there weren't more takers for a QJ. Gives you a big engine that can pull a decent consist and capable of excursion speeds of 50mph, but with a blind center driver and a very light axle loading, so you can take it pretty much anywhere. The design has it's basis with an American engine, and you can "undo" most of the Chinese stylings--if so desired. Also has the benefit of not having to deal with the additional cost of dealing with 60 years of rust and decay from outdoor storage. I guess there just aren't many regional operations that have a decent run that's more than 15mph.

Even moreso with an SY, which can be easily made to look like an American engine. Perfect option for a tourist line engine.

See the Chinese locomotive that -- to me, effectively -- was made to look like a New Haven engine.

It would be less work to modify a QJ to look 'more American' than was done to kitbash a D&H locomotive 'back in the day'. Several places could bash out a smokebox front and door and some falsies for the cab sides in weeks that would make most of the 'appearance' as American as you want. Do something with the ribbed smoke deflectors if you feel they're too unusual.

The ATSF 2-10-2 design from 1903 is one of the engines extensively reported on at the PRR test plant in St. Louis at the fair in 1904. There are good drawings of it 'as built' in the official test results, which are or were easily accessible via Google Books (and I know there is a copy in the Columbia University Library; I used it).

I for one would like to see that engine restored to original configuration, as the historic originator of a historic wheel-arrangement name and tradition.

OK, here's my "ling yuan worth": In many ways, the Chinese steam classes used up until recently, QJ, JS, SY, and narrow gauge C2, are the steam we should have had in the USA, had steam locomotive development not been killed off. Some of that Chinese styling is way cool, I like the storm windows and wide vision cabs, box poc drivers, slope back tenders for SY class, high degree of superheat (check out a Chinese tube sheet), wet cellars all around, roller bearing rods for the narrow gauge C2s, and an extra blow down under the front tube sheet for all classes, for example.

Trying to make any of these locomotives over into a convincing impersonation of a retro American steam design would be a very involved undertaking (how many 2-10-2s had box poc drivers?). However, branding them with a modern day road name, modification to meet FRA standards, and some restyling such as has been done to the Chinese engines already in the states, would be "relatively inexpensive". I (for one) think the results so far have been believable enough, if we're talking "contemporary US steam". For the time being, I'd say getting a nice example out of China for one of these projects might be difficult.

My vote for retro steam goes to T&NO 982, just as a personal favorite, and because the spark plug for this restoration is a veteran Texas State Railroader.

Do some (or all) the existing American QJs have Trofimov valves? (I spell it that way because Meiningen did, and they 'perfected' the current version of the valve with internal buffer piston).

Yes. (Corrections welcome).

There was a nasty counterbalance / dynamic augment problem with smaller-drivered 10-coupled locomotives that were NOT equipped with lightweight rods that I ran into, it really showed up on B&LE 643 without lightweight rods. It seemed that smaller drivers and heavier alloy rods had difficulty counterbalancing (ATSF 2-10-4's with bigger drivers didn't have a problem) and had resulting rail surface beating and applied speed limits.

I'm guessing the Chinese one's don't have that, but I'd think that might be one of the issues behind 940, speed limits, etc. And the Chinese 2-8-2 SY that's up on the Essex as a New Haven 2-8-2 was a masterful rebuild of the Knox & Kane SY after it was burned in a fire, done by our own master Dave Conrad. Not shabby at all.

There was a significant and well-written treatise on these is the National Railway & Historical Society publication years ago, centered on the beating that CB&Q 2-10-4's did on rails, and the 643 was a second cousin. B&LE had to upgrade their rail to handle those in WWII.

I won't pooh-pooh any restoration when FEC 148 is now running but they had a plan from the start about where it was going to run and what to do with it. To me, that's as essential as the tech issues - where and how do you run it now?