In considering the 1400 or so steam locomotives that survive to this day, it seems that those that (do/ do not) exist, do so because of the following approaches:

1.) Conscious and Systematic Efforts by the railroads that owned them. SP, ATSF and UP come to mind. Donated/sold many different classes for display/preservation.

2.) Conscious and Unsystematic. Occasional donations to museums-such as the NYC Mohawk at St Louis or the saving of very small numbers of engines such as the 5 left of the Milwaukee Road mentioned below.

2.) The Conscious but Reactive Approach- or the "hey, we don't have many of these left" approach. PRR's efforts- especially when swapping numbers comes to mind.

3.) The Single Class Approach. Saving primarily a flagship class such as the Rdg and its retention of the T-1's (but no G class pacifics or Consols)

4.) The Degraded approach- On lines such as the N&W, steam survived in numbers best primarily when it remained useful in branch line service. Yes, there's the 611 and 1218 and 2156.. but a quite a handful of 4-8-0's.

5.) Sold Approach- Some engines survive because they were useful off the rails of the orginal owner- such as CNJ 113.

6.) Saved (or lost) by individuals. This would include the efforts of course of Nelson Blout and the unfortunate failed attempt to preserve the CNJ 755? 4-6-0c that went to Luria Bros.

7.) Steam fleets that were consciously and systematically destroyed. Roads such as the Lehigh Valley scrapped every single engine.

Does anybody have any insight as to what guided the formation of these decisions? Was it for example a road like the LVRR or Erie, just so starved for capital that scrap sales seemed like the best use of an engine? Were there corporate policies formed with regard to locomotive disposition?

Thanks for any info sources that could be provided.



superheater@beer.com

> 7.) Steam fleets that were consciously and
> systematically destroyed. Roads such as the
> Lehigh Valley scrapped every single engine.

> Does anybody have any insight as to what
> guided the formation of these decisions? Was
> it for example a road like the LVRR or Erie,
> just so starved for capital that scrap sales
> seemed like the best use of an engine? Were
> there corporate policies formed with regard
> to locomotive disposition?

Since my 'initiation' some 4-5 years ago, the only reason I've heard as to why there are no D&RGW standard guage steamers to speak of (yes, i know of the one survivor at the Colorado Museum), is that there was an incentive offered in the sale of the new motive power from the diseasel manufacturers to scrap the steam and keep it off of the second-hand, short-line, etc. market -- thereby accelerating sales of their product. I guess this incentive would be just enough to help some of the struggling roads stay alive...

> Thanks for any info sources that could be
> provided.

I, too, would like to know if there are any 'smoking' internal memorandae that reveal such a conspiracy...

doc

Heber Valley Railroad
utweyesguy@aol.com

Don't forget the Marginal preservation - industrial and shortlines that couldn't afford to replace steam with diesels and in fact were only themselves fiscally possible until the steamers required more than bandaid maintenence.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> In considering the 1400 or so steam
> locomotives that survive to this day, it
> seems that those that (do/ do not) exist, do
> so because of the following approaches:

> 3.) The Single Class Approach. Saving
> primarily a flagship class such as the Rdg
> and its retention of the T-1's (but no G
> class pacifics or Consols)

> 5.) Sold Approach- Some engines survive
> because they were useful off the rails of
> the orginal owner- such as CNJ 113.

> 7.) Steam fleets that were consciously and
> systematically destroyed. Roads such as the
> Lehigh Valley scrapped every single engine.

> Does anybody have any insight as to what
> guided the formation of these decisions? Was
> it for example a road like the LVRR or Erie,
> just so starved for capital that scrap sales
> seemed like the best use of an engine? Were
> there corporate policies formed with regard
> to locomotive disposition?

> Thanks for any info sources that could be
> provided.

Item #7 -- Roads like the Lehigh Valley were struggling to stay afloat financially and purchased diesels because of the savings they offered. New diesels ran well over $100,000 each in the late 1940's. and steam locomotives were worth less than 10 percent of that as scrap -- but the railroads needed every dollar to buy diesels. Their primary responsibility was to their stockholders, after all. Hence none preserved.

Item #3 -- As for the Reading, at the end of 1954, traffic and revenue were so depressed that the only steam loco in service was 1251, the 0-6-0T shop switcher at Reading. The railroad had enough diesels on hand at that time that they were comfortable scrapping the K-1 2-10-2's which had been held in standby service along with the 2100's. A handful of T-1's were steamed for a few months in 1955, 56 and 57, but when the second batch of FM Trainmasters arrived, the T-1's were put out to pasture. The engines leased to the PRR in 1957 came back, totally used up, and were among the first 10 to be scrapped. The G-3's were scrapped when their equipment trust was satisfied in 1959. I have been told that the railroad offered a G-3 to any on-line city that wanted one for display, but none responded. Again, the railroad's first responsibility was to its stockholders, so all were disposed of. Indeed, when 2124 was retired from Iron Horse Ramble service, it too was sold pretty quickly to Nelson Blount. I don't think there was any organized effort to save all the 2100's as flagship engines; they just happened to be the newest and best.

Some railroads in the 1950's actually mostly dieselized and then had to lease or borrow steam power when traffic levels rose. Witness the PRR's use of Reading, Western Maryland, RF&P and Santa Fe engines. Steam engines typically could be leased much less expensively than diesels. Some roads would lease out diesels for a few months that otherwise would have been placed in storage. Diesels were less hassle to lease, since they didn't need particular treatment or operating knowledge or parts. When the PRR used the Santa Fe 2-10-4's, for instance, they had to train men to deal with oil firing, and they found out the hard way they couldn't be coupled pilot-to-pilot!

K4s1361@hotmail.com

With the Reading it is important to know that they did not save any locomotives at the end of steam by gift. The 1251 worked until after then end as shop switcher and was sold to George Hart. The 2124 was sold to Steamtown and the other 3 T-1s were sold for scrap. They only are with us today due to the fact that the scrap man did not cut them up.

Tom Gears

Forgotten Delaware
tom@forgottendelaware.com

The Pennsylvania Railroad has a policy to collect and preserve their steam engines. Partly for their exhibits at rail Fairs, they did get saved. The Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania is witness to that.

Kurt Bell may be able to find the Milepost citation for an article on the Lindburg engine which quotes an internal memo telling the Super of Motive Power not to scrap that engine.
It's a good story.

Ted Miles

ted_miles@nps.gov