Noted hardhat-diving authority Jim Boyd (yes, the former Railfan editor) has alerted me to the following web site, highlighting two identical 2-2-2's discovered off the coast of New Jersey.

Investigation of the wreck and the locos is continuing. Apparently what threw off the investigation was earlier identification of a 1942 sinking of a ship known to be carrying locomotives. That vessel has now been determined to be several miles from this one.

Several minor artifacts have been recovered in hopes of identifying the loco, including an unmarked loco bell and a whistle made by H.N. Hooper of Boston(?). All signs, including the wheel arrangement general design, copious amounts of nonferrous metal used, etc. point to a VERY ancient locomotive, possibly of British origin.

Jack White has been summoned into the investigation. Stay tuned.

Underwater 2-2-2's site
lner4472@bcpl.net

Did railfans already get the builders plates ??
Would they be allowed to bring these up for preservation ??

lamontdc@adelphia.net

> Did railfans already get the builders plates

*Not yet. The locos are remarked as being "heavily concreted", which means that natural mineralization has occurred on the relics, coating them in a thick layer of crust not unlike, say, coral.
I should point out that Jim Boyd is a noted member of the hardhat-diving community, and I see it as likely that he may make a dive to scout out relics like builder's plates.

> Would they be allowed to bring these up for
> preservation ??

I don't know the legal issues involved, but at the very least someone would have to pony up some serious money to pull them up from the ocean. It would probably be best to sit back and wait until the locos are better identified (and thus an appropriate home discerned--supposing that they are British-built locos, let's send one to the UK and one to the Smithsonian?), and the legal issues are ascertained. At the very least, they're pretty darned safe where they sit!


Underwater 2-2-2's site
lner4472@bcpl.net

A number of us have been helping the New Jersey Divers with this investigation. At this time the locomotives are sitting upright on the sea floor, at a depth of about 65 feet. The engines are OLD, really old! They appear to be of the earliest design tht ever operated in this country. It is eztremely difficult to get details from the locos, as they are heavily encrusted in marine growth and flakes of rust. This is so pronounced that getting the fireboxes open would require seriously damaging the hulks. The locos appear to be near identical, both sitting upright, and right next to each other, almost as though placed like that! A few bronze artifacts have bee recoverd but no builder's plates or direct links to the origin. Best guess so far is that they rolled off the deck of a sailing ship during a storm.
As far as ownership is concerned, they might make nice national treasures, but consider the restoration "Monitor" and "Hunley" are undergoing, we are talking about serious time in chemical baths. The New Jersey divers who located the artifacts are handling the locos quite well at this time.


glueck@maine.edu

Shall we call this one a 150-year inspection??

Good luck to all involved!

Wrinnbo@aol.com

If they were raised to dry land, what sort of chemical treatment would they need to keep them from falling apart?

ryarger@rypn.org

> If they were raised to dry land, what sort
> of chemical treatment would they need to
> keep them from falling apart?

This site comes close to what would have to be done


http://www.hunley.org/main_index.asp?CONTENT=CONSE
lamontdc@adelphia.net

Let me say this about these engines. THEY SHOULD STAY WHERE THEY ARE!

Conservation of metal that has been under water for long periods is difficult and expensive. What rail group has millions of dollars to spend on them?

The USS Monitor artifacts and the CSS Hundley are costing millios of dollars to conserve.

Even if there was the money available; I would rather see an operational East Broadtop RR or a new J1A Hudson or miles of electric Interurban line with restored cars running over it, to name a few items off the top of my head.

Ted Miles



ted_miles@nps.gov

Wasn't this site mentioned in a Brief on RYPN around this time last year? I know that I saw this page somewhere before. Maybe over at Trainorders? Wherever the previous mention occured it was followed up with more information on the age and origin of these two engines.

davelecount@juno.com

I found one of the earlier discussions. Not as much info as I remembered but still interesting. Check the link below.

Google Newsgroup Discussion
davelecount@juno.com

I have posted my own thoughts on the origins of these locomotives, I thought here some time back as well as to the group who found it and the steam_tech mailing list on Yahoo.

I disagree with the theory that they are early British-built 2-2-2s. Several design details are all wrong:

* They have a conical boiler, rather than a straight or "haystack" boiler.
* It has outside, inclined cylinders; most of the British designs were inside cylinder locomotives.
* No sign of an outside frame, which many of the early British 2-2-2s had.
* It almost certainly has sand domes; most British designs had sand boxes on the running boards instead.

Rather, I think they are contractors locomotives. Surviving examples include the 2-2-2T "Pioneer" (from the Smithsonian Museum, Washington, DC; on loan to the National Museum of Industrial History, Bethlehem, PA) and the 4-2-4T "C. P. Huntington" (on display at CA State RR Museum, 930 Front St., Sacramento, CA).

The "mud hole" where these locomotives are located are near Sandy Hook and the mouth of the Hudson River. Paterson, NJ is on the Hudson River, and three railroad builders (Rogers Locomotive Works, Cooke Locomotive and Machine Works, and New Jersey Locomotive) were located in Paterson. ("C. P. Huntington" was built by Danforth, Cooke, & Co. in 1863.)

I believe these locomotives were built new by one of these firms and outbound, perhaps to California when they were either swept off the deck or went down aboard a ship. The conical boiler became popular around 1850, while having the cylinders up high, slanting towards the drivers, (along with a profusion of brass fittings) became rare after 1875. Thus, I believe it was built between 1850-1875.

If a builder's plate cannot be found, I think it would be better to study the shape of the domes and look for casting marks on the cast iron frames and other parts in order to try to identify the builder. Perhaps then, a builder's list can be found, and the locomotives identified.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

> Wasn't this site mentioned in a Brief on
> RYPN around this time last year? I know that
> I saw this page somewhere before. Maybe over
> at Trainorders? Wherever the previous
> mention occured it was followed up with more
> information on the age and origin of these
> two engines.


Surviving World Steam Project
james1@pernet.net

> Let me say this about these engines. THEY
> SHOULD STAY WHERE THEY ARE!

Strong words, Ted, but probably correct. The little locos will have to sit in a tank of some glycol mixture for years before they can be exposed to air. Marine growth will have to be picked away with dental tools. This is not a task that can be handled by the local NRHS.

It might indeed, be cheaper to build a new J3a Hudson from new steel than it would be to hall these little tea-kettles out and treat them with the funding needed to make them worthwhile artifacts.

Now, lets get started on that new Hudson project...


glueck@maine.edu

> It might indeed, be cheaper to build a new
> J3a Hudson from new steel than it would be
> to hall these little tea-kettles out and
> treat them with the funding needed to make
> them worthwhile artifacts.

> Now, lets get started on that new Hudson
> project...

FORGET IT! .... it might be something new and different that will upset somebody. We certainly don't even want to ask any questions or maybe explore unknown territory, somebody will get upset and holla ! Everybody stop payment on the checks you sent to save the two locos, IMMEDIATELY !

lamontdc@adelphia.net

> I believe these locomotives were built new
> by one of these firms and outbound, perhaps
> to California when they were either swept
> off the deck or went down aboard a ship. The
> conical boiler became popular around 1850,
> while having the cylinders up high, slanting
> towards the drivers, (along with a profusion
> of brass fittings) became rare after 1875.
> Thus, I believe it was built between
> 1850-1875.

From the web page: "They rest on the bottom, about twenty feet apart and are virtually parallel to each other."

That they are both parallel and at least one is upright (possibly both, but the web page does not say) argues against their being washed, or dumped overboard.

Without more information, I suspect the ship or barge they were on foundered, and went down gently. Chances are, a search of newspapers or insurance records for ship wrecks in the time frame James suggests will provide the answer.

Washington Steam Railroads and Locomotives
brianf425@yahoo.com

Agree that finding money to raise and conserve these locomotives will be difficult. Unlike the ships you mentioned, these are not Civil War veterens, nor the first of their type. But having said that, I disagree that they are not worth the trouble of raising.

If my theory that these were new locomotives on their way out from the factory is correct, then they are priceless in that they are time capsules, albeit it seriously damaged ones. Unlike nearly all of the other surviving steam locomotives worldwide, these have not been consumed, then rebuilt or reboilered. They have not been converted to stationary boilers, then rebuilt back with replacement parts. They have not been pre- or post-dated to some time frame other than the one they were built in. They have zero wear, and any tooling marks found on parts after cleaning are not from a railroad shop, but the works that actually built it!

In other words, these MAY be the only steam locomotives worldwide that have never turned a wheel since leaving the factory. That I think would make them of great interest to historians, even in the condition they are in.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

> Let me say this about these engines. THEY
> SHOULD STAY WHERE THEY ARE!

> Conservation of metal that has been under
> water for long periods is difficult and
> expensive. What rail group has millions of
> dollars to spend on them?

> The USS Monitor artifacts and the CSS
> Hundley are costing millios of dollars to
> conserve.

> Even if there was the money available; I
> would rather see an operational East
> Broadtop RR or a new J1A Hudson or miles of
> electric Interurban line with restored cars
> running over it, to name a few items off the
> top of my head.

> Ted Miles


Surviving World Steam Project
james1@pernet.net