While at the Thomas event on Sunday, one of the Strasburg shop guys mentioned that money was available to fix up and run the camelback number four and that the board of directors approved it a few weeks ago. Anybody heard about this and are there really concrete plans?

I have heard rumors from time to time. How does an operator get an exemption from the outlaw of these locomotives? I think it would be pretty neat to see #1187 operate again, as #952 and the CNJ engine should remain as they are.

I have seen pictures of UP or SP camelbacks. Did they burn anthracite as well? Perhaps culm?

Joshua

> I have heard rumors from time to time. How
> does an operator get an exemption from the
> outlaw of these locomotives? I think it
> would be pretty neat to see #1187 operate
> again, as #952 and the CNJ engine should
> remain as they are.

Wasn't the ICC ban on the building of new ones (1927, I think)? The existing double-cab locomotives were allowed to operate until they were retired. I suspect the FRA folks would not have much problem with Strasburg operating 1187 (whoops!!) over the 4.5 miles of its line. If this rumour is true, it would be most interesting to see in action!


hpincus@mindspring.com

> How
> does an operator get an exemption from the
> outlaw of these locomotives?

Once again this issue or myth has raised its head and again, any documentation is MIA. George Drury in his "Guide to North American Steam Locomotives" (p. 59) stated that he was unable to find either in Railway Age, trade magazines, or the Locomotive Cyclopedia any evidence supporting the truth of this allegation.

Is anyone able to cite chapter and verse on this supposed federal "law"?

Dan Cupper
Harrisburg, Pa.


East Broad Top Railroad Information--References
cupper@att.net

Does anyone think its possible that if they do this they will make some safety improvements to the firemans post? Wasn't that the main reason that they were banned to start with? Strasburg has never hesitated to rebuild an engine to suit their needs.

> While at the Thomas event on Sunday, one of
> the Strasburg shop guys mentioned that money
> was available to fix up and run the
> camelback number four and that the board of
> directors approved it a few weeks ago.
> Anybody heard about this and are there
> really concrete plans?

I also would like to know how true this is. I remember taking a shop tour and one of the guys saying that they would very much like to see the 4 run again. If it ever did happen they would most likely get rid of the the SRC 33 b/c the 4 would take over its duties. Also the 4 i heard would be converted to an oil burner for easier operation. Clarify on this please

Regards,
Brian

Strasburg if they wish could use this as an opportunity to install and test, under controlled conditions, the high efficiency light oil system used by the new Swiss built rack engines. They are supposed to be extremely clean, polluting less than diesels. What do you think, Hugh?

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

While at RMPA this summer, I didn't see her. Then again, we weren't allowed outside due to the bad weather. There is a tender sitting by itself (with space ahead of it for a small locomotive) on the northern most track near the east end of the building.

> Is anyone able to cite chapter and verse on
> this supposed federal "law"?

Very interesting point. I think the answer may lie at NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) if anywhere. I'll put it on my ist of things to look for the next time my affairs take me there. 1918 is the msot scommenly-cited alleged date for the ban on new construction, though some say waviers were granted until the late 1920s....

eledbetter@rypn.org

RDG rebuilt end cab engines into camelbacks as late as 1929. It was my understanding the ICC was leaning on RDG to get out of the road camelback business by the end of 1948; hence the rebuild program for the I-9 2-8-0's to replace I-8 camelbacks on local freights. (and new G-3 4-6-2's to bump G-1's to replace L-7 4-6-0's)

Maybe that ICC thing is an old urban legend; I've never seen it documented. This would be all be in ancient ICC documents.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

While not chapter and verse of the rule, the following is likely why:

(If I am praphasing a source somewhere, I apologize, as I cannot remember where I have gathered any of these thoughts)

The danger of the camelback was two-fold

First, the location of the engineer. Being located above the drivers would be bad if a rod failed. Not as great an issue in excursion service w/ slow speeds and such, but the commuter power at 70 mph...thats a major concern

Second, lack of communication between engineer and fireman.

The ban on new engines made sense, especially as rear-cab wide firebox designs were being built.

I believe a major reason for the exemption of those already built was in large part due to the CNJ, which would not have had the funds to replace or even rebuild their camelbacks as rear-cab engines.

I believe that while they allowed the camelbacks to remain in service, the firemen needed to have more of an enclosure for their area, hence the ones running to the end of steam on the CNJ having more of a rear-enclosure for the fireman than other units

Joseph Bania

baniaj2@yahoo.com

I believe this ban must have concerned building new locomotives. Strasburg's #4 was the last operating Camelback in the United States, the last time it was used was 1967. So unless the FRA or ICC put a ban in place after this time, then I doubt it would affect them now.

Paul

plc95@yahoo.com

If the rumor is true, the 4 would not be used on passenger trains, but as a yard switcher

Paul

plc95@yahoo.com

I have also heard that it would be a switch engine, and that it would replace #33. I also heard it would be converted to an oil burner.

Hopefully the initial post in this thread is accurate, and that this is going to happen.

Of course, I also wish they would finish #972.

Paul


plc95@yahoo.com

Burnin' oil?

Heck, is there a curse on the few remaining Wooten firebox locos to have their blessed anthracite blends taken away? First #2100, now #4...

;-)

It is coincidence, I am sure, but it sure would be nice to see a Wooten-equipped locomotive preserved AND interpreted as such. Maybe #2124 has the best chance to fill that role, since she is still in anthracite country?

Of course, that's the other Wooten irony. Of the 8 anthracite road Wooten's left, only 3 are actually in the coal regions.

As for the high-tech oil conversions, I must admit I am intrigued.

Rob

rdavis@rypn.org