I must have stepped over the line, my post got pulled.

Ross Rowland is a man I very much respect, and Ross knows that. That being said, I agree that $1.5 million would be the bottom floor to rebuild almost any locomotive. Now, roller-bearings have their virtue, and I can understand Ross has had his fill of Reading T1's. Where did the other numbers come from unless they were simply pulled out of the air? I am not able to lead a charge to retain and restore 2100 or 614 for that matter. What I am saying is you have to look at options, present them, see if they ring true with those who support a particular cause. Ross has agreed with me many times, the worst thing to do is throw in the towel and quit. Yes, 2101, 2102, and 2124 are here. One has roller bearings. But we aren't talking about those three locomotives.
regardless of how you see my attitude, once you walk away you've ensured defeat. Then you have the luxury of saying, "I told you so", and what a comfort that is!
I hope others see things as I do and are willing to take up such a cause as 2100. If those people are no longer extant, then railroad preservation is doomed.

Yet how many causes must be taken on at once? Whether it's the EBT, MC 470, B&M 3713, RDG 210*, this trolley, this caboose, this boxcar, that engine, the F unit over there by that other F unit...there are so many projects that people have desires to take on and restore. Yes, we can take up the cause. But where is the money coming from? With so many other worthy causes, and in today's economy, limited disposable incomes - you can't expect railfans to take up the mantle of every cause they want. Sometimes you just have to pick and choose your battles.

That being said, I'd also love to see 2100 back on the East Coast. But could my dollars go to a more worthy (in my mind) cause right now? Probably.

For all this discussion, no one has even mentioned the latest gossip about 2100 that was posted on Trainorders yesterday.

Looks to me like it's still there.

And still relevant.

I disagree. This thing is not "ours" and it's not unique. As you said, there are 3 others.

In this case, it's not "defeat" so much as it is logical, rational, thinking of the kind there has been far too little of in our little niche of the preservation world.

Choices have to be made, and it takes people with grit, fortitude, and a firm grasp on reality to make those choices.

To answer some questions from an earlier post:

Did Jerry Jacobsen ever want the 2100? Yes, he did, but he was outbid by Tom Payne at the auction sale. He turned his attention to the GTW 6325 subsequently.

As for why Richard Kughn didn't move the 2100 to Michigan, or Henry Ford's private car, which he had restored for another considerable expense at the same time: that was never clear. I know he did have Conrail briefly interested in using the 2100 in the early 1990s. As for the question about moving the engine to SRI/Owosso: I dealt with SRI in the early 1990s, and I can say for sure that they would have had zero interest in the 2100 if they were ever approached, which they weren't. I will say this: the groups in Michigan (SRI, Bluewater, Greenfield Village, etc.) should have been more proactive circa 1990 with interesting Kughn in donating money to them, and restoring assets that were frequently used, instead of spending money on the 2100 and the Fairlane. That should be the main lesson learned. But that is 25-year-old history now.

And the whole Tom Payne/Tacoma fiasco is still very hard to understand. Payne is a smart guy, and was one of the original successful shortline operators in Canada. And he had experience with steam engines. He bought the 2100 with some vague plans to operate daily passenger service from Toronto to Niagara Falls. The Tacoma operation was so bad that some locals I spoke with thought it was all some sort of prank or joke.

Chris.

I called Tom Payne shortly after he successfully outbid Jerry Jacobson for the 2100 to congratulate him and to offer to introduce him to Bob Franzen who had converted several engines from coal to oil for the GCRR and learned a lot in the process.

Payne's immediate rather forceful reply to my offer was " I'll do it my way.....I don't need nor want any advice".

Sadly he is another real life example of the old adage " a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing".....boy, is it ever.

As has been previously discussed at length, we're all very fortunate that he ran out of money before there was a serious accident with this totally abused machine. Sad but true.

Ross Rowland

Yea, and if your aunt had you know whats she'd be your uncle!!!

Ross Rowland

What, Ross? Roller bearings?

(It's a joke!)

I had a different post about the 2100 but must have offended someone. Oh well, life goes on.

I am still amazed by the points raised that after only 37 service days the engine now needs a completely new firebox and total running gear overhaul. Curious if this is educated speculation or has someone capable actually done a preliminary inspection? UT where possible, measure flanges, etc. Yes, I know she was rode hard and not really even put away.....

Amen, brother Jim, preach on!
I get sick to the gut at how many of these, "everyone's gotta throw in right now" projects that are out there. And if you dare mention a focus on something else, you get a reaction like you just kicked the guy's dog or something.I assume you mean Tacoma, instead of Portland? That's where 2100 ran for a very short while.
That operation was amazing to watch, but yeah, us local fans were left scratching our heads.
It seemed like a good idea to ride, which I think I did the second weekend they ran, having chased the first trip. The car interiors were so clean you could have eaten off them, the staff was very friendly and actually went passenger to passenger asking for feedback (never had that happen before or since). The lunch was great and they even had a photo runby. I was going to ride it again a few weeks later but they folded right before I was going to ride a second time.
But yeah, it all seemed so... odd. I wasn't shocked when they folded up. The whole thing was just so strange to me.

So I'm as green as they come when it comes to knowledge about oil-burning steam locomotives and I can't tell from the photos, so I ask you all: How did this conversion different from the "standard" conversion. I imagine there isn't one standard means of converting a locomotive to oil-burning, but there must be several methods that are used.