Ruminating a bit...

Which steam locomotives are basically in the best operational condition, but are stymied from running because of basic servicing/repairs, lack of running room, or insurance oversight? I'll be the first to admit, I have no inside information on any of these, so my list is speculative, but I'd start with:

Frisco 1522, NKP 759, C&O 614, GTW 6325.

Please extend or comment politely.

The list is embarrassingly too long, which leads to many of the message threads where we start to pick on the next dream project.

Add SP 2472 to the list

Keith

This one needs a thumbs up if ever a post did.

The problem is that the issues usually start around a table in a meeting room, and/or other people problems, and get BLAMED on the OP's reasons.

SP745, and yes, SSW819 belong on that list, too.

Richard, I hate to differ with you but some of those engines mentioned in your short list, and many others, need a 1472 day inspection. Even though 759 and 614, just as examples, seem to be in good condition and complete, that 1472 is far beyond basic servicing and repairs. Sorry to be the wet blanket here...

the 1472 day inspection isn't often the real issue on the plate. It's just a symptom, or an excuse, in many cases.

Like was said, this could get ugly, as some uncomfortable truths are splayed open...again.

A 1472 inspection - on a locomotive that was overhauled to like new condition and had maybe 30 operating days over 15 years - is basically nothing more than a tube job with more paperwork. It's not a big deal, relative to that initial overhaul. We shouldn't let it intimidate us or hide behind it. Obviously, there's plenty of time to carry one out given the little actual use in service. If we can set up to safe end, even the expenses are relatively low.

I know Dick is just asking for a list, but I think I'll throw in my concept for a nationally planned rotation of mainline excursion power so everybody who wants to maintain one has a chance to earn back some of the cost of capitalization. It could also be that we could develop a "safe storage" technology which would allow us to have some of the off time not count against the 15 years, but that's something for the engineers to work out.

I'll never understand anyone online or in person decrying why (insert locomotive here) isn't running because it should.
Oh, really? If you don't have the RR to run it on already, what's the point behind yet another project to take money away from locomotives that really could be running (say, on a tourist RR who has their own tracks) somewhere?
Any of us could name several numbers off the tops of our heads which could either run right now or wouldn't take much to run, but have nowhere to run due to insurance costs or railroads which don't want steam on their lines.
I used to donate money to restorations, but now, I limit what little money I do donate to projects that are the most likely to actually run (for example, I tossed some money into the till the last time I was at the Oregon Rail Heritage Foundation's enginehouse in Portland where 700 and 4449 and PA are housed).

Dave hit the nail on the head with his concept of a rotation of excursion power. A good friend of mine, well into the preservation field, has often suggested that to keep people coming to a museum, they have to rotate exhibits. The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia is one example. They would have something like space exploration for a few months, then an exhibit on Titanic artifacts, then move on to Egyptian tombs and mummies. These are a few things that I remember taking my kids to, at least.

The same thing could be done with steam, or even vintage diesels, that is if insurance requirements could be met and the railroads would cooperate. 261, 765, 614, 2100 and a few others could conceivably 'barnstorm' their way to the West coast, and clearances permitting, some West coast engines could come East. The same could be done with diesels as well; the late Jim Boyd once suggested getting some F-7s, and a selection of nose doors (headlight/no headlight); repaint them and re-detail them for various roads every few years. Give the fans something new; but unfortunately the fans really don't pay the bills.

A national fleet of open window coaches, with roller bearings, tightlocks and modern air, would be nice too, but that is another can of worms.

"Which steam locomotives are basically in the best operational condition, but are stymied from running because of basic servicing/repairs, lack of running room, or insurance oversight?"

Not sure 759 belongs in this list. Biggest impediment to having it run again is the economics, including opportunity costs. As things are now, Steamtown would be better served by having several smaller engines that deliver a consistent steam experience, and are better suited to the vast majority of trips that can be envisioned in the future that would appeal to the general public.

Now of course if somebody knows of a way to put 500 plus riders on a train going to the Gap or East Stroudsburg where the higher ticket prices can cover the fixed costs of such an engine (and any host/leasing costs) - a minimum of ten times a year, let us know.

In my purely personal and speculative opinion, knowing that Job 1 is the BLW 26 and the 3713 Job 2- and as merely thought experiments without regard to mechanical condition good third choices would be:

1.) CP 2317

2.) Trap Rock 43 (due to its interpretive value as a Vulcan Product.)

2.) IC 790

Hi,

As far as where to run, I seem to recall that the State of New Mexico proposed to purchase the NM section of the ex-AT&SF Raton Pass Line. Maybe the Rail Runner project?

1) did this really occur?

2) could the state of NM be convinced to allow viting steam to operate on the line?

Doug vV

Be thou not afraid of being a pre-moistened coverlet!
This topic is not meant to establish a fire storm!
It is merely to consider any number of steam locomotives which might be accessible for operation with minimal repair requirements. I am not asking for assertion of who is to blame, or who made the decision for a specific locomotive being withdrawn from service. It might have been insurance cost, lack of track opportunities, expiration of flue time.

If you need to fix blame, according to your guidelines, please pass on this thread.

The reason 1522 is out of service has been told many times. For those of you who just came in:
Due for 1472 inspection. Needs work on the roof sheet. Quite expensive.
Some minor mechanical issues, none serious. Biggest problem is when you adjust or fix something, you have to wait for an excursion or trip to see how it worked.
Insurance costs were prohibitive. Last few trips were under Amtrak's umbrella.
No cars. They have to be rented/leased and movement to St. Louis. Expensive.
Except for the farewell trips, ticket sales were slipping. Too much exposure I guess.
Railroad informed us there would be less and less opportunities to operate over them in the future. This is borne out in the few BNSF routes used by steam excursions.
The Museum of Transportation was allotting us resources much needed in other places.
We made a plan to go out on top. I think we pulled it off rather well and the engine is under cover, laid up properly for long term and could be revived.
Having said that, revival will not be a piece of cake. It will take the following as a BARE minimum:
A group with a solid business plan. And endowed with maximum common sense.
A group with the required talent already on board to do the work needed.
A group with cubic dollars and resources to acquire more cubic dollars and a watchdog on where the money is going.
A group with the proven knowledge to get the job done in a minimum of tying up things at the MOT.
A group with an experienced leader who knows what must be done, in what order, what to order and the ability and dedication to organize the operation and complete it.
When it is all finished, you have to convince sponsoring groups and the railroad that you have a good thing.
We of the SLSTA think we came along at just the right time, with the right group, the right connections and a cooperating railroad.(s) It was a "perfect storm" so to speak.
Today's economy sucks. It isn't easy to convince people to bring the family on an excursion when it would take 3 days pay to do it.
Never say never, but never underestimate the likelihood of Murphy signing up on the crew.

Superheater - How are the economics of running 3713 (4-6-2) different from those of running 759 (2-8-4)?

An interesting list:

CP2317 (4-6-2) - a great looking (and sounding) locomotive that I know was popular with the people running it. A few questions:
(1) Can it run to the Gap, East Stroudsburg, Carbondale, or Binghamton without diesel assist?
(2) What is the interpretive value of having two restored to operation Pacifics in the Park Service's roundhouse? The folks on this board understand and appreciate the differences in the two machines but the general public, to whom all preservation efforts should be geared, is less likely to easily appreciate the subtleties.

Trap Rock 43 (0-4-0T) - the Vulcan connection is undeniably important from an interpretation standpoint and it is in reportedly very good condition. Also, historically, the yard had tank engines (the last, number 120, an ALCO Schenectady product converted into an 0-6-0T shop switcher, I believe was the last operating steam locomotive at Scranton yard, operating up to 1953) so I agree that is very important to have an operating tank engine to aid in the interpretation of the site. 43's tractive effort (13,450) is such that it would be good for demonstrating yard switching maneuvers but most likely would not be able to pull the "Scranton Limited". An alternative tank engine that has more tractive effort and so may be more practically useful in operation is EJ Lovino 3 (0-6-0T ALCO Schenectady), with a tractive effort of 21,400. This is much closer to that of Baldwin 26 (29,375) and so EJ Lovino 3 may be more useful as both a yard switching demonstrator and as a backup to Baldwin 26, especially in the off season when not too many passengers ride the "Limited". Number 3 is not in as good shape as 43, but is not too foregone either. From an interpretation standpoint, a connection can be made between EJ Lovino and DL&W 120.

IC 790 (2-8-0 ALCO) - This is a great looking locomotive, a nice puller with a tractive effort of 42,000, and its operation would surely expand the geographic appeal of the site. Operationally, my only unknown is the practicality of running a 2-8-0 backwards for long stretches, like in the ride up to Carbondale, and the shorter trips down the line like the ones to Moscow and Gouldsboro, where there is no way to turn the locomotive.

When the site was created, the Park Service assumed custodial responsibility for a great collection with many interpretive possibilities to tell the story of the Scranton site and the many thousands of similar sites that existed across our nation in the first half of the 20th century.

"Superheater - How are the economics of running 3713 (4-6-2) different from those of running 759 (2-8-4)?"

A.) Basically, the work and the money has begun. People have donated to the 3713. There's a committed effort behind this engine. It's no longer a a choice of "759 or 3713"? , but "3713 and 759"? I'm not sure Messers Davis and Barrett want to be put in the position of explaining to donors that they are taking the office pool money to bet on a different horse.

"(1) Can it run to the Gap, East Stroudsburg, Carbondale, or Binghamton without diesel assist?"

Depends on the train. Nobody seems to mind diesel assist, except the truly hardcore.
425 always runs with an SD50 or two and fills up a dozen coaches. Steamtown can bring F-3's or borrowed RS-3's that help show the differences in steam vs. early diesel power. That having been said, yeah I was pleased and impressed with 765 running by itself and understand the "no diesel" sentiment.

"(2) What is the interpretive value of having two restored to operation Pacifics in the Park Service's roundhouse?"

Pacifics were the most common passenger engine. Given the need for frequent removal from service due to boiler washes, etc would maintain the normative wheel arrangement. Again, this is just personal opinion.

"The folks on this board understand and appreciate the differences in the two machines but the general public, to whom all preservation efforts should be geared, is less likely to easily appreciate the subtleties."

It's been my experience that the public is indifferent to the engine, as long as there is steam or its unusual.

"43's tractive effort (13,450) is such that it would be good for demonstrating yard switching maneuvers but most likely would not be able to pull the "Scranton Limited". "

I'll defer to others - (Mike Tillger is my go to guy for such questions) on the its utility for those things, but I think it could take at least single coach to the hotel, since the 26 had double the tractive effort took three. Remember, the 2003 Comprehensive Interp Plan discussed providing a steam experience, not just a ride.

One of the things I PERSONALLY would like to see is more use of the freight cars. I miss the old switching demonstration, and it always seemed to be a hit with the kids. Railroads made their money hauling freight.


"An alternative tank engine that has more tractive effort and so may be more practically useful in operation is EJ Lovino 3 (0-6-0T ALCO Schenectady), with a tractive effort of 21,400. This is much closer to that of Baldwin 26 (29,375) and so EJ Lovino 3 may be more useful as both a yard switching demonstrator and as a backup to Baldwin 26, especially in the off season when not too many passengers ride the "Limited". Number 3 is not in as good shape as 43, but is not too foregone either. From an interpretation standpoint, a connection can be made between EJ Lovino and DL&W 120."

I have no (good) counterargument. Another fine alternative.


"IC 790 (2-8-0 ALCO) - This is a great looking locomotive, a nice puller with a tractive effort of 42,000, and its operation would surely expand the geographic appeal of the site. Operationally, my only unknown is the practicality of running a 2-8-0 backwards for long stretches, like in the ride up to Carbondale, and the shorter trips down the line like the ones to Moscow and Gouldsboro, where there is no way to turn the locomotive."

Some of these questions or limitations may be subject to test or change.