So recently in a preservation group chat, we were discussing N&W 1218 and 2156. Obviously neither will return to steam anytime in the near future because of lack of funding, place to operate, etc., but if one were to be considered for an operational restoration, which one would make more sense/be more feasible? The consensus of the group seemed to be 2156, but no one could really provide reasoning.

The N&W Y's were more commonly used in coal branch service than the A's, and would likely be a more versatile option within the parameters of today's big steam operations. Offhand I would think that the Y's are likely closer to something like 1309 in terms of where it can go.

Not that it really matters, because both would seem unlikely and/or unnecessary (2156 or 1218 that is).

Strictly from a railfan point of view, I'd have said 1218. It's a modern, roller bearing locomotive which has run in the recent past. It was largely overhauled when the Southern steam program was ended and I told by an authoritative source that everything to restore her is stored inside the boiler. I never saw her run, which is true of a number of "recent" restorations in the post steam era. I'd love to see her pulling active freight for NS.

So many forget that the Y6 in St. Louis has spent the majority of its six decades there outdoors without cover, and (still) has it's asbestos lagging hiding underneath the jacketing. Having spent a lot of time working on and around that collection over the years, the combination of the two wreacks havoc on a boiler. Not to mention the all-but-irrepairable crack in the front frame everyone forgets. Making that right would probably mean a replacement front frame.

NMOT rightfully holds a tight hand on its collection, and after the public backlash and personal attacks directed at staff for "not letting it stay in Virginia". I'd agree with the sentiment that NMOT got the short end of the stick with that deal when all was said and done, and the Y6 returned without all the agreements of the lease (I was told including a paint job for the engine) fulfilled. What happened was a good way to sour the current administration into hesitation and pessimism about similar trades or leases in the future.

For someone to say without evidence that the 2156 would be "the easier of the two" is being blissfully unaware of reality, to put it kindly.

-Sam

You'll never have to worry about selecting one over the other for restoration as neither will probably ever happen. 611 barely gets to run as is, VMT nor NS will want to deal with 1218, St louis would rather restore the 1522 etc, but it will probably be at least a decade minimum for any mainline steam to return to st louis, as like everybody else, that they no place to run.

Everyone says 1218 can't run because it's missing firebox parts etc, but all of the stuff missing would have had to have been replaced anyway. replacing firebox sheets etc really isn't that big of deal so long as a team/funding is in place as evident about by numerous restorations. 1218 would be more mainline capable for excursions than the Y6

Why not 2050?

2050 has the same drawbacks as far as size/speed as the 2156. It is also missing a lot of components and is in very rough shape from its time as a stationary steam source.

Fair. I was wondering why 2050 was never included in the conversation about possible restorations, and this seems to be a good reason as to why.

Don't forget 4-6-2 #578 at the Ohio Railroad Museum.

Kevin K

2156 has a crack in the frame casting from freeze damage. I assume it still has lead in the frame that would have to be removed and disposed of before the crack could be repaired.

2156 is more complete and much more modern than the 2050.

1218 would still be more mainline capable.

The NW 4-6-2 would be the one that a non class 1 could actually use.

When it comes to the 578, it ran for almost 50 years on the N&W before being donated. It also ran at the Ohio Railway Museum in the 70's, but I'm not sure if it was restored before doing so. It could very well be beat to death.

I believe 578 received a limited shopping before it was donated and was in running shape when it arrived. It was run a few weekends a year most years. It had it's tubes/flues changed out at least once while at the museum, I believe in the late 1960's. All work done on the locomotive was done outside by museum members, some who had worked at the PRR shops in Columbus. It was sidelined by running gear (springs?) problems that the members felt were out of their abilities to repair on site.

Having seen (and ridden in the cab) of 578 growing up, I was dumbstruck a few years ago when I saw ATSF 3415 running at Abilene & Smoky Valley Railroad on how similar the experience was. Different builders, but similar size, age, feel, track condition and speed.

Bob

I of course have a different priority in making either of these locomotives sensible to operate in necessary-scale excursion service.

The T1 Trust has re-created all the science and technology to make thin-section Timken rods capable of taking modern Timken bearings. While only the last 5 As had comparable rods, they make a great deal of maintenance during operation non-critical, and likely have extended bearing life. Would go fast enough to clear traffic, too... if the host and the insurance company allow {I doubt they would... but hey.]

2156 could be easily fitted with full Chapelon-style IP steam injection, to allow the front engine to be run balanced to match the characteristics of the HP rear at any practical road speed. When checking the wheel counterbalances for lost lead and the like, it would be comparatively easy to balance the engines using Voyce Glaze's formula (e.g. only including the vertical component of piston thrust in the mains) to take advantage of the now higher practical road speed. I don't really imagine NMOT would go along with this science project... but very little of it need actually 'show' on the locomotive...

This discussion leads to an interesting thought: a N&W Y-type on RBMN.

Back story: RDG had 31 2-8-8-2's built under USRA auspices. They were supposed to be the USRA 2-8-8-2, which is N&W Y-3, but the USRA engine couldn't make certain clearances at places they were supposed to go, so USRA went with the RDG design instead.

The RDG engines worked the grades from Tamaqua to Lofty, Tamaqua to Mahanoy Tunnel and Gordon to Locust Summit as well as heavy mine runs. These are now part of RBMN.

Making the thought more interesting, the RDG engines of course had wide fireboxes, although the boiler was so big it was hard to tell. When N&W redesigned the Y-type in the 1920's, they also went with a wide firebox on the Y-5 and Y-6. (as well as the A and J; take a look at 611)

Phil Mulligan