Be careful all who respond to this question of when will it run.....you may start turning blue.

Sammy,

You're right. There are a lot of engines available in China right now. However, when Grand Canyon bought the #4960 it was what was available, they had the money to acquire and rebuild it, and had a vision for it's restoration. And, to be honest, I'd go for an American made engine any day of the week over a Chinese one. The quality just isn't there with the Chinese engines. I've worked with some Chinese steam parts and have associates who have worked with the locomotives. It's amazing some of the stuff works at all considering the poor quality of the castings, fit and finish, and the machining. It really goes to show just how forgiving reciprocating steam driven equipment can be and why it lasted so long in "third world" countries.
All steam locomotives underwent rebuilding and updating. Very seldom did they look the same through their entire lives. The #4960 was merely sold from one application to another and modified as the owner saw fit. I don't think it's modification disrespects the CB&Q design or shop people at all - in fact, I think it honors them that it survived as long as it did and I bet they'd be impressed with the improvements that have been made to her.
If a museum had acquired the #4960 it would have been a different story. But the Grand Canyon RR is not intrinsically a museum. It's a functioning transportation operation that just happens to haul tourists and chooses to utilize steam equipment. I think the more important story here is that the Grand Canyon folks have endeavoured to make improvements to their steam equipment to increase it's utility and efficiency. There aren't very many places in the world where this is occurring.
Something I'm mystified about is why Mr. Posner purchased two QJ's, had them completely reconditioned, but didn't have them configured for North American operation where he intended to sell them. If I was to buy one that would be the first thing I'd do, at considerable additional expense. It's just not worth it. They are cool engines to watch but I'm not sure I'd want to be the one having to maintain them in regular service.

Respectfully,

Phil Johnson

I say in jest that perhaps the Mexican restoration on the NH&I is trying to equal the K-4 restoration in the Guinness book as "worlds lengthiest steam locomotive restoration"????
The fact is that the NH&I effort was set up from the get-go as a "when time and manpower permit" type operation and to the best of my knowledge no ending times were asked for nor given. Some progress has been made and I'd guess it will steam again in perhaps 3-5 years??
The 1361 is a whole nother kettle of fish which has been hashed over sufficiently here and elsewhere. I'm hoping that the new crew chief on that project will update us soon (as he said he would when promoted in Feb.??) as there's been no official word out of Scranton in many weeks.
Ross Rowland

Sammy,
Let me buy you a beer sometime.

After reading your very enjoyable stories of Mexican steam, it appears that I was down there in 1966 literally only weeks ahead of you.

As for 4960, I too mourned her "reconfiguration" into a "beauty", as I literally grew up with the locomotive and her Burlington look. I am also friends with Robert Franzen who restored her to steam and to whom I will ever be grateful. GCR wanted their locomotives to have "family" look and this was achieved at the expense of her "historical" look. We can be thankful that she was not the last O1a in existence. 4963, 4978 and 4994 (in a paint-only disguise) still are with us in their original configuration. Baldwin built the O1a's not West Burlington but that big shop kept these simple, workday locomotives running into the late 1950s. I will always argue that Burlington engines were, well, Burlington engines. They were NOT ugly, they just sported their own unique look. I will stand firm as all of the rocks, arrows and cannonballs fly my way. Personally, I feel that most fans believe 4960 was expendable because most of them cannot appreciate her original looks. The same thing goes for a T-hog. They are what they are and deserve to be respected historically for that. Maybe not a classic "face" but distinctive and readily indentifiable as a Reading locomotive.

Les,
765 to 2765 was the most believable of all of the bad attempts at making over locomotives to represent something that they were not. I did not count the "number-only" conversions (UP 3985 to the Clinchfield 4-6-6-4) which was no stretch of the imagination. Heck, realistically a D&RGW 4-6-6-4 could show up on the Moffat line someday.

And don't get me started on Milwaukee Road 261 morphed into DL&W 1661....... That gets me going as much as the rumors back in the late 1960's that CB&Q 5632 was going to be modified to approximate a Rock Island 4-8-4. Arrrgh!!!!

Don C.

No doubt anybody still following this thread will approve of my decision to post no more to it after this. I would have pulled the plug already, but several of you are egging me on by greeting me personally.

First off, the best idea was from Mr Don C, who offered to buy me a beer, but the gentleman who mentioned holding one's breath until one turns blue may have also been trying to tell me something.... Anyhow, Don, thanks for your kind comments, and if you ever get out Denver way, please let me buy the second round. The rest of you, if you ever get out this way, please let me buy the FIRST round.

Early on in this thread I admitted that I was outnumbered and outspent. Therefore, my opinions do not matter, and that is the reason I no longer attempt to do anything at all in rail preservation. It is ultimately the reason I sacrificed so much to accomplish less than nothing in the field, and it is also why I have all my life spent as much time as possible visiting "real railroads" with steam in other countries when I couldn't handle being outnumbered and outspent here. Not only do my opinions not much matter, but I can't claim to know very much, either. However, keeping in mind that everybody else's opinions matter, there are a couple of points I'd like to make based on my admitedly limited experience.

The first concerns the opinion of Burlington employees regarding 4960. I admit I have an axe to grind because my employee/company/FRA supported effort to restore Burlington steam using the old narrow gauge car shop behind 23rd st roundhouse was blocked by rail preservation politics. Truth be told, I believe our boys (and some nice ladies) could have done an excellent job with 4960, or any other Q steamer we coulda/shoulda/woulda got our hands on. Trust me on this. She doesn't look like anything we recognize anymore. She looks like a bull with udders, and any Burlington employee or retiree will confirm that. (If any of those expressing a differing view in this thread are Burlington employees, please jump in and correct me, and I'll follow paragraph one.) NOW, I realize she and so many other engines from this country can be considered "expendable", and I already said those guys were geniuses, and I realize that money is what matters. Will any of you object if someday, somebody wants to replace your local train museum with a Super Wal Mart because it brings in more tax revenue and has a higher payroll ?? It's just good business. One other thing --- ain't it a shame so many of our own American engines are considered "expendable" ?? Oh well, I'm tired of fighting it. I like Mexican, and Guatemalan and German and Chinese ones just fine. I'll live.

OK, China. I've spent a month there, visiting 15 steam operations, run half a dozen engines, fired a teeny bit, maybe ridden a couple dozen different cabs, and visited three different backshops with active complete rebuilds in progress, up to four at once in Sujiatun in 2005. This qualifies me as a know-it-all, but it definitely doesn't qualify me for real. BUT, eight of the operations I visited were busy 24/7, and had anywhere from half a dozen up to maybe three dozen steam engines all going at once. In that time I never saw a single road failure or delay, nor did I see anybody break a sweat. The Chinese have it down, buddy, and what you can see there now is not only what the USA once had on rails, but what our steam power (not to mention our signals and operating rules) could have been with massive standardization based on a century of fleet management experience, drawing upon technologies from all over the world, and a level of common sense rarely seen on any railroad in the USA, real, or recreational... They usually overhaul a QJ in two or three weeks, if they don't separate the boiler and frame. I don't think anybody in this country can do it as well in that time. Of course, the Chinese are all set up for it. As far as running repairs and periodic maintainance, the QJs have little niceities like an extra blowdown under the front tube sheet, plenty of washout plugs with nothing in the way of their removal, no foolishness like moving an engine around several times so you can shoot dope into all the crankpins, there's plenty of room between the boiler and frame so you can get in there real easy, you don't have a bunch of up and down steps to trip over on the running boards, or holes to stick your foot into, etc... There's plenty of smaller engines that are a lot harder to work on than a magnificant QJ. I'm telling you, buddy, the Chinese have it down.

Phil, you're not the only one to complain about poor quality castings. I've only collected some trinkets and technical books, but I know of good places to get stuff and I know about some of the other variety. I've also witnessed, some pretty shady dealings with American steam freaks. If you need anything from China with no funny business, please feel free to contact me off list. They've treated me very well so far, and I have full confidance in my contacts.

Now, Henry Posner and his QJs are not my department. If you want to know why he did anything, I suggest asking him directly. My meaningless opinion is that they look gorgeous and no doubt will pull the paper off the outhouse walls. Even real ratty QJs drive pretty nice and can turn mucky slimy coal dust into steam. However, I am also of the opinion that they look decidedly strange on a US railroad, kind of like a bull with udders. The SYs make nice looking fake American engines, I think, without a whole lot of expensive changes. In my meaningless estimation, QJs or JSs would too, unless you wanted to undo some of the Chinese improvements --- like stick the dry pipe back inside the boiler, or get rid of the all weather welded wide vision cab (YEA get a nice drafty ALCO cab from an expendable American engine), or maybe have a nice rivited tender made for it.... or were we talking about NdeM 3028 ??

Oh yea. When I'm talking about fake Colorado narrow gauge engines I had in mind one particular (but not entirely isolated) example where some yo yo that never worked a day in his life for any railroad tried to tell me that a certain Coahuila y Zacatecas engine was a Rio Grande engine because he had it dolled up that way, and drew up some phony, but legal, papers saying it was. First time I ever saw that engine was in Saltillo roundhouse, November 1968. ON THE OTHER HAND, Lindsey Ashby, Phil Johnson, and Jim and John Birmingham have provided good homes in Colorado for their two IRCA and two Penoles locomotives, and furthermore I appreciate their hospitality and kindest support of my failed projects over the years. OK. Paragraph one.

Hi Don -

Well, I agree with you about the 261 becoming DL&W 1661; that WAS an abomination! And "our" O5B 5632 into a Rock Island 4-8-4 would have been even worse!!! BUT.... it's funny you mention these two in the same paragraph. Because....the 261 COULD be made into a Rock Island 5100 class 4-8-4 since they were basically the same engine! You'd have to spend some money doing it right (new front end, etc.) but it is a possibility. And of course, also keep the parts around for her conversion back into CMStP&P 261. Anybody out there got the money to convince the right people that Rock Island 5120 might be a good thing?

Les

Ross,

I have to say there's a couple of Long Island ten wheelers that have to qualify for this title.

As if there was a timetable for restoring a steam locomotive at all?

"Never" sure sounds more convenient and less expensive than ten years! But "never" just isn't as fun...

KL

The K-4 is not even close Ross. K&T 10, a 2-8-2 at TVRM, was disassembled in the late sixties and remains in pieces to this day. There is no current timetable for her restoration to be completed. From what I understand she needs most, if not all, of her firebox replaced. Someday?

John Bohon

The K-4 has a new backhead, new eccentrics, a new smokebox, etc..

I'm not sure if there's a bright line, but I think its getting close to being more replica than restoration.

Hello,

In expressing my opinion here, may I suggest a possible strategy of modifying to no specific design....have the look of something totally unique and progressive. Here is an example of that concept:

http://www.joueftrains.com/images/232u1%20-%20SNCF%20photo.jpg

.........Of course the French integrate the curves in their machines! I think the 232 U1 looks pretty sharp.

Apply some tasteful design and fit that is professional and well thought out. Rather than counting rivets and keeping with black paint, maybe some alternative concepts can be considered? After all, does the bulk of the public really care about exact integrity? I am not advocating throwing historic accuracy out the window but a few unique projects would get some attention. If the 3028 is redundant, this could be food for thought.

You could even take this a bit further. How about an express garratt?
http://loco.skyrocket.de/data/plm_231-132bt.htm Of course this is for fun and now where near a retrofit.

Again....just my opinion.

Regards,

Randy Musselman

No one has mentioned Bill Purdie's modifications to C&O 2716 as SR 2716....

Wesley

Hey fellas cut me a tiny bit of slack please-I stated it was said in jest. Guess I also should have qualified the Guinness category as " Worlds longest steam locomotive "continuos" restoration project"????
Although there has not been any "official" statement in some time regarding the K-4 I'm told that the "word on the street" is that another obstacle or problem of some magnitude has surfaced which will further delay the projects completion??????????/
Perhaps Mr. Cessna would be willing to bring us up to speed???

Ross Rowland

I credit 2716 with making me a life-long steam fan.I rode behind her on two consecutuve weekends back in May 82 and listened to her pull through town with a night time deadhead move during the week.(I was a kid then and could'nt get to the tracks)I thought 2716 was awsome looking and did not care that it was not in C&O look or that Southern never actually had 2-8-4s.I wonder what Bill Purdie would have done with a QJ 2-10-2 had he got one? As for the 3028 and restoring it to proper N de M livery,I wonder what the public reaction would be to advertising an excursion with a Mexican engine in Spanish lettering? Would it drive away some people due to the current illegal immigration debates?Would the "average joe" or "daisy picker" born and raised in America look at it like an Hispanic business with Spanish language signs and Mexican colors? As for my hometown people of non-Hispanic orgin go nowhere near these business.

The thing that I have noticed about "modified" engines over the years is that how few of them are actually noticed. The majority of the steamers running in this country today have some sort of modifications done from when they were last in regular service, even if it is only a replacement air pump or lubricator. In many cases the modifications are non-reversible, such as grinding out truck sideframes for NFL bearings, or other "improvements" to irreplaceable original castings. Tenders get replaced with all-welded new ones with modern trucks. No one says a thing about these changes if it is lettered for the original railroad. But move the bell or headlight, or paint it green instead of black, and all hell breaks loose. I'm not particularly bothered by changes to a locomotive's cosmetics, or efficiency modifications that are reversible. And there are always compromises that have to be made to the "artifact" if you are preserving it's function. But paint, pilots, and headlight brackets are easily changed. I'm more bothered by the needless loss of original fabric, especially when it is replaced with something that is out of character with the period of the engine's service. And by the way, I thought SR 2716 was a very handsome locomotive.