One of the most valuable things we can do from the preservation side is to always keep your eyes open for the original railroad engineering and clearance diagrams of some of these locomotives. Some of them are real eye-openers. Even knowing where they are helps greatly. If that includes attics and basements, well, get a copy out there to museums.

The one that floored me a while back was looking at the K4s class - from an original PRR diagram, clearly showing that the minimum radius going FORWARD was much better than BACKWARD, presumably because of the angle of attack on the flanges on the trailing truck into the railhead. Which explained to me, instantly, why they had such trouble turning 1361 during the 1980's on the Nittany & Bald Eagle. It wasn't the track, it was the design of the locomotive. And, if somebody had just had that diagram then, well, it sure would have helped everybody.

Those old engineering diagrams show some really critical stuff like the design axle loadings, dimensions, weights on lead and trailing truck, weight empty and loaded. If you can produce one of those out of the dustbin, you can often get the railroad engineering types to work with you as that is an official design record. If not, well, all the memories in the world won't get you out of the yard.

I'm working with another locomotive that has inexplicable variations in the Baldwin engineering diagram that we're trying to prove is in error on the stated curvature, given that I can locate another locomotive off the same plans that has a tighter radius on the diagram. It's literally a million-dollar issue - either fix the locomotive or redesign the facility it may run in someday.

You might look up "DeGolyer Library" at SMU. They have a very large collection of original Baldwin documents. Reproductions can be had at a price.

Keep in mind that engineering drawings will show minimum radius for (1) a new engine with no wear, and (2) track gauge per RR standards.

Wear on driving wheel lateral thrust faces, driving box lateral thrust faces, etc., can dramatically affect minimum radius at dead-slow speeds. We unintentionally demonstrated this at Golden Gate Railroad Museum. The curves in and out of our old site (Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco) were abrupt by streetcar standards. Some curves were 29-30 degrees, especially on the kinks. Heavy 4-6-2s S.P. 2467 and 2472 were both built to the same plans on the same order of 15 engines (BLW, March-April 1921). Although both engines are within the S.P. limits-of-wear specs, 2467 has less lateral wear on the main (center) drivers than 2472. 2467 simply would not negotiate a bad kink on a tight curve on the S.P. (U.P.) switch lead; after trying all sorts of tricks (greasing rail, shoving with a diesel, pulling with a diesel, swearing, etc), the solution was to let the center driving wheels ride on piles of heavy chain jiust inside the rails to get thru this kink. 2472 went thru the same kink and stayed on the rails.

BTW, we always tried to pull or push 2472 through these godawful curves with a diesel to minimize the chances of those 73" drivers climbing the rails. We also installed drip lubricators to oil the main frame where the trailing truck wheel backsides rubbed on really tight curves. This proved safer than walking alongside with an oily mop and a bucket of waste grease/oil. We also backed off the buffer wedge so the engine-tender joint was as flexible as possible.

- Doug Debs

It would be interesting to see this video of the 643 being moved. A Youtube possibility?

To answer a question from above: 15 or so years ago this engine was co-owned by Mr. Campbell (no relation to the singer) and another gentleman whose name I can't recall. The other gentleman passed on, and was evidently the majority partner, as his family arranged a sale of the engine to (as I recall) the volunteer group that supported Steamtown. The Steamtown group expected to have the engine in time for the Grand Opening in 1995. However, before the sale went through, Mr. Campbell stepped in and purchased it for something like $45,000. It has sat in the Pittsburgh area since.

I am surprised no one has suggested this engine go to Steamtown - they would have the infrastructure to operate it, and they could use some genuine PA steam.

Also, is it crazy to suggest our friends in Altoona purchase the 643 if they want an operating engine, instead of continuing to chase their tails restoring the 1361? I assume it would take a lot less to restore 643 to operation, and if this engine could operate anywhere I would assume the ex-PRR in Altoona would fit the bill.

Chris.

This assumes several things, however: That the Railroaders Memorial Museum (or anyone else in that area) could find the money; that the loco is even technically "for sale"; that Altoona's folks (museum and public) can mentally get "into" a steamer not actually built in Altoona; and--the biggest and brashest assumption of all--that Norfolk Southern will have anything to do with ANY steamer on the former PRR main line.

Yeah, crazy. Though I would lust with numerous impure thoughts at the idea of 643 on a tonnage challenge on the Curve..........

Sigh......... I recall the Everett Railroad has purchased a steamer and is having it restored at Cumberland...... but a 2-10-4 on the Duncansville wye ain't gonna work, let alone anywhere else on that railroad.......

Altoona-now there's a GREAT idea if I ever heard one!!
Talk about going from the frying pan to the fire!!!
Get real.
Ross Rowland

Purchased for $45,000? Boy, I heard it was apraised for insurance purposes soon after it was brought to Pgh and deemed operable at something like $900,000.00. Glen got a deal!

I was actually hoping it would end up at Ohio Central where it could stretch its legs on heavy iron. But alas, they will be busy with their new Berk for awhile....

Unfortunately, that's about the price Glenn's still looking to sell the engine for, and now it's going to need a fair amount of work. He tends to tout the engine as "just throw a match in it," which usually makes me cringe. If nothing else, new form 4 work and re-assembling the running gear will need to take place, and obviously the associated hydro tests.

Currently it's just a trophy that few get the chance to see, and she sits in her crumbling building, a full load of coal still in the tender (another cringe). Surprisingly, she hasn't been graffitied as of yet, though we've found evidence of someone using the tender's doghouse as their private hangout.

With the major operational challenges that 643 would present, I'm almost just as in favor of her going to a good museum for display. Obviously, neither RRMPA nor Steamtown have inside space for such a behemoth. Glenn wants to sell the engine to someone that's going to run it, or at least to someone who'll keep it under a roof.

Since the the original owner felt the need to guage certain curves at 4' 9 1/2", lets assume any potential operater better be relatively straight and and full of immaculately ballasted 130+ pound rail. Lets be honest, even if it was in "strike a match" condition, where are you going to use it? With all that tractive effort, are you really going to fill 20+ coaches? Thats 1200 (more, if your conductor is like some I know) paying riders folks?

Personally, I think it would like pretty good in Strasburg, it would diversify the collection and show what is undoubtably the biggest locomotive still in existence that operated in revenue service in PA, its "relatively" nearby and it served a road that served the heavy industry of Western PA,plus it represents steam's last stand and the refutation of bigger is better.

Not sure if several independent appraisers would value it at 900K, but if so, than RRMPA's friends group could give Mr. Campbell at letter which could still several times more as a tax deduction that he paid for it.

Now of course, coming in one piece would somewhat problematic, not really sure that Mr. Moedinger would want that beast traversering his rails...

I think one of the things that would really help her is to get somebody, anybody, to certify the axle loading weights just the way she is with an empty boiler, and yeah, get the tender empty too. The problem with a lot of the Baldwin engineering diagrams is that they have weights in working order - not empty - and that literally can be enough to put her over the edge.

Just a reminder of that particular difference - you may be able to get her moved safely to museum/preservation trackage a whole ot easier than you'll get her in regular operation someplace.

I know there was one bridge we looked at for here that we figured we could 'probably' get her over OK (loco and tender empty) but loaded and running was another matter entirely.

The other problem, and well-rooted in today's reality, is if you just want a 'big' locomotive that runs, and is a whole lot lighter on the track, and pretty much ready to go for a known price, Henry Posner will be real glad to hear from you with his QJ 2-10-2 program. We may care deeply in this group that it's not real US history, but the average person buying a coach seat is no where near as sensitive.

Most big US steam relies on a small group of passionate supporters; comparatively little B&LE never really had the national image and exposure of a PRR, NKP, Santa Fe, or Union Pacific. Lacking that history and support is the difference here as well as the economics and technical engineering size issues.

I see the C&O Allegheny in the Ford museum (Dearborn) and certainly feel that the 643 deserves no less. I was glad to see Greenville take on the 0-10-2. PA has no shortage of suitable museums, rail and non-rail, that would be a good steward, and someday, just maybe, that previous work would pay off. But it needs another home first.

B&LE 604? That locomotive started life as Union Railroad number 304, then became DM&IR no. 604 when she moved to Minnesota. Never was she a Bessemer engine.