Yes, rumors of the DL&W Pacific that supposedly is buried in the silt in the Delaware. (I'm not buying it until I see it, and when you do dig it up)

The story gets better when you hear that the metal would be PERFECTly preserved because of the USUAL temperature (and I have a 95 year old ship undergoing "bioferrodepletion" on the bottom of the icy cold Atlantic that disproves the theory that cold water is as inert as isopropyl alcohol).

If you really want to make the story light the fastasy leaguers up, add that the late Perry Shoemaker said that he rather see that engine pulled up, than have continued litigation over the Camelback (again NOT true).

If there was a treasure trove to save-it was in the late '70's and early '80's when Conrail was busily sending its first generation power to the scrapper. No doubt, you could've had tons of old EMD's, Baldwins and F units (granted, beaten to death, but probably suitable for stuffing and mounting), however, nobody could seem to come up with something better than the scrap price, so you shaved with one this morning.

All endeavors have tall tales, but few have more than this one. Why not act to save whats possible? Much is possible-I remember the story of youngster of about 20 snagging an F-40. Maybe had time, maybe he had youth, or maybe he understood opportunity knocks but once.

Not exactly. It's actually not really near Rimini, but closer to Sumter, and isn't the Brooklyn Cooperage machine described in Tom Fetters' book on SC loggers. It's actually a Sumter Pine & Cypress 3' gauge engine. And saying it's "there" is being rather generous -- there ain't much left.

I have edited and corrected the original post. Apologies.

The version my S.C.U.B.A. club heard is that the local guides on the fake "trolleys" claim that the loco and passenger train are 90 feet below the surface of the Delaware River. A representative of the Delaware River Basin Commission says that in that case, they are under about 50 feet of solid rock. I have dived on the sunken box car and other freight train wreck parts at the point of the Delaware Water Gap, and followed the bottom all the way to New Jersey. The deepest I found was about 35 feet, if I stuck my arm far into the mud on the bottom. You don't always have to be a diver, the roof of the box car is above water in a good drought.

As for the Big Boy rumors, do they have something to do with a proposed movie rumor from early in this century?

Would it perhaps be the SW1 that's still on "display" in Windber?

I say "display" because it wasn't intentionally displayed per se, but its parked close to downtown and not fenced in. I have pics, somewhere.

Hi,
As I recall, someone on this board was going to try to dive in the rock quarry in PA to confirm or deny that a PRR steamer was there. I've not heard if they ever got permits to do so or arranged the dive.
Anyone know?
Thanks.
Doug vV

As I recall (and this thread should almost be diverted to the "Rumors" thread), the diver in question wasn't going to come all the way over without the proper permits from the Commonwealth of Pa., which somehow owned/controlled the quarry as part of a state park. The park officials weren't willing to issue said permits, mostly for the usual "safety" reasons but (strictly IMO) also because the "evidence" supplied by the chap making the allegations was woefully insufficient--if indeed it really existed at all. (I recall that the guy claimed certain dates for articles, and another forum reader noticed that the days claimed didn't match the actual calendar for those dates.....)

Cambria Slope 33 used ex-Lackawanna SC 426, renumbered Bethlehem Mines 109 and painted to match the C&I equipment, probably for the entire existence of the mine.

Dave Hamely is on here somewhere. His Trains article ("This is a Short Line?") on the C&I from the early 1970s mentions it, I believe. I bet he could fill in more information.... I grew up 15 minutes from the stupid thing and never took a single photograph.

It was sold to the Delaware-Lackawanna after 33 closed and was restored to it's original appearance and paint.

Paolo, that orange SW1 at Windber was one of a pair of r/c SW1s that switched Bethlehem 78 until it closed in the late 1980s. Though unconfirmed (by me anyways), they're believed to be ex-C&BL 60-series SW1s.

-kb

>that orange SW1 at Windber was one of a pair of r/c SW1s that switched >Bethlehem 78 until it closed in the late 1980s. Though unconfirmed (by me >anyways), they're believed to be ex-C&BL 60-series SW1s.

Keith, Lance Myers and I frame-checked it quite awhile ago, must be three years now. At that time, we found a frame number of 4060-2, which does indeed correlate to a C&BL unit, #63 as I recall.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to it once NS re-starts service on the Windber I.T. (which the unit sits on), which shouldn't be too much longer.

Having just recently visited the GG1 in Harrisburg, I was already wondering about the (quite remote) possibility of one ever being restored to operation.

Can anyone shed any light on what would need to be done? Would it even concievably be possible, given unlimited time and money? It seems like they can do some pretty impressive stuff with electrical components these days, is there any technology that could be used to replace the PCB laced transformers or whatever they were that lead to the demise of the G's? Has the voltages changed as well, and are there other factors to consider?

I realize that if it was possible, somebody probably would have done it already but I'm just curious as to what the hurdles are, along with the obvious problems of restoring a loco that's been out of service for what, 30 years or more now?

Hi,

Assuming you would have somewhere to run it, I do not think there is a major obstacle that could not be overcome to restore one.

Many say about the cracks in the frames. D&RGW 2-8-0 315 just recently returned to active duty. When retired, it had several frame cracks. Many of the Southern Ry steam program locos had the same problems. For a for-profit company like NS or UP, it is not economically repairable.

However as a historical artifact where money is a less relevant issue than having an operating artifact (like the USS Constitution sailing ship), I do not see it as a drop dead issue.

As for the PCB transformers, I think there are only two GG1's with their original transformers. The way chemistry has progressed and the inventions that have come from the space program (like teflon for eliminating the need for oil or grease), I can not see that a environmental friendly fluid with the properties of the PCBs can not be formulated.

If you wish to go to more modern technology (say requiring HEP and ditch lights and modern safety features), the E-44 technology of the 1950's already proves that solid state components will work. A similar control system can be substituted for the original electrical system inside a GG1. It could be argued that the GG1 is no longer a GG1. However, the D&RGW K-27 464 was always a coal burner. It went to LA and Knotts Berry Farm and was converted to oil. So I do not have a big issue with that myself.

The GG1 could keep its original innards and rewired for MU operation so that it can be coupled to a diesel and the GG1 would have its control stand and traction motors connected to the diesel like CSX and many others use slugs for yard service. The GG1's in regular service could and did MU with diesels as long as the GG1 was the controlling unit.

Basically what I am saying is that there is no technological reason that a GG1 could not be made operable again. However, the argument about where to run it and historical accuracy does come into play. So Politically, I do not see a GG1 being returned to operable condition. Of course, if I had a million ....

Doug vV

Ahh, but there are two Shays in the swamp in that area. I know there was some doubt that this could possibly be two engines, but I believe there are. One has been photographed sitting upright (pre-1900 variety, wide wheels for running on pole "rails"). Link to info: http://www.shaylocomotives.com/data/lima/sn-196.htm

According to Mr. Fetter, the other engine is lying on it's side near the banks of the Congaree River and is visible from the river. This engine is obviously not the one that's been photographed. This may be the engine that's closer to Sumter.

I would think that the easiest and cheapest way to see a GG1 is to make it in to a cab control car with a dummy pantograph. Gut the interior except for a train control stand. Have an Amtrak electric pushing on the rear of the train. Hard to tell the difference as that G wizzes by on the head end.

Tom

GG-1's were incapable of operating in multiple with diesels. You are confusing them the E-44 units, although that practice was also rare. The G's had a 22-point controller that was totally incompatible with the diesel locomotive's 8-point system. G's could m.u. with each other but not with other electrics or with diesels. Also, in later years, when most road diesels were equipped with 26-L brake equipment, the G's retained their 24RL systems which were incapable of "leading" 26L equipment.

Although I do not recall where, I have seen two photos of GG1's and diesels MUing. One was on a freight on the Highline in Philly at 30th Street station.

It was unusual for GG1s to MU with diesels but not impossible.

Doug vV