Having watched some videos of several steam locomotives recently. Namely, SR 4501, N&W 611 and A&WP 290, brought up an item I was curious about. That is the alteration of equipment owned by a museum or organization and leased to another operation.

When SR 4501 was loaned to the Southern by Paul Merriman and later the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum, the locomotive's original tender's coal capacity was enlarged around 1967. Later on in the early 70s, the Southern placed an ex Central of Georgia 2-10-2 tender behind her and finally in 1984, the NS shop crews built an all-welded tank which as far as I can tell is identical to the ex-Central of Georgia tender minus the rivets of course.

When 611 was leased from the VMT by Norfolk Southern the engine was reequipped with a more modern brake system as well as having the original headlight replaced with a twin-sealed beam headlight. Over the winter of 1991-1992 extended coal boards added to her tender to increase her coal capacity, while the reasons for doing so are completely understandable, in my opinion it somewhat marred the locomotive's streamlined appearance.

With 290 on loan from the Atlanta Chapter NRHS/Southeastern Railroad Museum to the New Georgia/Georgia Building Authority, the tender was rebuilt/replaced due to the original one being in rather poor condition from what I recall.

With that said how do the owners of equipment go about deciding whether or not to give permission to the operators using their equipment to make alterations to their equipment? In addition to the terms of the loan, are the owners of the equipment further compensated for the changes that the organization or railroad leasing the equipment make?

Where is the line between making practical changes for operational purposes in a modern environment and maintaining the historical accuracy/integrity of such equipment?

Wherever both parties agree it will be.

dave

We were approached by and had VERY preliminary discussions about a community wanting to lease or borrow one of our trolley cars. The car is operational on standard 600 volt DC, but of course there was none of that at the new temporary location. The community did want to tow it around and give some sort of short ride.

We elected not to pursue this. The car has little or no underframe in the conventional sense and is not designed to handle towing. Air brakes are straight air, and apparantly there was no intention to use any of the air brake system, placing additional stress on the platforms and tow pockets. The final deciding factor would be pulling the motors to protect them form more wear, and possible abuse.

The cost of this preparation work and the cranes and transportaion was already more than they thought they would have to spend for perhaps a six month lease.

That said, everyone has their price, and if someone came by with a wheelbarrow of money, you would certainly have to consider such a deal. And then the details rear their ugly head, and you work out something for both parties.

My personnal opinion would be to preserve as much as possible of the authentic construction. But if something breaks and needs to be fixed, who pays, and to what design. We all know the myriad stories of replacing something; such as driver centers, or boiler work, let alone uncover existing conditions in the process of getting inspections and road readiness - if the goal is to operate the piece.

Bob Kutella

I was not involved with TVRM during the Southern Steam Program years you speak of but in the case of 4501 TVRM still has the original tender. They plan to use the frame with a new tank behind 630 for additional water capacity. The tender will resemble some of the tenders used on the KS class consolidations during the late steam era. Since the tank now behind 630 is not her original the new tender will not be that much of a deal. They will need the water capacity on the Georgia trips.

While on the Southern 4501 also recieved a 26 brake system and improvements in the lubrication system. At one time she carried a spare single lung compressor under the smokebox. If you are going to use a 1945 era local freight engine in mainline passenger service you are almost certainly going to have to make improvements. I see no way around that.

As long as all parties are in agreement I see no problems with the changes. Unless something is scrapped you can always change the appearance back to the original though I do not know anybody who would do that unless they were certain the engine would never run again.

John Bohon

John,

I was aware of the plans for using the 4501's original tender frame for use as a new tender for the 630. I saw 4501's original tender, along with 630's, K&T number 10 (still numbered 6910 when it was disguised as a SR engine) and the NC&STL vanderbuilt tender on TVRM's siding when I rode a recent Autumn Leaf Special to Summerville, Georgia and return.

Do you or anyone else for that matter happen to know when 630 received the tender she most recently operated with? I know that Southern modified it before they placed it back into service in 1968 because on the ET&WNC the tender more closely resembled TVRM's ex- US Army 2-8-0 610's tender being rectangular with inset coal board extensions.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the fact that two Southern consolidations should be up and running again in the relatively near future. The 630 in Chattanooga at TVRM and the newly re-boilered and converted to oil 401 at the Monticello Railway Musuem in Illinois.

Hi Bob -

You bring up an interesting idea. We know that the Gramling's 0-4-0T (Flagg Coal #75) and also American Viscose 0-4-0T #6 have been transported to different locations for use on special steam days. There are also a couple of museums who have used their trolleys/interurbans on their property where no wire exists, by using a small power supply coupled to one end of the car to power the traction motors. Perhaps there is a market for IRM (and other museums) to use a car, or cars, in similar lease service. Note that the car wouldn't be towed or pushed, but simply use auxiliary power on something like a motor car flat, to provide power.

Any thoughts?

Les

Yes, the tow behind generator would be a more palatable option. For a visiting car, the host museum might have to provide personnel and documentation to train operators at the temporary site, another unanticipated cost for the renter.

I think Keokuk had a generator car operation with some Chicago EL 4000 car or cars when they planned to add overhead to La Harpe on the Illinois side. The shortline was sold and the new owners never followed through on those 'dreams'.

I do not think that folks realize the costs involved when they come up with the idea of borrowing or leasing a car. Or that for a car to be attractive to them and operable, it will likely be one of the core operating cars at the originating museum.

For a small trolley the generator car might be 100 KW and maybe five time that for a heavier interurban. That is not a portable lawn mower motor, and would need some switching and fuse protection, for the generator and for the car. Would it be automated, have a governor, overspeed protection, or require a rider?

That cost would likely be born strictly by the visiting site as the host museum might have little use for that in return.

Who pays for insurance, even if the car in question is in good restored condition? There are no actuarial tables for an insurer to evaluate the risk and premium. And for transportation the artifact must be insured, hopefully for the cost of repairs should any damge or vandalism occur en route. You hope nothing untoward happens but need to be insured for the 'worst case' scenario. Insurers will likely write coverage for scrap value, but getting it fixed later is another kettle of fish.

All of the above are some of the issues raised by the "NOTHING IS EVER SIMPLE DEPARTMENT".

There has to be some benefit for both parties in any deal, but a lot of the issues appeared to be one sided in their favor, on the previously discussed concept. What does it cost to rent an auto nowadays and fuel it for a month? Surely over $2K, and that is 'simple' by comparison.


Bob Kutella

In the case of 290, the original tank was pretty much shot and needed replacing. The new tank was built by Atlanta Railcar (in what is now building #1 of the Southeastern Railway Museum), the original contractor for 290's restoration. The original tender trucks were equipped with roller bearings at the same time.

Unfortunately, the new tank leaves something to be desired, mainly from a cosmetic standpoint. The outlines of the welds are extremely obvious from the outside of the tank. IMHO, NS did a much better job when rebuilding 4501's tender in the 80's. Of course, the mother of all tender tank replacements would have to be Strasburg's replacement of 90's tank with a stainless steel tank of all welded construction, and fake rivets. Beautiful!

The new tank made for CNJ 113 is a work of art and even with a trained eye would be difficult to tell from the original.

Bernie Perch

I have no clue when the tenders were swapped on the 630. So far as I know the time frame is not even known. Personally I have seen very few in service photos of the 630 on the Southern. Do any of the Southern shop records exist that might offer a clue?

John Bohon

Thanks for the response John. I am not sure about the Southern records. I guess the Southern Railway Historical Association might be the best place to get info from since they have their archives based in Kennesaw, Georgia. I knew of someone with a great knowledge of Southern steam who had been involved with a local NRHS chapter, Dale Roberts. However, he passed away in the last couple of years.

Like you I've only seen a few in-service photos of 630, one of them being in Asheville, NC in the late 1930s or early 1940s when she was operated on the Murphy Branch. I think I've actually seen a few more in-service shots of the 722 than of the 630.