At the time Whitewater Valley purchased the #6 was the #3 considered too? Was the #6 in better shape?

What is the current condition of #3. I heard that she might start sharing her enginehouse with a standard gauge diesel switcher.

Any info would be great!

-Alan Levy

AlanL759@aol.com

> At the time Whitewater Valley purchased the
> #6 was the #3 considered too? Was the #6 in
> better shape?

> What is the current condition of #3. I heard
> that she might start sharing her enginehouse
> with a standard gauge diesel switcher.

> Any info would be great!

Alan:

Here is what I know. I visited the EBT last fall for their "Spectacular" and when Tom Travis and I heard that the enginehouse in Mt. Union was open, we grabbed the wives and headed up there. Talked to the owner of the short line that is going to start operating over the EBT's right of way. We looked over number 3 which is still sitting on the north (?) track of the enginehouse. In answer to a question, he told us that he and the owner of
the EBT are committed to restoring the #3 to service BUT that it will not be done until after the short line is up and running AND starts turning a profit. So a few years down the road at least. The good news is that the engine looks in decent shape and has a nice snug (and safe) home.

midlandblb@cs.com

Don't know if #3 was for sale at the time, but my guess is that either she wasn't or was much higher priced. #3 is substantially larger and more powerful than #6. #3 was likely in better shape, as she was the primary whereas #6 was the backup. #3 was the last EBT locomotive to operate in common carrier service.

#3 has not moved from the position in which she was parked that cold winter day in 1956. In the 1980's the enginehouse was deteriorating and the elements were coming through the roof and damaging #3. A grant from America's Industrial Heritage Project provided money to secure the building and replace the roof in January 1993. #3 has rust on her front end and some corrosion damage, but it is not major. A number of parts are missing, most of which are stored at Rockhill at the EBT shops.

Mount Union Connecting Railroad has leased the north end of the EBT for standard gauge operations and has been rehabilitating track. The track is operational to just beyond the US 522 crossing. Work further is planned for this year. They purchased a 60 ton stadard gauge Plymounth diesel last fall and plan to move it to Mount Union yet this winter. It is to occupy #6's stall.

> At the time Whitewater Valley purchased the
> #6 was the #3 considered too? Was the #6 in
> better shape?

> What is the current condition of #3. I heard
> that she might start sharing her enginehouse
> with a standard gauge diesel switcher.

> Any info would be great!



The East Broad Top Railroad Homepage

ebtrr@spikesys.com

Oh, and here's some photos of her:

http://www.spikesys.com/Bin/EBT/16521.jpg

http://www.spikesys.com/Bin/EBT/16522.jpg

http://www.spikesys.com/Bin/EBT/17121.jpg

The East Broad Top Railroad Homepage

ebtrr@spikesys.com

> In the 1980's the enginehouse was
> deteriorating and the elements were coming
> through the roof and damaging #3

I looked at #3 around 1990, or Â’91. The boiler jacket stops just short of the smokebox, so the rivets that hold the front tube sheet in place are visible. The interesting discovery that I made was that when I touched one of those rivet heads with the tip of my finger, the entire rivet head fell right off! With corrosion like that, donÂ’t hold your breath that #3 will run again anytime soon.

> Don't know if #3 was for sale at the time,
> but my guess is that either she wasn't or
> was much higher priced. #3 is substantially
> larger and more powerful than #6. #3 was
> likely in better shape, as she was the
> primary whereas #6 was the backup. #3 was
> the last EBT locomotive to operate in common
> carrier service.

Chris,

I have often wondered this myself. #6 was not the right choice for our group (especially of the two engines at the EBT). It seems strange as to why they would have picked the smaller engine given that we were running a nearly 20 mile long line pulling 6+ coaches.

I might offer some insight to the reasons though. I'm nearly sure that money was not the issue (at least not on our end) as the $15,000 paid in the mid 70's is the equivalent of $50,000 now. (see the link below to the AIER cost of living calculator). If they had needed $20,000, I suspect they could have come up with it. Since they were renting the line and did not have the associated costs that our group has now, money for certain types of things seems to have been available. Perhaps #3 was simply not available, perhaps the WVRR people making the decision were not as aware of #3's benefits?

I truly suspect that the people making the decision back then in our group probably picked the smaller and older engine on purpose. It probably seemed to be more manageable to them. Since they weren't "railroad" people, I have found evidence of picking something too light or too small to do a specific job on the railroad to be a common trait. The purchase of #6 was done to get a replacement for a pair of reboilered Heislers that they had used for a couple of years (and realized that they were not appropriate). My guess is that since #6 was so much larger than what they had been using, it seemed big enough. #100, a 2-6-2, was purchased after #6 it appears, partially, because they figured out that #6 was also not really suitable and was certainly not in the condition anticipated by the high price tag.

Had they purchased #3 instead of #6 it is hard to say what might have happened. It is likely that #3 would have performed the job they were hoping #6 would do, being heavier, larger, and of newer design and materials. Not being a lap seam boiler, this too might have kept it alive. Hard to say given the personalities that we have had in the past.

Some of the key people who made these decisions (and funded them) are still alive, though no longer involved in our organization. When it is appropriate, I'll try to see what their perspective was at the time. As I've heard the story, #6 wasn't really "up for sale" rather it was a case of the EBT being made an offer that I think they owner found hard to refuse. At the time, that money was probably put to good use keeping the narrow gauge portion running.

I have also heard that when the engine was removed from the engine house that a huge overgrowth of trees that had to be removed just to get the doors open. Even back then it has been said that some of the roof was open to the weather, so no doubt the Mt. Union enginehouse roof was in poor shape for some time.

David Farlow

Cost of Living Calculator
hudson.industries@worldnet.att.net

Thanks for the all info!

Chris, what happened to those Heislers?

-Alan Levy

AlanL759@aol.com

What happened to those Heislers?

The larger of the two went to the Silver Creek & Stephenson RR in Freeport, IL. The smaller one is privately owned and is still stored at the Whitewater Valley RR. The owner periodically suggests that he will be moving it soon. Since it has been here since sold 20 (or more) years ago, I have my doubts if it will ever leave. It and its sister were apparently reboilered by the Maggie Valley RR, (Amusement Company) in the 1960's. The fact that the owner has not maintained its appearance, doesn't pay storage fees, and can't or won't remove it is another reason we don't want to get into the same sort of situation again.

Photos of it are on our website.

David Farlow
Whitewater Valley RR

Heisler
hudson.industries@worldnet.att.net

> What happened to those Heislers?

> The larger of the two went to the Silver
> Creek & Stephenson RR in Freeport, IL.
> The smaller one is privately owned and is
> still stored at the Whitewater Valley RR.
> The owner periodically suggests that he will
> be moving it soon. Since it has been here
> since sold 20 (or more) years ago, I have my
> doubts if it will ever leave. It and its
> sister were apparently reboilered by the
> Maggie Valley RR, (Amusement Company) in the
> 1960's. The fact that the owner has not
> maintained its appearance, doesn't pay
> storage fees, and can't or won't remove it
> is another reason we don't want to get into
> the same sort of situation again.

> Photos of it are on our website.

> David Farlow
> Whitewater Valley RR

On a personal note, I finally managed to get out to see the Silver Creek & Stephenson operation for the first time this past fall and arrived just as they were slowly shunting the Heisler into the enginehouse. Seems that had discovered a leaking flue. Seems like a nice little operation and they intended to repair the engine over the winter. Even had a lady as part of the engine crew!



midlandblb@cs.com

I have some answers from the people who were involved in this purchase those many years (eras?) ago. It was thought that #3 was in fact in as bad or worse condition at the time of the inspection. Apparently those from our group thought that #3 has cracks in various driver spokes. No idea if that is true or not obviously, but the concern influenced the decision. My suspicions about #6 being smaller also entered into it as well. At the time, with little to compare to, it was thought that a "big" engine like #3 was not needed. This too apparently played a role in choosing #6. No one seems to recall that the price was an issue in this process. As I said earlier, $15,000 was a good chunk of money at the time and it was thought that #6 was in better shape than it turned out to be. Apparently when we initially pulled out all of the tubes, a former EBT GM was surprised that we pulled them "ALL" out. He doubted that had ever been done at once.

David Farlow

> Some of the key people who made these
> decisions (and funded them) are still alive,
> though no longer involved in our
> organization. When it is appropriate, I'll
> try to see what their perspective was at the
> time. As I've heard the story, #6 wasn't
> really "up for sale" rather it was
> a case of the EBT being made an offer that I
> think they owner found hard to refuse. At
> the time, that money was probably put to
> good use keeping the narrow gauge portion
> running.

> I have also heard that when the engine was
> removed from the engine house that a huge
> overgrowth of trees that had to be removed
> just to get the doors open. Even back then
> it has been said that some of the roof was
> open to the weather, so no doubt the Mt.
> Union enginehouse roof was in poor shape for
> some time.

> David Farlow


hudson.industries@worldnet.att.net