"I was wondering about the shrink wrap's worth. Are you able to remove it and reapply with patches (like cling wrap on a cake) or something along those lines?"

According to Ross, it keeps the locomotive fresh, for re-heating!

Ross is correct on a number of issues regarding this locomotive. First, the project was under the direction of steamtown and there was great waste. I have talked to one of the contractors that had been working on the locomotive early on, he said he actually felt guilty as he was being paid INCREDIBLE amounts of money for being there but was not allowed to get much of anything done. He said that everything had to move at the speed of the steamtown employees, think government road project workers only much slower.
Some of the mistakes that have been made by the steamtown folks were costly. The most recent being that of the new outer wrapper sheets being stress relieved after they were welded in, relieving is not required, they were not braced and they ended up a bit warped. This had to be fixed.
Regarding the outer wrapper, the UT had been done a while prior to Bob Yuill's arrival and the engineering had been done by who??? Yet Yuill knew there to be issues simply by looking at the nymbers written on the shell. Now I understand that everyone thought the sheet was plenty thick enough because it is very close to original thickness but it should have been confirmed.

I do not (nor does anyone else that remains unemotional about it) understand where all the money went. I can only draw that part of the issue is similar to that of a post from several months ago where a discussion regarding grants was had. The example given was that if a normal contractor charges $30 to put in a tie (labor only) then a contractor being paid via a GVT grant will HAVE to be paid $75. There is a large amount of waste up there.

Ross, what is the current yearly operating budget? A poll question for everyone (following Ross's answer), what could be done at your museum for that amount? And, knowing what the scope of operation is supposed to be at steamtown what do you all think it should cost if? What should it cost for what little is actually done?

My point in this is very simple. Do we want to ever achieve the scope of operation and proffesionalism as is seen in england? Do we want events like Steamfest to become a standard versus the exception? Then we must all be willing to admit to mistakes when they are made, whether they are ours or those someone else.

And for all of those that are jealous of Ross, when you have pulled off two transcontinental steam tours and some large scale regional running then you have the right to throw stones. Do not misunderstand, we all have the right to our own opinion, but when you publicly condemn success and applaud failure it reflects badly on you.

Were it not for Ross Rowland 4449 would not have been at Railfest as it would have never been rebuilt for the Freedom Train, think about that!

In regards to the 1361, the best route possible is that of it leaving steamtown! For steamtown, I think Ross would agree, the day it becomes a privatized with the same amount of funding is the day the institutions potential will be realized!!!

John Creasing

I will point out that, far too often and for the wrong reasons, volunteer/private efforts are often disrespected as "amateurish" and worse ("playing with trains," anyone), and many worthwhile projects are only "taken seriously" or regarded as "professional" when government monies are involved.

I have found many, many folks around Baltimore that are ignorant enough to sincerely believe that the B&O Museum and/or the Baltimore Streetcar Museum are run by Baltimore City or the state. It has to be, after all--nothing that good could be private.

This is a false mindset that bedevils many, many museums--art museums, history museums, you name it--and forces an uphill/upstream battle with regards to fundraising, "professionalism," and credibility.

With regards to the assumed "jealousy" of Rowland, I will note that many of those of us "in the shops" who have criticized Rowland over the years have many issues with him other than "jealousy" at work--but that's not a discussion we can carry out here, as it eventually and inevitably invokes what can only be termed "personal attacks" that are not allowed here, and I'm not going there as I haven't firsthand knowledge of said issues (unlike others here).

[quote="Alexander D. Mitchell IVI will point out that, far too often and for the wrong reasons, volunteer/private efforts are often disrespected as "amateurish" and worse ("playing with trains," anyone.[/quote]

And I'd like to point out that private playing with trains can be done well too - consider Eureka, the Levin's diesels, Flagg Coal 75, Leviathan, and many examples of PV.

dave

Well, you won't hear that from me. Government money works just like heroin. It turns the organization into "somebody you don't know anymore", and it makes their happiness and success totally dependent on the dole. When that runs dry, life ain't good.

As for "amateurish" and "playing with trains", perhaps that's a case that the government throws money at shiny buildings, signs, landscaping and other visitor experience, which the private/civic sector just doesn't care about. BAERA went from "ramshackle" to "government shiny" overnight, when we opened the visitor center.


Yeah, ask VMT about that, they got a government money-bomb some years back, and now neither volunteers nor donors will support them. Well there may be other reasons volunteers won't, but my bet is those reasons have their root in government money.



After all, as they say... railfans are the people who come by your museum and tell you how you're doing it wrong.

The bigger the project, the more of that you get.

Therefore it is a foregone conclusion that anyone who does anything noteworthy or on a large scale, must therefore have legions of acrimonious critics. The mere existence of these critics says nothing of the validity of their arguments, even though they think it does.

John, You are incorrect with your statement about Steamtown. Below is right off the K-4 website:
"By 1992, Museum officials knew that further restoration would be costly - at a minimum $450,000. Fund-raising was undertaken and a major grant was awarded from the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission. Armed with the funding, Museum officials began to look for how best to accomplish the work while building credibility.

In 1994 the Museum signed a contract with the University of Scranton and the Steamtown National Historic Site in Scranton for restoration of the locomotive. The University would provide project management and the Park would provide shop space, equipment and some labor.

In the Spring of 1995 the locomotive was loaded onto several high-capacity flat cars and moved to Scranton where restoration began later that year. A number of dedicated volunteers and two paid staff began working full-time on the restoration. The price had escalated to just under $700,000. "(by Peter Barton, former-Executive Director, Altoona Railroaders Memorial Museum, Inc)"

It says some labor but not all. The contractor you speak of was just as much at fault, if not more, than the folks that owned the engine. How qualified was this contractor? As a volunteer up there, I can tell you that you can work as fast or as slow as you want. Yes we have to get qualified on the equipment or show we know what we are doing but, IMO your contractor friend was there for the money not the pride of fixing steam. As far as I'm concerned Altoona management didn't oversee their K-4 very well and let the project run itself into the ground. Now I wasn't there but from their website it seems they didn't do a very good job of overwatch. They found some problems with the engine that seem not to have been found before work was started but, that can happen with any engine. Oh, sometime why don't you ask the park about the equipment that was broken, used up, or still in use and they don't get a dime for it.

Please don't fret about the occassional negative comments and the snide remarks. I learned a LONG time ago to grow a thick skin and to always examine the source of the remarks and what record ( usually very scant if any) of accomplishment they have achieved. Always consider the source!!!

As to the 1361 fiasco, there's plenty of blame to go around as has been exhaustively discussed on umpteen previous threads.

To me, the main lesson to be learned here is this was a world class example of the old adage that " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". The 2 principal players in Altoona who "managed" the project knew just enough ( or certainly thought they did) about steam to be dangerous, and the results speak for themselves. Hopefully others who study this will conclude that the ONLY way to undertake a major steam restoration project is to hire one of the contractors who have a proven track record of success and then STAY OUT OF THE WAY!!!

IMHO-Ross Rowland

Mr. Rowland, I agree with you on the above post. Plus I agree with you about your own 614. Why would you spend money on an engine that wants to stretch her legs and not be stuck at 5-10 MPH! I wouldn't spend it either. Hence why Steamtown is not restoring 565 to operational condition, plus the annual boiler inspection she would need, they have a good yard engine, #26, who will be almost brand new when she comes out of the shop. But we are off subject. I just the K-4 moved so I can finish 565 :). When I get back of course.

What is the problem with this loco? I presume it is the boiler as usual. All steel boilers are not as difficult to repair as those common in this country with copper fireboxes within the steel outer wrapper. If you look at the link below you can see some of the work done to the Bullied Pacific 34059. This boiler is all steel and has had a new firebox tubeplate, syphons foundation ring sections and large parts of the firebox. (We say with these they are easy, burn your way in and weld your way out!) I know our equipment is smaller than in the US, but this engine is similar although it has 3 cylinders. It was rescued from a scrapyard, missing all boiler fittings and large amounts of the valve gear. Probably 70% of this engine is newly built. It takes enthusiasm and grit over a period of time.
I am always surprised that such a nation as the USA with all its industry and wealth seems to have problems doing what to us is difficult but never impossible. We have schemes where people can subscribe directly from their bank small amounts of say $10 a month. Lots of people with less disposable income can therebye contribute. Our Atlantic project at the Bluebell Railway receives a good 60% of its income this way and this keeps the project rolling. Bigger sponsorships are the icing on the cake!
See the link below and look through the progress reports.
http://www.locos-in-profile.co.uk/Bulle ... r_sas.html

Hi Fr3d. I see you're new here.

Go search our archives for "PRR 1361" and review past threads on the subject. If you look hard enough, there's a LONG screed on the specific faults in question.

As a fellow Anglophile, let me see if I can put this in terms that you can easily understand.

Take a robust but not very common loco design amongst survivors--say, an LNER A3 or B12 or Ivatt Atlantic, not yet another blankety-blank Black Five or Bullied Pacific. Be sure it's thoroughly clapped out and life expired, some forty years or more on the original wheels/boiler/etc.

Now park said loco at Ais Gill Summit for thirty years of snow, damp, and raw winds. Not Woodhams Bros. in Barry, Ais Gill. Or Druimuachdar.

Once your crew gets the bright idea to fix it up, do pretty much just enough to get her running, not the fullest possible rip-down. After you get running gear problems and decide it's time to do a complete tear-down, find out that the construction design of the boiler, no matter how adequate in 1920, just can't possibly pass current British boiler codes and regulations as written, and that you'll basically have to design and build a totally new firebox for this boiler, using presses, rolling mills, etc. that no longer exist.

Now, figure also that you burned through all your local rail enthusiast goodwill and Heritage Lottery grant monies the first round or two, and that to do this properly means taking the finest of Swindon/Eastleigh/Doncaster/Crewe and shipping it off to Germany or the like to get it properly fixed. And figure that, unlike the aforementioned works, this loco is the ONLY really operating survivor from this shop and railway, save for a little 0-6-0 no one much talks about.

Oh? And that main line steam program you chaps have over there? Forget about that--we don't have that. And even if we did, the loco in question isn't really powerful enough to handle a main-line excursion that can make its costs--again, think an Atlantic on Network Rail in 2009...............

Whadaya think, mates? Have I summed it up pretty well?

An interesting analogy.


Howard P.
occasional reader of "Heritage Railway"

I'd say that was summed up quite nicely. Between the boiler standards being changed since the twenties, and the economics and politics of operating the locomotive, this is going to be a tough project to sell....again.

Rail travel is very much a part of daily life in the UK and hasn't been such here for a generation or two. A lot of our population lacks the context to generate interest and support.

dave

Further to my rant earlier, I have now found the web site concerned with the restoration of 1361. I must apologise to their workers. They have done an immense amount of good work. How can the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have poured so much cash into this project just to dump it and get no-where? Surely the problem of the crown sheet thickness can be overcome. If not used on mainlines has a reduced working pressure been considered in order to get some more mileage out of all the work completed 'til now? The crown sheet could possibly wait for say 7 years of intermitant duty. This would at least get the loco back in the public eye to help generate more funding. Stopping a project such as this just makes things worse as the new work and repaired parts are liable to corrosion if not properly protected and bits get lost etc.
What a sorry state of afairs to get into. I feel for all those who have put their hearts and souls into this project just for the plug to be pulled. I will watch for any good news. I wish them all the very best although I know that isn't any help to them.

The devil is in the details again. The problem is that this is a BIG Pacific (close to double the weight of a Gresley A3), and thus quite fuel-hungry by tourist RR standards. About the one railroad that MIGHT have a use for it, even from a marketing standpoint, is the Strasburg Railroad, and as far as anyone knows or admits publicly, the Strasburg has no interest in operating a loco it can't own or lease on advantageous terms, and would anyway probably prefer their own relatively fuel-miserly steamers. (Another "ideal" tourist railroad for this operation, with high-speed track, existed back in the 1980s, the Blue Mountain and Reading, but they had--and still have--their own 4-6-2, and at any rate have never shown any interest in the K4; and they no longer operate regular excursions anyway.)

Any other railroad that might have a good use for a heavy and fast 4-6-2 would also run into the devil of the problem that enormous local money, politics, and goodwill were thrown into the "Pride of Altoona" and "Pennsylvania's Official Steam Locomotive," and the outrage back then if said locomotive had been leased out to, say, the Grand Canyon RR, the Great Smoky Mountain RR, or even the Black River & Western or NYS&W, would have been enormous. By now, of course, I would reckon that much of what "scandal" would arise from such a move would be rendered moot by the almost disastrous negative PR of the situation of the past dozen years........... it would almost be safe to say that the "Pride of Altoona" would instead be the shame and scandal.......