"... to jump topics, but in my humble opinion 2100 belongs either at RRMoP or with the RCT&HS. I don't know if either of those organizations has the capital to purchase the engine at any price, unfortunately."

In the case of the RRmPA, forget it, unless it it is donated, delivered and provided a healthy endowment for care and upkeep. Lancaster is too far from Philly or Pittsburgh for Fast Eddie to care about. The PHMC was hammered in the 1oo day late budget...

Yeah, I know he's dying to keep Harley in York, but building or refurbing the physical plant of a private enterprise, is an "investment"...hah hah.

With half of the remaining T-1's locked up in museums where they are not going to run again I personally would rather see 2100 go anywhere there is a chance it can run again. The situation with the 261 tells me we may have enough big engines locked up in places where they can never run again. At least some of these big engines need to stay in private hands where an operating future is possible. I think the same can be said for engines that are ideally sized for tourist operations. Of course if I had as much money as opinion what I think would count for something.

From what I have been told Steve would much rather have a roller bearing engine which would put 2100 and several others I have heard mentioned out of the running. Considering the attitude toward plain bearing equipment on todays railroads it is difficult to find fault if this is his thinking.

John Bohon

John Bohon raises a really important point.

If the Sandberg family decides to ride a new horse then by all means they should ONLY consider an all roller bearing candidate.

Please take it from me, a guy who has spent a lot of time and $$$$$ on both types, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON between a friction bearing vs. roller bearing locomotive. The differences are way beyond night and day!!!

Being the savy guy he is I'm confident that Steve is well aware of this truth!!

Ross Rowland

It's been a lone time since the 614 has run, but would it be a suitable candidate for them to consider --- and if not, why not?

Bob H

Amen to the roller bearing issue!

Yes but 4449 hasn't done too badly.

Steve

I'm sure that Doyle can attest to the pucker factor involved with solid bearings as you are running as can I and the other two 1522 engineers.
Doyle is running oil on the 4449 where we were using grease cakes. The good grease is nearly impossible to find that will hold up under sustained track speed running nowadays.
Roller bearings in good shape make life a whole lot easier in today's world of steam.

Dumb question:

Just assuming that the acquisition of Reading 2100 were actually in the works: Would it be both possible and economically feasible to convert 2100 to roller bearings? I'm working with the premise that as 2100 has already been "mutilated" at least once, maybe the opportunity is there for a thorough rebuild of 2100 to a more "modern" form, with a good oil burner, roller bearings, and the kind of adaptive modifications applied to Burlington 4960 at the Grand Canyon RR? Of course, it's possible that a purchase or lease of C&O 614 may well be a more cost-effective measure............

Since we're now in an area where I know absolutely nothing, I feel utterly safe in commenting since I'm unlikely to touch upon anything sensitive.

First, back in the dark ages (like 1992 or so) when Steve was looking for a locomotive, he repeatedly commented on the desirability of finding a locomotive that had some connection to the area in which it would operate. As admirable a locomotive as 614 may be, it has no connection to the midwest, and I would think that it would be less desirable because of that. Same thing with 2100, but it has the additional cachet of having been weirdly and ineffectually modified.

That having been said, since I know absolutely nothing, nothing should be inferred from the foregoing comments.

That may be a valid point when you have a regularly available host road in the Midwest.

That utterly fails in an era when 4449 heads to Michigan, and 261 spent nearly a year in Scranton........

I think "modified" would be a better term, and the oil burner conversion could just as easily be modified back to the original configuration. Ignoring the whole issue of whether the oil burner setup worked or not and whether it was a good idea, as far as I can tell, it would be quite easy to remove it and have it back to original.

I'm not sure if the frames designed for a conventional set of seperate driving boxes can easily accomodate the roller bearing cannon box castings. The only conversion I'm aware of having been done in recent history adapted standard seperate boxes to accept roller bearings, and failed in service. Since I'm a narrow gage, branchline and industrial lokie guy, I won't speculate - maybe some mainline mechanical guys can contribute from a better frame of reference?

I'd assume self adjusting wedges would also be included in any retrofit schemes.

dave

Seems like a huge amount of trouble if a roller bearing engine could be had in the first place. I would think that it's enough just to restore one in kind with only minor mods let alone major and possibly unproven changes.

#265 naturally. Also, is IRM's Q Hudson on rollers or would a Hudson by definition be giving up too much pulling power? Maybe the modern reality of a diesel escort on most trips makes that less of an issue.

Just more armchair speculation but nothing wrong with that. It is a hobby and the jabbering is part of the fun.

Perhaps I can shed a little light on the question of converting to rollers.

At the end of the run of the AFT we had Timken come in and do a complete work estimate for us for converting the 2101 ( AFT #1) to an all roller bearing machine. We recieved their quote in November 1976 and would have proceeded with the project were in not for their estimate of needing the locomotive to be out of service for 18 months. We had already committed to the folks at CSX to be the power for the upcoming B&O Birthday Train and that show was scheduled to kick off in April 1977, barely 6 months away.

The Timken estimate ( in 1976 dollars) was $ 135,000. In 2009 dollars that would be about $ 275,000.

I also recall that if we had gone ahead with the project the folks at Timken told us that they would be recalling a gentleman who by then had been retired for a few years to supervise the project as he was the only one they felt was qualified. My guess is that he's no longer with us and I have no idea if Timken would even consider it today???

In terms of the 2100 specifically, over and above the issue of friction bearings is the question of how much damage was done to the firebox and combustion chamber by the rube goldberg oil system Mr. Payne mounted on her?? My advice to anyone seriously considering her purchase would be to have her THOROUGHLY inspected by qualified boiler people before going anywhere near buying her. She may well be fine as these machines were built to take an amazing amount of punishment, but on the other hand she may not be.

Hope that helps a little!

Ross Rowland

According to the terms of the 2001 lease between NRM and Friends, the locomotive must be returned to its owner at or better than the state it appeared in 2001.