I have been over the 771, and she is in wonderful exterior shape, considering the status of being a park locomotive. An oil burner, the Mikado is not rotting other than to show some minor exterior rust. Her Vanderbilt tender has a doghouse, and she has been kept painted. I do not have any experience in evaluating her firebox or boiler, but I'd be surprised if they have deteriorated significantly since she was retired in '57. This news about restoring her to service warms my heart. It's wonderful news for the Tarantula train, but equally wonderful tht the city of Victoria could see the benefits in sharing their treasure with others. It's a textbook win - win situation all the way around. Smart move, Victoria!

glueck@saturn.caps.maine.edu

Oops. I should have scrolled down before posting.

Museum of Transportation
rdgoldfede@aol.com

> I have been over the 771, and she is in
> wonderful exterior shape, considering the
> status of being a park locomotive. An oil
> burner, the Mikado is not rotting other than
> to show some minor exterior rust. Her
> Vanderbilt tender has a doghouse, and she
> has been kept painted. I do not have any
> experience in evaluating her firebox or
> boiler, but I'd be surprised if they have
> deteriorated significantly since she was
> retired in '57. This news about restoring
> her to service warms my heart. It's
> wonderful news for the Tarantula train, but
> equally wonderful tht the city of Victoria
> could see the benefits in sharing their
> treasure with others. It's a textbook win -
> win situation all the way around. Smart
> move, Victoria!

You haven't fixed very many steam engines, have you? Just cause they look"good"on the outside soesn't mean much except they kept her painted. SP ran 'em real hard to the end, and most everything I have seen was well worn.

The Austin folks looked her over years ago, and decided she was worse than the 786. Gapevine believes that 200k will fix her. I, and other experienced steam people, do not agree.


derailment

Jim Jake is right about a locomotive "looiking good". The only real way to know is to do an extensive survey of the boiler and machinery. It is not that hard.

First you need to clean the boiler down to clean metal, layout lines forming a 4 inch grid, and then ultrasound the entire boiler on this grid. You need to map out this grid on a detailed drawing and show all dimensions. Next you give this to a engineer who understands boilers and can "run the numbers". Based on these findings then you estimate a boiler rebuilding cost.

On the machinery end you need to decide how good is good enough? Shall we just machine new bearings for everything and get it over with?

A good rule of thumb is to figure out how many $20 bills it will take to fill the tender. .

Tom Gears
Wilmington, DE

Forgotten Delaware
tom@forgottendelaware.com

What a lot of people in the railfan community don't realize is the days of dragging something out of a park and making it run again are all but over as an economic reality. Actually, 30 and 40 years ago when it was a little more common, most of these engines had been out of service only a few years, and a lot of what passed for "restoration" was call the FRA's inspector, get us a flue extension, clean the auxilleries and get the matches and a place to run.

Face it, guys, the last fifty years setting in a park have been harder on these engines than the first fifty they ran in service.

An old beast like the 771 will likely need a lot of attention to to sheets around the flexible stays, because moisture is drawn around them from the insulation. Since the have already stated that they need a new firebox, that means all new bolts, hundreds of 'em at likely just under $100 per installed.

Tubes? Not cheap, and unless something has changed, 5"superheater tubes are hard to come by domestically anymore.

Why should I or any one else care what Grapevines says their restoration will cost? When I do a mechanical survey on someones little tank engine and do some serious figuring and come up with a realistic cost to fix it to FRA spec of around 100k, all he knows is what he's read in the paper.
"why, that old mike is getting fixed up for 200 thousand, how can my little engine cost so much? You guys must be shysters, and don't know what you're doing." Then the City gets in a bind over what they THOUGHT it would cost with what it REALLY costs, and everybody gets a bad taste in their mouth over steam power, when if they had girded their loins in the first place it wouldn't be such a problem.

Bob Long had the best quote about railfans wanting to make engines run."Nothing is impossible so long as you're not the one who has to do it."

No, I have to say in all honesty that I haven't restored many steam locomotives. I still want to encourage the restoration of any that can be put in running order. No, I don't want to see her disassembled and left in piles of steel parts, but I do want to see her life extended as much as possible. On the exterior, she looks very good. On the interior, I don't know. Whatever the case, I want to encourage the salvation of the Mikado, whether it is by steaming her, or putting her under cover. Victioria is to be congratulated for offering their locomotive for rehabilitation rather than to take the attitude that "It's ours, and nobody else can have it, no matter what!"

If you look at park locomotives around the country, there are some real worse case scenarios. I am not criticizing you sense of reality nor your competence in evaluating locomotives for rebuilding. I am asking, why so sour on this effort? What would you rather see done with #771?



glueck@saturn.caps.maine.edu

I agree with the point about restoration in the past. Most of them involved finding a locomotive that only needed tubes and had a decent firebox already. With this being the case a locomotive can be pressed into service pretty cheap. Those days are gone indeed. Fifty years of soot, cinders, ash, and moisture has rendered most boilers in much worse condition than found in the 60's and 70's.

Still there is much that can be done to lessen the cost of an overhaul. An example is a tube job on a non-superheated locomotive can be done for 5-10 grand if you are not using a paid staff. A fully paid tube job is could top 30 grand. Now the problem is finding folks who know how to do this work and get them to do it for free.

A lot of museums/tourist railroads have done well with using unpaid staff for a lot of tasks and then calling in the paid pros for what can't be done "in-house".

Also FYI: Superheater tubes have been swaged recently by Potts Welding in Newark, DE. They have also done staybolts and rivets.

Tom Gears
Wilmington, DE


Forgotten Delaware
tom@forgottendelaware.com

> Dear Tom:
I believe that you are rather optimistic as to the cost of reflueing a superheated locomotive.
I just finished the reflueing of Western Maryland Scenic Railroad No. 734, a large
2-8-0 with 290 2" and 45 5-1/2" flues.
The labor costs, including expenses (we ate fairly cheap and I found a motel with weekly rates of less than $20./night) on the job were in excess of $40,000.00. These labor costs included the removal of the old flues, removing the flue stubs, removing all of the old seal weld from the rear flue sheet, straightening both flue sheets, grinding the sheets, truing and beveling up the flue holes, installing steel ferrules in the small flue holes, annealing all flues, both ends, installing all new small flues, re-installing the large flues (newly swaged safe ends by Tweetsie, TIG welded onto the freshly sandblasted large flues),(installation method: rolling, beading; rear end seal welded after hydro), and hydro tests (two, one prior to and one after seal welding) for the FRA inspectors. Over 750 man hours were required to complete this work (about 8% more than I had budgeted).
Had I not been fortunate enough to find guys (mostly from the Catskill Mountain Railroad) that really wanted to learn to do this work (read: they worked at less than what they earn at their regular jobs) I would have lost money on the project.
WMSR supplied all materials and the sandblasting (boiler interior). Eleven gage 2" flue material is about $1.65/foot. Sandblasting, squaring up and safe ending the large flues cost about $150.00 each. Material, transportation and contractors fees amounted to about $20,000.00.
So even for a locomotive in good condition, right out of service the cost of just a flue job is around $60,000.00.
J. David

jdconrad@snet.net

Check my post, I was refering to no-superheated locomotives. I agree with superheat the cost can go anywhere if you are also replacing the fules and units.

By the way, the 734 puts on a great show there on the mountain out of Cumberland.

Tom Gears
Wilmington, DE

Forgotten Delaware
tom@forgottendelaware.com

I think that the fellows at Austin would offer a superior home and care for the 771, which is likely too big for Grapevine's intended service.

Of course, the absolute arrogance and dangerous lack of railroad knowlegethe city has displayed is somewhat troubling as well.

Posted at Richard Glueck's requrest, link to picture of former T&NO 771 below.

Picture of 771
hkading@rypn.org

> I have been over the 771, and she is in
> wonderful exterior shape, considering the
> status of being a park locomotive.

Did the City Council actualy APPROVE the sale to Grapevine? I only knew from the news article that the Council had been slated to vote last Tuesday, but no word as to the result.

Austin selected 786 over 771 because it was mechanically in much better shape, external appearance notwithstanding. Also, the 771, if actually moved and restored, will be rather heavy on the lightweight rail of the ex-Cotton Belt line. A stronger-but-lighter engine (than 2248), such as a 2-6-0 or 2-8-0, it seems to me, would be more apropos for Grapevine's needs.

hi_plain@yahoo.com

The vote was a tie, so "Old 771" will stay in Victoria for now, but the council may reconsider in a few months.

> Did the City Council actualy APPROVE the
> sale to Grapevine? I only knew from the news
> article that the Council had been slated to
> vote last Tuesday, but no word as to the
> result.

> Austin selected 786 over 771 because it was
> mechanically in much better shape, external
> appearance notwithstanding. Also, the 771,
> if actually moved and restored, will be
> rather heavy on the lightweight rail of the
> ex-Cotton Belt line. A stronger-but-lighter
> engine (than 2248), such as a 2-6-0 or
> 2-8-0, it seems to me, would be more apropos
> for Grapevine's needs.


http://thevictoriaadvocate.com
camerongwallace@attbi.com

In considering other possible steam candidates, what about the SP #1744 that was restored on the Grapevine then moved to Lousiana for a very short-lived career? Is 1744 for sale or do the owners have some other plans for the locomotive?

rtrain@nls.net