734 news, not so good

zugmann · **Posted:** Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:01 pm

eze240 wrote:

Just my two cents......
from previous experience dealing with CSX and other class 1's,
Its not the age of the equipment or a lack of "alignment" couplers, those are excuses for the real problem. The real problem is poor train handling. for example: it is common practice these days to use dynamic brakes excessively-Supposedly, non alignment locos tend to move side to side, sort of twisting when you ride the dynamic heavily, this is probably what caused the derailment with those switchers.
A tourist operation I was involved with several years back had a budd built passenger car damaged by CSX, one draw bar was ripped out- again, a train handling issue. Common practice when picking up any car is to put it on the head end, simply because it is easier than having to shove back or have the conductor walk back from the bottom. thus, a passenger car on the head of a heavy freight= broken car.
Additionally, Most if not all class 1's are only interested in shipping intermodal containers/trailers or unit trains.
Currently, CSX and other class 1's are going thru a "changing or the guard", many older people are retiring and the new guys have little to no experience- with anything, much less old equipment. Thus, they are more unwilling to ship anything "different". Better to make excuses and not deal with the actual problem, call it a "safety" issue.......
Political pressure may do some good here, maybe......
Ok, I'm done bashing for now.....

It's just not common practice to use dynamics first, but a requirement. So don't blame the operating guys for following the rules in order to keep the paychecks coming. They do this train thing for a job, not a passion. Seond, I've hauled old passenger cars already. The paperwork says to handle on the rear (or one from the rear due to the inability to hang a marker on most cars). That's been a well-established rule for ages.

To these groups, their old passenger car or locomotive is a very special treasure to them, but for class-1s, it's just another car, but with operating restrictions that make it a real pain in the butt to handle. Most railroads are operating with the bare minimum amount of people to even do teh most basic of regular work. It is no wonder why they shy away from a one-time shipment that can cause a real pain in the neck,and heaven forbid of something did happen, would tie up the RR.

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

30 miles isnt that tough, anyways promote the 734 where its at and go visit it there, if it can't get to the event.

I agree with the concept of the youngsters operating the railroad and inexperience.
I have heard issues of the railroad moving some streetcars or interurbans and getting damaged by the railroad. The truck moves from Cleveland were probably wise, much to my dismay that they could not be moved by rail.

I would not let any CSX crew couple to the 734 to move it, let the correct crew move it, if it can run on its own, let it steam over. Its not worth craning it.

CSX prolly help sponser the event for the publicity, let the event run without 734 and help show CSX whats really possible, you probably need CSX there and maybe in time the attitide can change, educate them if any of them show up.

PRR Forever · **Joined:** Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:38 pm **Posts:** 91

dinwitty wrote:

I would not let any CSX crew couple to the 734 to move it, let the correct crew move it, if it can run on its own, let it steam over. Its not worth craning it.

Have you been reading this topic at all? And did you have any idea at all of CSX's policy on steam locomotives before you wrote that? They wouldn't even agree to move a dead steam locomotive over its tracks much less one moving under its own power.

PCook · **Joined:** Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:16 am **Posts:** 2127

About three years ago a person who has worked for many decades in the railroad industry and had arranged and expedited over a hundred shipments of privately owned equipment on Class One railroads, wrote an article expressing concern over the growing chasm of understanding and technology that exists between modern railroaders and railroad historical groups, and how that ever widening gap needed some urgent attention and improved communication to insure continued cooperation and access to the railroads in the future.

Curiously the group it was submitted to for publication, refused to allow it to move on their line (they declined to publish it).

The explanation offered was that it might upset too many people.

PC

big-bad-2666 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:28 pm

I think (just a suggestion!) a moving company specializing in moving railroad equipment should get on the right terms with CSX, NS, UP, CP, ect. The company would move from place to place on rail and carry all their equipment on cars. The costumer would move their car or engine near the rail and this company would stop next to it and place it on a flat car and away they go. It would provide a means of transportation for those old steamers, passenger cars. I think that would be a good business.
What do you guys think?

Mgoldman · **Posted:** Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:15 pm

I think this was nicely summed up by a quote I read on O-Gauge RR forums...

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you.

Could CSX make this move, yes. Was it a big deal to honor a previous commitment and move a reliable steam engine 10 miles away, no. Did CSX have to do it? No. And there lies the problem - why should anyone in America do anything they don't have to?

I might add with great trepidation that this may apply to those who elect to cancel plans to attend the event despite the efforts of those who put so much time, effort and money into it pulling it off despite CSX's ill advised decision. Without your support, all that will be left to watch will in fact be CSX engines as seen from public property.

/Mitch

YeOldeEnjine · **Joined:** Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:31 pm **Posts:** 329

Not that it makes a hill of beans now, but once upon a time, long ago, CSX did allow 734 to travel their rails live under her own power. She traveled thru the Cumberland yard to be weighted on the scales at the hump.

Attachment:

scales01.jpg [ 80.7 KiB | Viewed 8691 times ]

Back to the present issue at hand.... Thank You!

Tim Wilson

Richard Glueck · **Posted:** Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:46 pm

A political diatribe is uncalled for, particularly when one doesn't give specific incidents and chooses to point a finger at "them". I think we've seen this before in history. At any rate, please can your politics, and stick to trains.

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

PRR Forever wrote:

dinwitty wrote:

I would not let any CSX crew couple to the 734 to move it, let the correct crew move it, if it can run on its own, let it steam over. Its not worth craning it.

Have you been reading this topic at all? And did you have any idea at all of CSX's policy on steam locomotives before you wrote that? They wouldn't even agree to move a dead steam locomotive over its tracks much less one moving under its own power.

Isn't it ironic the Chessie is just the line that ran one of the most powerful steam locomotives, the 2-6-6-6? and can't move a tiny 2-8-0?

dispite the previous post, there is a lot of politicing going on here on the decision to not move the engine. Let the hand of fate fall and see what comes out of this.

I made a contact to CSX linking to the event site and informing about the Virginia State consortium on promoting railroad heritage. I doubt it changes anything, but passing on info, and no, no linkages to this thread.

Like I said before, if the engine can't get moved, the festival should look at letting the public know where 734 is and where it does run or on display and go there to see it.

joneau261 · **Joined:** Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:20 am **Posts:** 26

dinwitty wrote:

Isn't it ironic the Chessie is just the line that ran one of the most powerful steam locomotives, the 2-6-6-6? and can't move a tiny 2-8-0?

Well, except that was C&O. Interesting to note how all the three that became Chessie had their own big steam; C&O had Alleghenies, B&O had Yellowstones, and even WMRY had Challengers.

Also, 734 isn't what I would call "tiny". At 270,000 lbs, its one of the biggest steam engines running on a tourist railroad. Though yeah, probably not so big compared to an Allegheny.

I can't help but mention that since all riders on the excursion get a free voucher to ride at WMSR, that should be plenty of advertising for WMSR and for where 734 will (and normally will) be

tomgears · **Posted:** Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:40 am

I just deleted a post that violated the guidelines. I want to remind everyone this is not the place for inflammatory language or political rant. Please have a look at the guidelines or ask a moderator if you have any questions.

Your East Coast Moderator,

Tom Gears

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

joneau261 wrote:

dinwitty wrote:

Isn't it ironic the Chessie is just the line that ran one of the most powerful steam locomotives, the 2-6-6-6? and can't move a tiny 2-8-0?

Well, except that was C&O. Interesting to note how all the three that became Chessie had their own big steam; C&O had Alleghenies, B&O had Yellowstones, and even WMRY had Challengers.

Also, 734 isn't what I would call "tiny". At 270,000 lbs, its one of the biggest steam engines running on a tourist railroad. Though yeah, probably not so big compared to an Allegheny.

I can't help but mention that since all riders on the excursion get a free voucher to ride at WMSR, that should be plenty of advertising for WMSR and for where 734 will (and normally will) be

sounds like a good deal, hope they have a good festival.

YeOldeEnjine · **Joined:** Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:31 pm **Posts:** 329

CSX's Reply........

http://times-news.com/local/x1617562801 ... -11th-hour

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:11 am

This is why I'm skeptical of Ross Rowland's (and even Mr. Justice) of getting to run the Greebriar Express. CSX is no longer a real railroad, it is a law firm (and a nervous one at that) with real estate and railroad divisions. For proof, there is a publication that lists railroad officials in the United States; CSX must have hundreds in its listing, and the great bulk of them are lawyers.

This points out an opinion I have, based on being an auditor for almost 30 years. You know you have a successful business or industry when the lawyers and bankers decide you have enough status that they want the top jobs. You have trouble when they actually get in.

This isn't because they are necessarily bad people, but because their skill sets are mismatched to real work. Bankers tend to be bean counters; lawyers are deal makers, or as some people would call them, "snake oil salesmen." Neither category is terribly creative (try to imagine either group in charge of an advertising firm). And neither category is really good at people skills, either; I think it would mean they would have to treat others as human beings, and as a result, they would cut others slack, and then they are afraid they would be taken advantage of. They are strictly about business, and nothing but business.

It's a fear, a type of paranoia; even the excuses CSX is using seem to demonstrate this.

I wish I had an answer.

Emmo213 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:32 am

These lines I found particular disturbing. While I've been reading on here that CSX won't move anything that isn't a rotating roller bearing, this appears to be their actual stance going forward. Not sure why the diesel isn't considered "antique rail equipment" though.

FTA:
“The decision on the steam locomotive is consistent with CSX’s policy of not permitting the movement of antique rail equipment over our lines,” Sullivan said in an e-mail to the Times-News. “CSX’s experience is that movements of antique rail equipment on current infrastructure create at least four serious business and safety concerns.”

Those concerns, Sullivan said, include drawing a crowd close to working rail lines, disrupting essential service to area businesses, impairing the track and equipment which are not designed for current configurations, and creating “serious and potentially expensive insurance concerns.”