> No, it's not true. The engine does, however,
> have a long history of eating valve rings
> and piston rings.

By golly, that's it. Thanks. I knew it had something to do with the superheat but got it balled up.

>Just another problem, but not a fatal problem.

True, but another thing to worry about.

This is a great discussion, and invaluable background for this guy who was bairly out of diapers when 2100 was pulled from the scrapyards and 614 was hauling Chessie Steam/ ACE 3000 specials. It does beg a big question though: With NS now out of steam service pushing (gulp) 8 years, and only two other "sponsoring" railroads available to maintain a locomotives such as these (on a regular operating basis) in this country, how economically "smart" is it to purchase one of these behemoths? One buyer in the east/ midwest has the available trackage, insurance coverage, and operating revenues to purchase either of these locomotives, and that's Ohio Central.

Wait a minute, though.....Mr. Jacobsen already owned 2100! I remember seing the 2100 at the OC shops back in 1997: I thought then what I still think today: if she was an economically viable engine to run ( in the sense that she wasn't a COMPLETE drain on the pocket book), she would be working the OC today. Granted, a certain Ohio Central owner has a thing for CN/GTW/CP engines, but I have to think that some SERIOUS thought was put into rebuilding 6325 versus the supposedly "restored" state that 2100 was in. The fact that 2100 was sold (in part to complete that restoration I believe, but Jason and the guys at OC may correct me) speaks volumes. 6325's stats would sell me too: 73" drivers, 26 x 30 cylinders, a boiler pressure of 250 psi, a tractive effort of 59,000 lbs and a weight of 403,000 pounds.

Let's face it: a "pocket" Northern of the GTW makes a whole heck of a lot of more sense to run in the year 2002 than a 614 or a 2100. I believe that she's the lightest 4-8-4 ever built; she has the ability to be turned and or "wyed" in areas that neither 614 or 2100 could ever hope to be; she can run on lighter weight rail; and the OC shop already has experience with CN "parent company" locomotives. Pretty cut and dry I'd say.

Maybe I'm wrong, but everyone seems to forget that there are so many more things to contend with than in the days of the 1970's and 1980's Ross Rowland trips, the biggest one being INSURANCE. I'll bet you'll pay more in insurance now-a-days on one trip then you would for fueling the darn thing for all the trips you'd run in a year! If I had that kind of money (and yes, I'm probably biased having grown up in GTW country) 6325 would have been my choice as well.

Waiting for the inevitable attacks....

TJG



Port Huron Museum

tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

Tom Jacobsen never owned the 2100, it was being stored there for Portage Ohio Regional Transportation Authority (PORTA). The 2100 was restored by a group that included ex-Lionel owner Richard Klugh, Ross Rowland and Bill Benson. They were unsuccesful in finding a place to run her and ended up donating the 2100 to PORTA. For reasons unknown to me, PORTA never ran the 2100 and placed her up for sale in 1987. Tom Payne was the high bidder. She sits in Canada quietly waiting for a buyer and a place to stretch her legs...

mas2102@ix.netcom.com

Sorry, I meant Kughn, not Klugh.

mas2102@ix.netcom.com

> Sorry, I meant Kughn, not Klugh.

Sorry about the mistake on 2100. I had assumed that since it was parked that it was his (or OC's anyway). Thanks for setting me straight.

TJG


Port Huron Museum

tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

> Sorry about the mistake on 2100. I had
> assumed that since it was parked that it was
> his (or OC's anyway). Thanks for setting me
> straight.
> TJG

Yes, 614 is at Port Clinton.
No, it is not inside any building, yet.
Yes, entering railroad property is trespassing.
No, Andy Muller did not buy 614.
Yes, we would love to run trips with 614.
No, there are no plans to.
Yes, I think there is too much "Ross-bashing" (and "Andy-bashing"...)

By the way, it's Jerry Jacobson, not Tom.

By the way, it's not cheesy, it's CHESAPEAKE. (at least I spelled it that way on the tender)

By the way, is 2100 stored in a building or outside ? -and where is her coal stoker ?

And as far as a T-1 needing heavy rail to run on, it might surprise you some of the trackage the 2102 was operated over during the 1980's... and she didn't derail, unlike a certain pair of E-8s.

> Yes, 614 is at Port Clinton.
> No, it is not inside any building, yet.
> Yes, entering railroad property is
> trespassing.
> No, Andy Muller did not buy 614.
> Yes, we would love to run trips with 614.
> No, there are no plans to.
> Yes, I think there is too much
> "Ross-bashing" (and
> "Andy-bashing"...)

> By the way, it's Jerry Jacobson, not Tom.

> By the way, it's not cheesy, it's
> CHESAPEAKE. (at least I spelled it that way
> on the tender)

> By the way, is 2100 stored in a building or
> outside ? -and where is her coal stoker ?

> And as far as a T-1 needing heavy rail to
> run on, it might surprise you some of the
> trackage the 2102 was operated over during
> the 1980's... and she didn't derail, unlike
> a certain pair of E-8s.

Why this seems to be aimed at my post in particular I'm not entirely sure, but just to clear up a few things:

Thanks for the correction, but I don't believe I ever said "Tom Jacobson". Someone that posted after me did, I believe, however I am glad that someone corrected it with a little more authority than I currently have in the field. As far as that goes, at least I had the courtesy (as I have yet to meet the gentleman) to say "Mr. Jacobson." Again, never having met the gentleman and only seeing the type of work that his steam shop turns out my comments were based on what I believed was probably a good business decision as much as an obvious knowledge the man and the crew that works at the OC has in steam. I have nothing but respect for both the Ohio Central steam crew and
Mr. Jacobson. Period.

Mr. Gilbert, that also goes for the Reading & Northern and yourself. If I in any way insulted you or your railroad, I apologize. I stand completely corrected on a T-1's ability to handle light weight track; however I'm still unclear as to their ability to take tight radius curves (and this is a question I'm asking, not a snide comment: I honestly don't know) or their fuel consumption properties, especially now that there are examples that I believe burn oil as well as coal. If you can fill in those blanks I would appreciate it.

And as for Ross-bashing, I have never fully understood it nor choose to. That also goes for Doyle-bashing, Andy-bashing, etc. If anything, I have become painfully aware in the past few weeks of the preponderence of people who wish to bash the work completed (or not completed) on the historic rail equipment of others who have never seen inside it, never paid a dime to help in its restoration, yet are more than happy to tell that organization what we did wrong with it (most of those people not being in the rail preservation field, might I mention). Most of the gentlemen that have been "bashed" were running steam (and historic diesel) before I was a dirty thought in my parents' minds (just in case you cared, birth year being 1975; I don't obviously share that much for it has seem at times in the past to be a rather large hindrance in a field where knowledge is marked seemingly both by years on the planet as well as knowledge accumulated.) If anything these men were the "giants" I saw and read about every month in Trains and R&R (and our dearly-departed L&RP) that I never in a million years could hope to meet when I was growing up; what reason in the world would I have to bash them?

And Hume (yet another man I have yet to meet but do indeed wish to), once again thank you for a forum where this neophyte can both speak his mind and learn a great deal from those who have forgotten more about rail preservation than I will ever hope to know.

TJ Gaffney

Port Huron Museum

tjgaffney@phmuseum.org