Other than the Mikados, which look extremely America, and "easily" modified (sorry, New Haven guys) the QJ's are steam locomotives - and that's it. Somebody used the terms "turn key operation", and I agree, but unless an owner is going to do massively expensive shopping to modify them, I'd far rather see the money put into restoring any number of US born and made park locos, most of which are severely neglected.
The QJ's are lovely to look at and exciting to watch, but I'd rather see a US loco rebuilt. Perhaps I'm just being snobbish?

I think the question has to be asked: What happens after these Chinese locomotives have gone through several FRA inspections and tube replacements, start showing their age and need a total rebuild to keep running? Is anyone going to even consider doing all that work to an engine that by then won’t have nearly the significance of oodles of engines in museums and parks that were made in the US?
Sure, it’s great to have a brand new locomotive (just as it is with owning a new car) in that you don’t have the issues of a much older one that might give out on you quickly due to its age, but that won’t last forever. It’s seriously short-term thinking. I can imagine a couple of decades from now, people will look back on the ”invasion of Chinese steam” as an anomaly that won’t likely be well understood by then. I’d love to know how people will look back on this moment in time in that regard to see how it is remembered.

I think the decision on totally rebuilding one of these locomotives will be related to the thought process used in deciding to purchase one in the first place. No one will buy one for historical putposes, of course. But for someone that wants to run some sort of tourist railroad or dinner train as a for profit business, an SY, JS or QJ could make a lot of sense. (This assumes competent management, good financing, a sound business plan and location, location, location, to say the least-)

When the time comes to do a major rebuild, it again becomes a business decision. Is the locomotive, as part of the business, making money? Enough to justify a rebuild? Is it drawing in paying customers, if used in tourist or dinner train service? If those questions are answered with a yes, then the engine gets rebuilt. If not, it gets parked.

My thinking is along the same lines as EDM's - the whole idea is steam as a business attribute to improve profitability. Yes, I know "steam" and "profitability" are sometimes viewed as mutually exclusive concepts. If your tourist railroad's business model plans for steam, however, buying from China is seemingly among the most cost-effective ways to put a steam locomotive in front of your train.

Many railfans decry they'd rather see an American engine running, and I don't necessarily disagree, but from a profit/loss standpoint it makes sense. You will get an operating steam locomotive to pull your train, and probably at a savings over what it's going to cost to put that new firebox in ol' #9 from the local park. In the case of many (not all) for-profit tourist railroads, Railway Preservation is a by-product, or at least secondary to making money for its' owners.

Plus, I'm rather intrigued by the idea of a "generic" engine, which wouldn't include the hoardes of Pennsy fanatics / NYC Junkies / Frisco Freaks / N&W Guys (I'm that last one, I think) wanting to crucify you for not getting the right shade of black paint or using the wrong number font. Paint it your way, put your railroad's name on it, Americanize if desired, or don't; many "normal" (non-railfan) people are just as interested in the locomotive's story from China, and how it got here.

Strange, those checks made out to the "Buy Tim an SY" fund haven't started rolling in yet... :-)

You seem to be forgetting one key thing here. By the time these locomotives reach this stage in their operating lives, a comparable U.S. built locomotive will likely be well past the century mark, perhaps even 120 years old. We all know that pretty much all of the steam operating now in this country have well exceeded their designed/intended mechanical lifespan and the question is how many more decades can be had from them.

If these locomotives available from China are truly being rebuilt to meet current FRA specs and someone with boots on the ground can check the quality control of the repairs then why couldn't we expect multiple decades of tourist service before these machines would need the kind of major repairs you suggest. After all they would be receiving regular maintenance and light usage that the typical American built locomotive sees today. The reason we see such expensive repairs being performed to existing locomotives today is because 90%+ of them were ridden hard and put up wet. Don't forget that at the end of steam it was a case of "just do whats needed to get down the road". Then for the first several decades of tourist/preservation railroading in this country it was "lets just only do what we need to pass our annual or 5 year and get her back on the train". The major overhauls we have seen over the past 15 years are a result of railroads trying to finally get ahead of the curve. So why wouldn't having a freshly overhauled locomotive with 50+ years less service time get you well ahead of that same curve?

Kevin O

The GSMR is a prime example of the economics of the value of an imported locomotive. Look at the cost of rebuilding 722 vs the cost of purchasing a Swedish (or Chinese) locomotive. A lot of folks don't care if there is a diesel or steam up front and the vast majority who like the steam don't care where it was built. The bottom line is someone in charge of the money has decided the GSMR will make a better return on investment on the import.

Kevin has an good point here: most of the 'park' engines were worn out when retired. If you are starting with something new, and run it yourself for 'X' years, you will have developed a maintenance history and have a pretty good idea just what to expect when it becomes time to rebuild the engine.

Not so with your typical park engine. You can expect surprises all over the place. Just how much water was retained by the lagging and jacket on top of the Belpaire firebox? Were the brake shoes actually welded to the tires when placed in the museum? How were the cracked driver spokes repaired? Is that really a piece of angle welded into the firebox corner? How much gunk is clogging all of the air brake piping, anyhow? (All points above are based on things I've seen in the last too many years, BTW.)

If you start with something new, you won't be asking these questions. And again, this is strictly from a (hopefully) for profit business standpoint, and should not undermine any historical restoration efforts. Those are an entirely different model.

Should the NS 21st Century Steam program use a Chinese Steam Engine?

You want "21st Century Steam"? Go to South Africa and get the Class 26 "Red Devil."

So what if the track gauge isn't the same? TVRM or Strasburg can do something about that in a month or so, no problem. >;-D

On a more serious note, one thing not brought up yet is the allegations (and let someone who knows better confirm or refute them) that the Chinese metallurgy isn't/wasn't "up to snuff," at least with the "off-the-shelf" "slightly used" built-for-China locos, of which I believe Knox & Kane 58 and the Boone & Scenic Valley locos are/were.

NS, UP, and CP are/were using their older locos to promote their heritage. That's a message totally defeated if you go and get a Chinese steamer. Now, the lines have been blurred a bit of late, what with UP gutting and rebuilding its E8's, NS gutting and rebuilding non-SR F's, and now NS using 610 instead of a SR/N&W steamer. You can certainly justify just about anything, starting with Chessie using a Reading T1 and going up to 261 being used for employee appreciation specials on BNSF or whatever.

Right now, the only operation I see justifying the purchase of a Chinese 2-10-2 would be the Grand Canyon RR, and we've seen their mindset change about steam. Never say "never," however--a Canadian land cruise train? The Greenbrier Express? A tourist hauler similar to the Grand Canyon, like the Ski Train?

Another thing to keep in mind is, although we think of these things as being "new", even the youngest SY today is older than the oldest NYC Niagara ever lived to be, and the QJs are twice as old.

Some illustrations that may be of interest:

http://www.nordling.nu/schaefer/qjdetai ... ngside.gif

http://www.nordling.nu/schaefer/qjdetai ... tender.gif

An HP class (QJ prototype):

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qrNR5aHBFfI/T ... in0001.jpg

Another QJ, in America, and without the smoke deflectors:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 55&nseq=14

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 29&nseq=11

Link to various Chinese types, with dimensions (unusual translation):

http://www.kurogane-rail.jp/zh2/ezh2-idx.html

Finally, it was said that external dry pipes were unusual in American practice--unusual, but not unknown, as shown on this IC 2-8-4:

http://www.brasstrains.com/images/produ ... C01901.jpg

And also on this NYC H-1- 2-8-2:

http://www.railarchive.net/nyccollection/nyc2256.jpg

Speaking for myself (and only speaking from photos, not having had the chance to see one of these in person), the QJ's "high boiler" only seems apparent from a dead-on broadside view, against a light background like the sky. The type does not quite compare to any American type, but it can be made quite American looking, as the photos of the Iowa Interstate's Americanized engine illustrates; in fact, the single biggest thing that changes the appearance is black drivers! I suspect that removed smoke lifters, new sand domes and a proper steam dome cover, a new cab, and appropriate black and graphite paint, would produce a very American looking engine, if a bit unusual with that exposed dry pipe.

Now, who will send me some money for about three SY 2-8-2s to become VGN MBs for excursion service between Charleston, W.Va. and the reconstructed station at Princeton (two for the service, one in reserve), with a bit extra to restore N&W Y-3 2-8-8-2 2020 for Richard Gluecks's proposed plandampf coal haulage on the same line, standing in for an identical ex-N&W, ex-AT&SF 2-8-8-2 on the Virginnian, in class USE. . .

http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=33753

http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=1374

http://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=89833

I can never get any !!@#$%&!! sleep around here, someone is always waking me up!

Someday, the right investor will see one of these threads and say, "Gee, that sounds like a fun way to use my estate before it matures!"

I applaud the civil discussion on these imported steam locomotives and the many pro's and cons!

My take is the normal {is there such a thing?} tourist railroad or museum who would be running these would be hard pressed to wear them out from use? So I am in kind of agreement that they could be an option worth considering for the right operation.

Will ask again though: "where or what are the weak spots mechanically speaking on these locomotives"? Anything mechanical will have a not so good mechancial trait rearing it's ugly head. Being that these were fleet locomotives {or catalog in Baldwin lingo} and in service for so many years, I would think the design would be some what bullet proof. Just don't see excursion service wearing them out that fast. Do not know of any that have come in country that were used enough to know what I am looking for? I do know Boone, Ia group has had their "Mike" quite some time, but do not know much of anything about the use or maintainence on that locomotive. Have been watching the soon to be operational restoration of the Knox Kane loco fast approaching operational status. Was shown many pictures of the machine work done to the running gear. Do not know how much was from wear or how much was done simply to straighten out while we have it apart? Also do not know how much quality PMS it had when previous owners ran it or was from poor storage after the fire it went through?

For the record I love steam made here in the USA too. Just think of this as an option and maybe not the right choice for everybody, but for others worth consideration. Cheers, John.