Wilmington and Western has a locomotive dedicated to veterans:

http://www.wwrr.com/museum/58/historyof58.asp

Guess that blows my idea clear out of the water. Considering 58 went from civilian service, to military, and then back to civilian service... 58 is very well deserving of the "Veteran's Locomotive" title.

Jason,
610 (the TVRM Engine) is an S-160A, not an S-159. The standard S-160 design was modified between 1946 and 1950 to take out design flaws that were found with the S-160. They had a nast habit of the syphon tubes letting go from the door sheet and sometimes from the rear tube sheet. There were a couple of boiler explosions with the S-160s in England that brought this flaw to life.

For referance purposes only, the classes of Army locomotives did not include an S-159. There were the S-100, 118, 155, 160, 160A, 161, 162, 166, 179 and 200.

I do agree with you very much on what you said about costs and work. We have discussed this on this forum in other places, but the "no no nancyes" will make that sort of thing imposible to acomplish because according to them (even though it's being done) it's impossible to accomplish here in the states.

Interesting information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USATC_S160_Class

Tourent's "Allied Military Locomotives of the Second World War" covers the firebox issues with the S-160s rather extensively.

While initially problematic, many operators found suitable solutions to the issue.

What amazes me is that these were built as "disposable" locomotives, designed for a service life that was measured in months, not years or decades.

The value of a steam locomotive is pretty much either the salvage value of its remaining material less salvage costs, or the worth of what it can produce (in tangables as well as intangables) less the cost of making it able to create that worth in use. A ready to run modern 4-8-4 without a pedigree and located in the Siberian steppes won't fetch much of a price in Arkansas. A worn out hog needing overhaul in my backyard isn't worth much if I need to pull a train today. We need to get past the idea that value is something of a constant, and is a matter of how well an opportunity fits into a specific very personalized set of variables. And, I don't care what it costs to install washout plugs in Europe if I don't need plugs installed in Europe - not a basis for any other comparison.

dave

Another thing that many folks disregard as important: What would it cost to replace as NEW whatever locomotive or piece of equipment is considered. $100K for a steam engine, with all of the large scale parts and castings, is a screaming deal--unless the boiler is utterly trashed (or non-existant). Even as a kit, a steam engine in 50K range is a lot of money, but still cheaper than starting from scratch, or hauling something in better shape across the country to restore.

If somebody has the money to make the effort, we should support that person/group in making it happen, rather than poo pooing their efforts. If anything, I would think that the purpose of this board is to increase the professional skill set of anybody (no matter how unrealistic) wanting to pursue railway preservation.

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT

CLAP CLAP CLAP.....hit the like button.....CLAP CLAP CLAP!!!!!!!

Brettcog2000,

Just goes to show you can't believe everything you see in print. I can't remember where specifically I read this but somewhere out there in print 610 is listed as a S159, now I know. One slight correction, S159's did in fact exist. From the LNER website on the history of the S160's
"During the 1930s, the US Army updated a Baldwin design from World War 1, to create class S159. The design was initially kept on the shelf as a contingency, with an order eventually being placed in April 1941 for eight S159 locomotives to use surplus funds. The USA was still officially neutral, and the requirement was not urgent. This resulted in the constructor (Lima Locomotive Works) making many design changes and finally producing the locomotives in 1942. No further S159s were built, but the experience probably led to a more efficient handling of the S160.'

Rather disappointing as I had understood the 610 to be the sole survivor of a rare class. But still the last steam locomotive built at the Eddystone plant for a domestic customer, right?

Cheers, Jason

Back to the original post in this thread, did the author intend to ask about #611 (the Franklin Rotary Cam Valve Gear equipped S-160) or the #612?

If the poster did mean to ask about the #611, she is in the care of Bill Miller Equipment in Maryland. Last I heard the plan was to restore her, but I have not heard much on her since she got to Eckhart. #612 we have discussed.

Jason.....I'm at a loss. According to the USATC, the S-159 never existed. Let me do some digging. I don't know why a locomotive would be "classified", but after 12 years in the Army, not much makes me raise an eyebrow. Thanks for the website, I'll do some looking. Please send me a PM by the way, it seems that we have worked on the same locomotive a year or so apart.

Thank you. I was talking about the rotary cam poppet locomotive. The gentleman I was making the inquiry for, has a long standing interest and expertise in the USATC steam locomotives. He is interested in working on the full restoration of a 2-8-0 to service.
Thank you for all the information.

To clarify on the 611, the restoration is going to be of the cosmetic type.

Too bad. I really would like to hear the exhaust of a poppet valve equipped steamer at least once. Maybe I'll make it to the UK to see the Duke of Gloucester one of these days...

Hugh,

I couldn't agree more, the 611 with a modern exhaust and a gas producer firebox.... Could be a wonderful thing! As I understand it a few parts were left behind in Texas prior to the engines departure, unknown if they were anything utterly important.
Interesting info on the disposable premise on which these engines were built, anyone know how they compare to the "disposable" locomotives built in Germany during WWII?

Thanks, Jason