Why #1361?

This morning I was reading over RYPN posts from the last week, and a question came to mindÂ… actually a few questionsÂ… about why we even have a restoration attempt on PRR #1361 to discuss.

Does anyone know why thereÂ’s been so much money and time poured into this old girl?

By all accounts, she was a mess to begin with. By the rumor mill, she came out of restoration number one pretty messy, too. The same mill tells us restoration number two is very messy and far from done.

What is it all for?

IÂ’m curious if there has been a plan over the last 10 years of what the end results will be once she is running. Is there a firm PR plan? A cost/benefit plan? A management plan?

If there has been one in the past, I am curious how that has changed.

My two cents from the sidelines is that there has been very little communication from anyone involved with the project to explain why it is being doneÂ… other than to see a K-4 run. ThatÂ’s a cool thing, but not reason enough to pour tax dollars down the proverbial stoker screw.

I have a gut feeling that if there were a really worthwhile carrot hanging at the end of the K-4 rope, the project might be further along. I admit my outsider status on this one, so maybe that carrot is there. If it is, IÂ’d love to hear the details.

The irony is that if the State of Pennsylvania wanted an operating home-built steamer for some reason, Baldwin-built Reading-rebuilt T-1 #2100 was sold three years ago in operating condition for less that a quarter of what the K-4 restoration will cost.

IÂ’m also curious (though I think I know) why Steamtown was chosen as the host shop for the project. They have had a hard time keeping their three girls on the road, so why add a fourth to the mix (and a fifth with #3713?).

Is #1361 destined to become a more expensive Cotton Belt #819 of the east?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Rob Davis

PS: Did you know that if you type K-4 in caps it is K-$? Quite appropriate!


Ahead of the Torch
trains@robertjohndavis.com

Rob,

According to everything published she is scheduled to go back to the RR Museum in Altoona. Now this is the group that just recently almost went belly up. They have also taken away all free access to Horseshoe Curve park and limited the hours it is open to a lesser schedule than anytime since it has been a park. The operaton of the park should be taken away from them and given to a group that will open it to the public more.

You ask if there is a firm PR, cost/benefit, or management plan? Surley you are joking? Have you ever heard of the term throwing away good money after bad?

As for comparison to #819, those folks had a proven record and did a great job until the UP bought every track that they could run on.

We will be luck if the K-4 does not end up sold at auction because these folks don't know squat.

Tom

> As for comparison to #819, those folks had a
> proven record and did a great job until the
> UP bought every track that they could run
> on.

Excuse me, but I think that if you do a bit of research, you will find that the 819 last ran in 1993, several years before there was even talk of a UP/SP merger. SP slammed the door on CBRHS operations, not UP. And Afterward, CBRHS did a few things that were guaranteed to come back to haunt them when UP did merge with SP.

> We will be luck if the K-4 does not end up
> sold at auction because these folks don't
> know squat.

> Tom

Mayber. I think Rob has a valid question.

My take on it would have been "Why 1361 instead of the K4 at the RRMPA?"

The 1361 was a basket case when it was retired; worn out, used up, whatever adjective you prefer. The one at RRMPA was in much better shape, from both the machinery and boiler standpoints and would have required much less work and money to restore.

The short answer is that the 1361 had political support, which trumped common sense, as it so often does. It also was micromanaged, both in the earlier, partial restoration and the current one, which wasn't/isn't helpful, either.

Just my 2 cents.

> Why #1361?

> Does anyone know why thereÂ’s been so much
> money and time poured into this old girl?

Because for the money being put into it, we are getting a basically a new K4s. Whatever it is costing is outrageous, I know, but try building a new K4 for anything less these days. I hear your commentary; the money would refurbish two or three x, y, or z, locomotives. It is certainly appropriate to recognize that point of view. Equally important is the issue of why the original rebuilder didn't manage the work in a better manner. There are a thousand arguments. But we are not talking about just any locomotive, just the way Mona Lisa is not just another painting of a woman's face.
Don't for a minute, believe that swapping 1361 for 3750 at RMPA was even a possibility. The locomotives are under the ownership of entirely separate agencies. I would welcome seeing 3750 revived someday as well, but as it appears that isn't going to happen, let a great restoration be completed on the K4 that is available for that purpose.
You know, an equal argument could be made about the cash "thrown away" on N&W 611, 1218, Frisco 1522, and the entire Southern steam program. All those engines are out of service. Wasn't that a waste?
No, I don't think it was either.
When the K4 is finished, it will be all the breed was ever meant to be, and will touch thousands of hearts again, the way it's late sisters did. No complaints.


glueck@maine.edu

> The irony is that if the State of
> Pennsylvania wanted an operating home-built
> steamer for some reason, Baldwin-built
> Reading-rebuilt T-1 #2100 was sold three
> years ago in operating condition for less
> than a quarter of what the K-4 restoration
> will cost.

> Rob Davis

Because we the people of the Commonwealth of PA somewhere along the way decided that we needed an "official steam locomotive of the state".

Someone decided the K4s was the one.

Regardless of all the proven track records the Reading T-1s have had since 1959, and the proven fact that no diesel helpers are needed for a T-1 to handle your average excursion train.

Biased? As Curly would say: SOITENLY!

I have nothing against a restored K4s, except there should be 2...or a restored G-5 or L-1 to help.

I can picture the 1361 a few years from now:
here she comes stomping up toward the curve...with two NS diesel units between the tank and the tool car.

I guess that's better than being a pigeon roost.

I'm gonna stop now before I get in trouble again.

> I'm gonna stop now before I get in trouble
> again.

hehe.. methinks Mr. Gilbert is a T-hog fan. ;)

Boxpox style drivers
mrwowak@yahoo.com

I can think of a good reason the K4 was chosen over the T1.....it has a keystone on its front! It's also the locomotive many remember from its days in the park, for what ever that's worth

Smokebox


"orhf dot org"

I have an operating plan: how about staying based in Scranton! At least it can run regularly and perhaps on occasion run through East Stroudsburg and the Delaware Water Gap, where K-4s regularly pulled Bel-Del trains using the PRR's trackage rights over the Lackawanna.

Erie Lackawanna Dining Car Preservation Society
tstuy@eldcps.org

Because it's one of the best examples of Pennsylvania steam. Built in Altoona and of a very significant class of locomotives. I can't think of a better engine to symbolize the industrial heritage of Pennsylvania. Some 425 were made. I'm a Reading fan, but a Reading rebuilt Baldwin T-1 just isn't the same. Besides, the PRR played a larger role, than any other company, in establishing Pennsylvania as an indurstrial powerhouse of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's their product that should be showcased.

> Because for the money being put into it, we
> are getting a basically a new K4s.

I am tempted to say, "so what?"

The NS locos you compared her to were part of an operating steam program.

Is there a steam program for #1361 to run in?

Rob



Ahead of the Torch
trains@robertjohndavis.com

I'll reposition the question, Dan.

What benefits exists and what is the plan to reap those benefits that justifies pouring dollars into this locomotive?

Just to see a K4s (sorry for the K-4 spelling I used before, I know better) in steam is NOT a sustainable reason to restore an engine. Especially for a state.

Talk about smelling the pork burning.

No one has yet come back with a reason other than "it will be neat."

Neat's not a reason. I still wait...

;-)

Rob

> Because it's one of the best examples of
> Pennsylvania steam. Built in Altoona and of
> a very significant class of locomotives. I
> can't think of a better engine to symbolize
> the industrial heritage of Pennsylvania.
> Some 425 were made. I'm a Reading fan, but a
> Reading rebuilt Baldwin T-1 just isn't the
> same. Besides, the PRR played a larger role,
> than any other company, in establishing
> Pennsylvania as an indurstrial powerhouse of
> the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's
> their product that should be showcased.


Ahead of the Torch
trains@robertjohndavis.com

> What benefits exists and what is the plan to
> reap those benefits that justifies pouring
> dollars into this locomotive?

> No one has yet come back with a reason other
> than "it will be neat."

> Neat's not a reason. I still wait...

Rob, I am looking at this as an outsider to much of what goes on in the realm of steam excursion trains and etc., but I suspect the answer you seek is one that will be a long time coming, at least for most restored and/or now sidelined locomotives. Certainly there are operations that have a well-defined reason for existing now, but I would wager that, at the beginning, it was a small group standing around looking at a stuffed and mounted beast saying, Gee, wouldn't it be neat if we could get her running again! That is a very emotional response, but without that emotion, that passion that many of us seem to have, I doubt that many locomotive would have been preserved, and fewer yet would be operating.

At the museum where I volunteer, I have been the absolute worst about saying Gee, what if... regarding our engine. But as much as I would dearly love to see the "hometown engine" running for the first time in over 50 years, the economics of it, based on recent ultrasonic testing after the asbestos was finally removed, are that the engine will probably never run again in my lifetime.

But if someone or some group decided they wanted this locomotive running and was willing to foot the bill using funding from whatever source, I would say why not? I would then caution that if there is no place to run the engine, why spend the money? What is the PLAN? There are probably many more artifacts or structures in this town that could be restored for the money it would take to get 107 running, so what are the priorities?

I think emotion is what drives this business, which makes it an unstable business as long as the money is tight. Gee, what if I could just win the lottery, we could really do some neat things......

Stephen

syfrettinc@bellsouth.net

In the long run it's the right decision. This engine will have more draw than any in this country. PRR fans are many and will pour in to see and ride behind this machine. To me, this venture doesn't need to turn a profit. The K4 is a treasure of Pennsylvania, just as Buckingham Palace is to Great Britian. It deserves to be restored. And if you must look at this financially, think of it this way... although the initial investement will be more this engine will draw more than just about any other so in the end the bottom line is the same.

Dan,

Maybe if this were a group of buffs greasing up a park engine I would agree, but this is a government project.

I seriously doubt that even the Standard Railroad of the World has enough fans to warrant the State of PA's investment.

There simply are not enough fare-paying railfans to expect that they alone will provide an financial benefit.

Rob

> In the long run it's the right decision.
> This engine will have more draw than any in
> this country. PRR fans are many and will
> pour in to see and ride behind this machine.
> To me, this venture doesn't need to turn a
> profit. The K4 is a treasure of
> Pennsylvania, just as Buckingham Palace is
> to Great Britian. It deserves to be
> restored. And if you must look at this
> financially, think of it this way...
> although the initial investement will be
> more this engine will draw more than just
> about any other so in the end the bottom
> line is the same.


Ahead of the Torch
trains@robertjohndavis.com

One might argue that a state's interest in railroad heritage, especially steam operations, would be better directed at insurance reform.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that if the state of PA led the charge against high insurance and succeeded in reform, the economic benefits of tourist railroading in the state would grow in a more balanced and widespread fashion. Everyone would benefit.

Rob

Ahead of the Torch
trains@robertjohndavis.com