> Well, it might be interesting if TVRM were
> to dress her up as a Southern belle in
> Virginia green with gold trim. And on the
> other hand, ex-CP 972, now at Strasburg, is
> likely to emerge looking like a Pennsy
> 10-wheeler when Linn Moedinger and company
> return her to service. During her long-term
> rebuild she is scheduled to get a Belpaire
> firebox and like ex-N&W 475 emerge as a
> locomotive representing a particular
> "period" rather than any one
> railroad. It's their engine - their option.

> I wonder how many people noticed several
> years ago that No. 90's smokebox was two
> feet shorter. That alteration was done for
> mechanical rather than cosmetic reasons to
> improve her steaming capabilities.

H.O.: Well son-of-a-gun, I never noticed it! I believe the Great Western had extended her smokebox because she burned Lignite. I just assumed she still had the extended smokebox. Now I'm going to have to find a photo of her somewhere so I can see for myself! Thanks H.O. for pointing it out......anonymously!

> I think I tend to side with those who prefer
> operation over
> "stuffed-and-mounted"
> preservation. But I also realize that
> operation in most cases just isn't
> practical, now becoming even more
> problematic with high insurance costs and
> the no-steam policy of the major rail lines.
> Truth be told, I'd like to see every engine
> in the Steamtown collection capable of
> operation. But the reality is that it will a
> long time before even B&M 3713 is ready
> to run. I hope others will follow, but it
> doesn't seem too likely at this time. Sad
> how reality just jumps up and hits you
> between the eyes.


midlandblb@cs.com

Perhaps Kelly or Rick from SRC can jump in here. If I recall No. 90's extended smokebox was removed about 1993 or 1994 for aesthetic purposes. She now more closely resemebles her earlier 1920s Baldwin appearance.

> H.O.: Well son-of-a-gun, I never noticed it!
> I believe the Great Western had extended her
> smokebox because she burned Lignite. I just
> assumed she still had the extended smokebox.
> Now I'm going to have to find a photo of her
> somewhere so I can see for myself! Thanks
> H.O. for pointing it out......anonymously!

> Perhaps Kelly or Rick from SRC can jump in
> here. If I recall No. 90's extended smokebox
> was removed about 1993 or 1994 for aesthetic
> purposes. She now more closely resemebles
> her earlier 1920s Baldwin appearance.

We cut the smokebox back to where it was originally not for aesthetics, but be cause the table plate was too low. The engine didn't draft properly and smoked excessively. The reason for the extended front end was to make room for the cyclone. (Instead of netting) The problem with the cyclone was that when we raised the table plate to the correct height, it wouldn't fit anymore. We then put the original front end back in as she was originally built and along with overfire tubes, she does much better.

rick@strasburgrailroad.com

> Look and N&W 611, which was retired in
> 1959, restored in 1981-2, and ran until
> 1994, and is now back in the Museum in
> Roanoke on display again for folks to dream
> about it running again. Whats wrong with
> that!!

Well, as I stated in a thread below. The preservation industry is not the same as it was 10 or even 15 years ago. In my opinion the best times for running steam and main line excursions was the mid 80's up until the early 90's. My opinion.

611 is NOT owned by NS or private owners, but by the "City Of Roanoke." When she was retired again, she went to her care takers at VMT. Where do you think you're going to run 611 anyway. You have to get by NS first. The NS steam program happened because of the RIGHT people in the RIGHT place at the RIGHT time and the RIGHT offices. (Thank you Mr. Claytor.)

Railfans tend to think what is best for "them" or their "favorite" locomotive. 611 is my favorite, but I'd rather see her sit 10 years before she could run again on a Class 1 than to see her steam next spring on a short line. There are so many factors that come into play when operating a large or even small steam loco today. You must think like you're building a brick wall. First the plan, finances, area and location, materials, permits, foundation, etc, etc...

It is not only largely a financial issue, but a moral issue. Just because I want to see 614 run again and I have the money to restore her, doesn't make it right. Regarding RRMofPA, it's their equipment, what they do with it is their descision. Think about this...you're at a car show and see a 1969 GTO "cloned" as a Judge car. Why not keep it original? It's the owner's right to do what he or she wants.

Jeff Lisowski
West Chester, Pa

Using a real name and email.

Good music!
unfunkyufo76@hotmail.com

Jeff
As much as I hate to see embalmed steamers, the next worst thing is to see them "misused" and not doing what they originally did. Main Line steam on the Main Line and Branch Line Steam on the Branch Line. To see a ten-wheeler working three coaches is just as fascinating to me as 611 with twenty and maybe just a little more up-close and personal, and maybe even more possible. Maybe this is why the British are working so hard to build a simulation of what main line railroading was?

> We cut the smokebox back to where it was
> originally not for aesthetics, but be cause
> the table plate was too low. The engine
> didn't draft properly and smoked
> excessively. The reason for the extended
> front end was to make room for the cyclone.
> (Instead of netting) The problem with the
> cyclone was that when we raised the table
> plate to the correct height, it wouldn't fit
> anymore. We then put the original front end
> back in as she was originally built and
> along with overfire tubes, she does much
> better.

Rick: 10-4. I've still got to find a picture though. Guess I'll start with the Strasburg website. Hopefully they'll be one there.

midlandblb@cs.com

> Okay maybe balony was a bit strong. I can't
> post my name cause I deal with a lot of
> folks who read this stuff.
> My complaint is with the folks who say that
> they will absolutely not let their engine
> out of the museum to operate since it
> destroys its historical fabric, or whatever
> they want to call it.
> In 2002 we are facing far greater
> impedements to operatin any mainline steam
> that is OPERATIONAL. Just look at 4449 and
> 1522 which are facing Insurance
> difficulties. When the opportunity arises
> for an engine to operate it should be
> considered! Why! Cause the opportunities are
> becoming fewer and fewer. When there is no
> more corporate sponsorship,from the likes of
> UP, BNSF, and CPR, then there will be no
> more worries about historic fabric cause
> nobody will be allowed to run anyway.
> Insurance, places to run, and money to
> restore these things is a far bigger problem
> than historic fabric. I say if the
> opportunity is there go for it....let the
> engine have its day in the sun, and if and
> when it is not feasible to run it...back to
> the museum for folks to enjoy.

> What really gets me is the folks who turned
> down opportunities in the past. Stories like
> the IRM that was offered to run the Y3 by
> N&W, and other instances where corporate
> of individuals wanted to lease a loco. These
> were opportunities lost, perhaps forever.
> Would it not have been cool to see an
> N&W 600, and a Y6, and an A!!!

> Sometimes windows of opportunity are only
> open for a short time, and when they open
> museums shouldn't have them closed so
> quickly. If a guy from the State of PA
> requested an engine from the Museum of
> Pennsylvania be used on a statewide historic
> train, why not say Yes! I get the feeling
> the answer would be no before the question
> was asked.
> CC

CC-

I still have issues with someone who won't release his name. I deal with a great many of these individuals as well, and yes, we disagree on a variety of subjects. That doesn't mean I respect them any less (although they may respect my opinion a little less, especially after dropping some locomtoives out of an earlier posting).

The fact remains; there is room for both. Your argument that we should consider it really valid; we did the same on our 1878 Porter. We quickly removed that since it was neither a. economically feasible, and b. would destroy 80% of the original (and I consider this circa 1933, for those that know the D.B.) fabric that still exists. The other half of your argument is what concerns me. If you had the choice of operating an engine for one day, knowing that you were going to destroy just about every piece of original hardware to do it, would you?

As a museum curator, I'm also getting sick and tired of the museum staff bashing. We aren't all steam haters; we just have a heck of a lot more to do sometimes that operating steam, and no, (SHOCKER I REALIZE) operating steam is not always our number one priority. Also, one VERY important thing to consider. If it weren't for us "hated museum guys," you wouldn't have the static steam to put back into operation that your arguing about. On honestly believed that at the ARM/TRAIN
confrence last year, real movement was being made in bringing the operating/ museum sides together. Comments like yours really make me wonder, though.

By the way, I DON'T HATE STEAM. Please don't over simplify a group of people who can be (and are in most cases)just as passionate about rail preservation as you seem to be. Our priorities may be different than yours, but I still enjoy operating steam just as much as you do.

TJG

Port Huron Museum

tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

great thread here, boys.

Operating steam is where I'm at, but, there should be considerations against that idea IF it requires major modifications.

Don't the British scratch build steam locomotives?

Jim

> To see a ten-wheeler working three
> coaches is just as fascinating to me as 611
> with twenty and maybe just a little more
> up-close and personal, and maybe even more
> possible. Maybe this is why the British are
> working so hard to build a simulation of
> what main line railroading was?


JimLundquist55@yahoo.com

> About 5288....let's not forget who spent 70
> grand to get it moved to a safe haven.

Without a doubt. My point was, in a perfect world. it wouldn't be money but interpretive value that would decide where an artifact resides.

Again, not a dis of TVRM, just an example...

Rob

trains@robertjohndavis.com

> Rob, Rob...

I have a friend who says it best

"Money doesn't talk, it screams"

superheater@beer.com

Superheater & Rob
After all money is just about the only thing holding back 98% of all rail preservation. Hand me enough shekels and I can get your job done!


lamontdc@adelphia.net