It''s getting to be time to move this thread to the Railfanning section.......

Two groups made a deal to make something good happen and everybody benefits (even a few whiners who would never have a chance to experience it live otherwise.) Wish all parties well. Send $ if you are so moved. Leave it at that........

More stay cross section per pitch = less stress per stay cross sectional area. At least there was some good technical information in this thread along with the announcement of the plan. Thanks for that Hugh and Kelly.

dave

Preservation is as much about economics/business, and how a project affects other projects as it is about nuts and bolts. So why move such questions to the railfan thread? The pros in the know need a chance to answer such questions (if they want to) thus I vote to keep the thread where it is. No one can be blamed for wanting to know more about the motivations, economics, and effects of this project. The whining may be a little anyoing though but I have no problem reading past it.

Pennsy Power

My own guess--and it's just that, a guess, or speculation--is that there would be several things that could motivate Strasburg to this action, likely all of them and possibly more in combination:

1. It's a PRR locomotive, or at least PRR designed (it never did run in Pennsylvania as far as I know), and PRR locomotives of any type are kind of hard to find these days.

2. It's about perfect for a "heavy" engine on the Strasburg. As noted, it has more tractive effort than 475, and on top of that, was specifically designed for commuter service with rapid acceleration. In addition to that, it may be easier riding than the 475 (although G5s weren't stellar in that department), and it's likely the cab will be more comfortable (I've heard the 475 is called "the telephone booth" for its cramped, deckless cab).

3. It may be that Strasburg can use a fifth locomotive as a spare. Currently they have available two "light" engines (0-6-0 7312 and 2-6-0 89), and two "heavy" engines (4-8-0 475 and 2-10-0 90), plus a "special" locomotive (0-6-0 1, "Thomas"). In the past they also had 4-4-0 1223 and 4-4-2 7002 among the regular service machines, both of which were leased and later had to be returned for both mechanical and leasing reasons. That means they once had six locomotives available. The road normally had four engines in steam then (two in service, two in reserve), and the remaining two were in the shops. Currently they don't have anything to cover shopping cycles during the regular season, and neither "Thomas" nor a potentially restored No. 4 (0-4-0 Camelback) are really suitable for some of the heavier work on the line. The 39 may be a response to that, along with an occasional need for an extra locomotive (i.e., double-headed freights).

Anyway, those are my ideas on the subject of Strasburg's motivations; let's just wish them luck with this effort to see Pennsy steam run again, even though I would wish that the 39 and 35 could both run again on Long Island, and that some other power could come out of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania instead (but then, what choices do I have in the matter?)

These are all great points.

In the great scheme of things it really does not matter what motivates the railroad or the museum however, it would be nice to know as a case study for others to look at doing something similar. Finding new ways to preserve and operate this history has to be part of the preservation movement and we all should to be open to new opertunities such as this.

Pennsy Power

IIRC, the plan was to convert 39 to oil firing for operating in NY. Will they still have to do this even though it'll be operating in PA with 4 coal burners?

Some people would complain if they were hung with a new rope.

Here's a locomotive that had virtually no chance of ever being completed, or of ever operating if it was completed.

Now, it has 100% chance of both.

The griping and sour grapes fall on deaf ears here.

Get over it. This is great news for the locomotive and it's future, and is an example of flexibilty and teamwork between 2 disparate organizations to achieve a goal. This industry/hobby/avocation could use a few more these kind of agreements.

Bravo my good man! Well said!

You know what? This isn't the forum for this BS. This is the crap that is ruining this forum. I'm not actively involved in railway preservation, so I mostly keep my mouth shut and try to learn. I wish irrational foamers like you could do so as well. A steam locomotive is getting restored, and you're mad. Think about that for a second.

Again
Bravo my good man! Well said!

Just reading back on this, I can't find anything in regards to the 15-year or 1472-day overhauls that would have to be done.That's unless 39 has a diesel engine in the tender that no one knows about... Would the cost be split between RMLI and Strasburg, or would one group be in charge of that funding solely?

The way I see it, we're getting to the point where, to see history "live" again, we may not exactly have first pick of where it stays/operates. I echo several previous posters here: be glad it has a legitimate chance at life again. Sure, maybe it isn't ideal from a purist Long Islander's point of view, but as time goes on and things change, we don't have the luxury of choice as to where things can run. This locomotive will serve as a rolling ambassador at Strasburg, not only as a piece of LIRR history, but also as a "spark' for the future generation. Think about how many families with kids visit Strasburg. This locomotive, along with the rest of their fleet, will inspire the folks of tomorrow. This is something she could never fully accomplish as a static display. Drinks all around, this is great news, in my opinion.

You know if I put my passion for steam aside and think of this agreement under different terms I would agree with BEDT16RMLI. Think of it this way: I have a classic tractor that I want restored. A farmer/restorer agrees that if I pay to have the engine rebuilt he will do the body work as long as he can farm with it for the next 48 years. Now, remember that he is earning revenue with my tractor, not only don't I have ownership of my tractor, but I also get NONE of the revenue ! After 48 years what do I get back ?????
Do I want to see a LI 4-6-0 under steam ????!!! Hell Yes ! But BEDT16RMLI I think you have some valid points that should have been addressed . Ask the question without passion: Is this a GOOD business deal ?

Kevin K.

That's assuming there isn't some arrangement either not outlined in the press release. Or, maybe there is a deal in place in regards to "revenue" and they just don't feel like making it public. It's not really any of my business, so it doesn't matter to me either way. But let's consider for a moment that maybe there is something planned, but it just hasn't gone public.

I can sort of understand BEDT16RMLI being upset with this plan. However in the late 1970's and early 1980's I donated money to previous failed attempts at restoration of both 35 and 39. There have been several failed efforts to restore both locomotives for over 30 years. If any of them had been successful back then perhaps the likelihood of operation on the LIRR would have been greater (they story when I was actively donating back then was operation on weekends east of Riverhead).

I know BEDT16RMLI was too young to be involved but after 30+ years of failure you have to expect something like this could happen - the status quo for both 35 and 39 clearly was not working.

Let's do a bit of math here. Strasburg has the use of No. 39 for 48 years. Three years for the initial overhaul and three 15-year cycles per the FRA regulations equals 48 years. There's your answer. I can't take credit for having this idea. An old friend who doesn't post here suggested the idea.