I agree with Dave about non-geographic rationale for collections. PSRM's geographic reference is the pacific southwest, especially the SD&A(E). Hence important historical artifacts are 2353, which ran on the SD&A from 1928 to '39, SD&A 104, which ran on the line from the early '20's until retired in the '50's, and SP 5119, a 70 ton switcher that was one of the early diesels on the SD&AE.

So, why do we want to restore Coos Bay #11? It is a long way from home. But, it is steam, and more practical for use on our 15 mph line than 2353. 2353 was one of the largest ten-wheelers that SP ever had. I think there was only one class that was larger, and it was only one or two engines. It cost an arm and a leg to run it, when we ran it. #11 should be easier to maintain, and cheaper to run, but it can still demonstrate to the public what a steam engine is. (Amazing how many people ask if our GP-9 is a steam engine).

I'm certainly not an expert, but in regard to the firebox on 2353, it is my understanding that replacing a keyhole-shaped firebox on a riveted boiler can be quite complex (and expensive) due to the compound curves necessary to fit it to the rest of the boiler. And, a crown bar tends to make the crown sheet "stiffer" than the side sheets, so cracking along the knuckle between the crown sheet and side sheets was common (which is what happened to 2353). I have read that after the '30's and later, it was common when repairing a crown bar boiler to convert it to radial stays. SP didn't do this when they last repaired the firebox on 2353 in the early '40's.

At the time of the original posts about this locomotive, the City of Mesa had decided the engine was a liability and was looking to dispose of it. The local effort to raise the money needed to "restore" and retain the engine was not yet off the ground (I am not sure how much "off the ground" they really are).

Since then, the Pacific Locomotive Association had an inspection performed on 2355 and decided not to pursue the engine.

While I still believe that a restored SP 2355 would have been great to see in Niles Canyon, and that California is a more appropriate place for it, no one at the PLA or myself ever said Mesa "should" give up the engine.

Yeah, I actually knew that already. I was just using an example in regard to an item that was way far away from where it ran back in the day, that's all. I was not disagreeing that said bi-polar was just fine where it was, as I really don't get why people think a locomotive has to be right where it ran. We should be thankful that locomotives got scattered to the four winds by large railroads, as communities near their old stomping grounds would have had a stuffed/mounted locomotive at every cross street if they had to stay where they originally ran.
Think 4449, it's very likely that engine wouldn't be around today if Portland hadn't asked for a locomotive to display.

Might I discretely point out that metal mechanical equipment--locomotives, automobiles, airplanes, etc.--tends to survive MUCH better in the Arizona desert than in, say, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Illinois, or even coastal California. There's a reason "Arizona cars" command a premium in the collectors' market.

On my last junket to Arizona, I found several Santa Fe bridges, all in territory north of "Saguaro Cacti Country" where they still see snow in winter, where the paint was the original paint job from when the bridges were built--in the 1960s or even the 1940s and, in one case, 1928.

Mr. Mitchell: 2353 spent its 30 Fairground years in the Imperial County Fairground, just north of El Centro, in the desert, about 60 miles west of Yuma, AZ. I'd say that Imperial is probably dryer than the Mesa/Phoenix area where 2355 was. Imperial gets less of the summer monsoon thunderstorm weather.

In regard to bridges, we have a bridge we run across every day we run that was built in 1915. Until there was a fire in the canyon below it several years ago that scorched it a bit, the manufacturer's name, Llewellan Iron Works, was still clearly visible. Campo is fairly dry.

Now, our C-8, SD&A 104 (SP 2720) spent 30 years at the Del Mar Fairgrounds, on the BEACH! The moist, salt air really did a number on that one.

I think I read the loco was operational when donated to the city, so hopefully its firebox & boiler are not shot. Seems to me that original fabric still in sound condition is worth a lot in an artifact. If indeed intact, I would hate to see it cracked and broken by a modern-day effort to operate it. I have very mixed feelings about modern-day steam operations. The arguments in favor of returning a loco to steam always sound like flimsy rationalizations by railfans to me.

Not that many photos of the 2355 on-line. Interesting to find a number of family snap-shots of the loco, though. That city park must have been a blast for kids! I wish I had a full size steam loco to play on as a kid. Not to mention a fighter plane. Geeze, what fun. When I was growing up in the 70's our playgrounds were already pretty well sanitized of any dangerous toys.

(image credits below)

photoalbum_16 by Mitch Glaser, on Flickr


photoalbum_17 by Mitch Glaser, on Flickr

FLO: Just because it was "operational" when put in the park, does not mean that 2355 is or even was in good condition.

Our 2353 was "retired" in Jan., 1957, and put in the Imperial County Fairgrounds in Feb., 1957. It "ran" on snap track powered by compressed air. As far as we know, it was used through most of 1956. Major work that was required was a new front tube sheet (the old one had cracks) and boring of the cylinders (one was way out of round, the other had to be bored out to match the diameter of the first one.) And then, all the pins and bushings on the spring rigging were heavily worn. The pins had notches worn almost half way through, and the bushing holes were egg shaped, not round. Unbelievable amount of scale in the boiler. All this wear certainly did not happen in the fairgrounds. It was barely running when retired.

I can easily picture SP management telling the shop guys, "Fix only what absolutely needs doing. These things (all their steam engines) will be retired in a year." And the FRA (or whatever equivalent agency existed then) probably looked the other way, knowing that the steam engines would soon all be gone.

Thx for the reply and the insights, Jim.