I always thought that these drifter valves were a Porter creation. The Bethlehem 0-6-0T in the photo has them and so does J&L 58, which is a Porter.

So were these drifters actually made by a third party?

P.S. Anyone know where I can find one? I only have one and need two.

Theres a lot of errata on the ground, but it does not look like scrap yard. Big cranes like that might be for construction like ships.

Not convinced for vulcan but all builders suspect. Builders may have a habit about dome placement that why that vulcan pic doesnt work for me.

I've done what I can so far in comparisons (other Beth Steel Sparrows Point photos, Bing Bird's Eye fly-over), and so far it's "danged close, but still not definitively proven one way or the other." I have figured out that if it is where it appears to be by the crane configuration, this is waterside by the extreme southwestern corner of the property.

And, of course, I'm up against a classic case of when you question the story or circumstances at hand here (did he actually click the camera shutter or just bring a print home from work? did he process photos himself? did he take b/w that late? etc.), you run into the ever-popular "Are you calling my father a liar? Prove it's NOT what I said! How DARE you insult the memory of my late father!" conundrum historians are so used to with stories that conflict with known evidence.

You can try

http://www.historicaerials.com

& search at location 39.219167,-76.476111

There are aerial views from 1957 - 2005 which may help your search.

Not what he meant but certainly true.

dave

I was wondering how the picture could have been taken as certainly many industrial companies have security concerns, being an employee and known to the company he would be trusted, he could wander about at will, so it could have been pretty easy for him to get that shot. This kind of thinking would make the shot still at the bethlehem plant. If he had good relationships with the nearby companies perhaps he could wander in and out on their properties, but for now I would have to say to narrow it down it had to be on Bethlehem property. Why the engine is there is still the mystery, is it stilll there hiding away somewhere or was it there temporarily moving somewhere else or what. The shot shows those hoses kinda hung about on the engine, like the engine might have still been operational.
I havent found a definative roster of engines of the plant, theres a photographic archive with their engines but that might not be complete. A few searches have taken me in oddball directions and not solid references. I dont see an online reference of Lima engines, I think there is a book on Lima.

The locomotive is a Vulcan.... not lima or porter. Builders are very easy to tell apart if you know what you are looking at.

I agree now that the engine is a Vulcan. The cab and domes and the shape of the saddle tank all say Vulcan.

I would not think that a locomotive owned by Bethlehem Steel to be numbered "1". Beth had many locomotives and the number would more than likely have been higher. But a very small company very well might have a number 1.

http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=122&t=119196

Patapsco and Back Rivers Railroad

that looks like the line that directly serves the sparrows shipyard bethlehem plant.

still digging, whether this engine was directly owned by the sparrows plant or its a Patapsco engine or whatever else turns up

I'm of the same mind as Rick for a few reasons. I doubt it is a steel company locomotive. If that's the case, it makes the picture even more intriguing. It's one thing to think a tank engine escaped notice because it was tucked in a mill or shipyard, but if said tank engine came from somewhere else at that late date how did the rail community not know about it?

Is that a bascule bridge on the right side of the photo. Was this locomotive used for switching, a steam source or waiting to be cut up? There doesn't appear to be any recently traversed rail in the photo, though the wheels are shiny.

1) Yes, we know all about the "Push, Bump & Ram" as it was called in the local vernacular. There was recently a book published on this line; I have to return to our Library to examine a copy. But this does not fit our images of the P&BR, which tended to use Baldwin end-cab switchers and stocky 0-6-0s with tenders.

2) Brother Davis' commentary is precisely what I have been up against from the moment this appeared. the law of averages would say that at least five railfans would have worked at Beth Steel Sparrows Point, one would have been hard-core, and a lot more that would have just taken bells, whistles, etc. if their locos were being scrapped. If the alleged photographer/the poster's father was a railfan, you would think his son would be finding lots more rail photos from that era and area; if so, he hasn't posted any that I have seen or found.

3) There is no bascule truss drawbridge anywhere in that vicinity, nor for that matter any in the entire region that I know of--all the bascules are simple deck girders on roads, and the rail drawbridges are swing bridges. The closest truss swing bridge is the last one into the plant, at Bear Creek about two miles to the north, and your view of that would be blocked by the adjacent highway bridge.
Now, if someone wants to make a case that the negative was reversed, we could possibly consider the Francis Scott Key Bridge being built before opening in 1976.......

That looks like the stern of a ship under the crane to the left; with perhaps the name of the ship visible. That might help with orientation somewhat. It looks like a "cruiser" style stern, not as common today as it would been from the 1940's through the 1970's.

Bob

I noticed two things in the picture. A radio antenna on the loco cab that looks like a 1970's CB one and old boilers or heat exchangers behind the loco.
Mike