I already have a headache so I am not going to go through the whole list. 3254 is done. It is not going to see the rails again. 6039 has a cracked cylinder, I believe, so she won’t be going anywhere, either. 2124 is worn and there is already another T1 under resto in Ohio and a second just miles from Steamtown that will most likely return to service on the R&BMN so it’s redundant. B&LE, the icing on the cake in this thread, is not even worth discussing. Neither is the facebook-based effort to purchase her.

Signing off from Fantasy Land Railway….

Seems more suitable under railfan stuff than preservation.

There has long been speculation the Steamtown's 3377 may get rebuilt using parts from 3254. From a restoration point of view, I think that would be fantastic photo-essay and study. Have somebody who understands the process and can write in layman's terms. I suppose that person would have to live long enough to complete the whole story.

That would be correct. 3377 had an insanely low number of road miles under her belt after a full rebuild when she was left on the dead line. Although not a completely identical design, many parts which were ‘like new’ were pulled from her to keep 3254 on the rails. What has been rumored is that all those parts and more will find their way home to the forlorn mike. One of them has a bent frame, I think it’s the ’54. There is also the issue of the new aluminum tender that was built, I am sure someone will chime in with the details; I can’t remember which tender frame was used for the new build but I think there are some incompatibilities.

I would love to see 3377, or 2317, or 790, or the 47 back under steam. But as I said in one of several very similar threads, it doesn’t make sense to waste the time or the money. 3713 and 26 will be, for all intents and purposes, brand new. The park should focus on cosmetic upkeep of the rest of the collection and upgrades to the grounds and simply keep refreshing their two ‘new’ locos when the flue clock is due for decades and decades to come.

Speaking of the dead line haha

While some of the specific information may be inaccurate and/or more suited to a "rail fanning" discussion, the big picture issues of proper selection of artifacts for restoration/preservation, collection management, and the many considerations that go into the question of operational vs static display are all topics that have been covered in other Interchange threads. The big difference here is that posters are trying to use specific examples to explore these issues. That alone should not be a cause for a move to Railfanning.

A lot of the discussion has centered on STEA, but that is a natural result of the large size of the collection in Scranton and the fact that several items at the site may be a "1472+" servicing from operability.

There has been much talk on the Interchange about the best use/location of equipment (the "home rails" approach). As this relates to large operations like the Park Service's in Scranton, several of the artifacts are in a state of neglect and are not really serving the function of aiding in the interpretation of the urban industrial ruin that is the DL&W Scranton Yard complex.

If anyone is part of an operation/organization that believes that an artifact, whether it be at Scranton or part of another large non-private collection, would be better off in their care, they should consider putting together a well-supported restoration/interpretation/business plan for that artifact and sending it to the current custodian of the artifact. Generally, it could start a productive conversation that leads to a sale, deaccession/accession, or a swap such that one or more artifacts are better preserved and more well utilized as interpretive aids. With the Park Service, there is a new Superintendent in Scranton who has some very specific priorities. I can not say if any further thinning of the herd is in the cards at STEA, but I can say that collection/inventory management was a topic with the Park Service people who assessed the Superintendent role after Kip Hagen passed.

The park is not going to give up anything unless it really, really wants to. It will rot into the ground first.

6-18003 - The Park Service transferred CP2816 to Canadian Pacific, a for-profit corporation, in 1998.

As Superheater noted in “B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2”, “I don't have details on the transaction, but when we were prepping the 2816, it was with the implicit idea the repatriation of CP 2816 was an exchange transaction. CPR was supposed to provide something of value in return, perhaps favorable moves or diesel locomotives.

As far as I know, nothing and certainly nothing approaching equivalent value was ever received or delivered to Steamtown by CPR. I'd be happy to be corrected if I am in error.”

So, the Park Service’s transfer of an artifact in Scranton to an organization having a well-supported restoration/interpretation/business plan for that artifact is not without precedent.

Somewhat off topic, I believe the new tender for 3254 is constructed of stainless steel. My recollection is that this new tender was never used for 3254 because there was something incorrect about the construction. It may have been that the channel for the stoker auger was not constructed to the proper proportions and corrective action was not warranted due to the declining condition of 3254.

Yes, transferred in 1998. Seventeen years ago.

This quote is from Bruce Mowbray in an old post here on RYPN



So the new tender body is, as far as I am aware, still on the 3377 frame. The original for 3377 was scrapped. Since I will believe that Bruce is correct in regards to differences in the frames, my only question is if the new body is 100% compatible with the 3377 frame? And yes, the new tender body is stainless, FMP.