I recently bought a Dec.1972 Trains magazine that features a 32 page feature about L&N's 2-8-4 steam locomotives.My qustion is have any southeastern museums or groups ever considered using one of the existing C&O Kanawha or NKP 2-8-4s to make a replica L&N M-1? I know that the tender from M-1 #1966 survives in Atlanta.It seems to me that with the 1966 tender and a few cosmetic changes such as a new cab and some additional sheetmetal on the locomotive that an existing 2-8-4 could be altered to make a decent replica M-1.I know an exact replica could not be achieved but would this not be better than having several identical Kanawhas rusting away and uncared for? Perhaps Kentucky Railway museum would consider converting their C&O 2716 or another group in L&N territory such as at Knoxville,Chattanooga,or Atlanta could get the basket case C&O 2-8-4 in Lynchburg,Virginia.I also wouldn't mind someone making a Virginian 2-8-4.I know many people want nothing to do with replicas but aviation museums have replica planes that are not authentic but impressive to the general public and thus spark additional interest and fans.

WINK638@aol.com

I don't really know if undertaking the necessary steps to convert a C&O/NKP 2-8-4 into an L&N "Big Emma" would be enough to spark public interest. Plus, there would be a lot more changes other than tender, "and some sheetmetal." If you read the article, the L&N ordered about every bell and whistle available on a locomotive, and making a credible replica out of an existing locomotive would be impossible.
In reality, and speaking from the mindset of a KRM member, a C&O 2-8-4 serves a purpose as it repersents a major Kentucky railroad, and steam locomotive technology near its zenith in the United States. Pairing it with our tender from L&N #1984 and changing the cab would, in my opinion, detract from a museum's mission. It really isn't a replica, but a gaudy misrepersentation. Then again, that is just me. I am not against replicas, just for replicas that are done right.

david.wilkins@inisightbb.com

> I don't really know if undertaking the
> necessary steps to convert a C&O/NKP
> 2-8-4 into an L&N "Big Emma"
> would be enough to spark public interest.
> Plus, there would be a lot more changes
> other than tender, "and some
> sheetmetal." If you read the article,
> the L&N ordered about every bell and
> whistle available on a locomotive, and
> making a credible replica out of an existing
> locomotive would be impossible.
> In reality, and speaking from the mindset of
> a KRM member, a C&O 2-8-4 serves a
> purpose as it repersents a major Kentucky
> railroad, and steam locomotive technology
> near its zenith in the United States.
> Pairing it with our tender from L&N
> #1984 and changing the cab would, in my
> opinion, detract from a museum's mission. It
> really isn't a replica, but a gaudy
> misrepersentation. Then again, that is just
> me. I am not against replicas, just for
> replicas that are done right.
I guess your right David,I thought it might be a way of getting a big locomotive at a place where all the hometown railroad locos have been scrapped. Like the city of Cookeville,Tenn has obtained a Louisana & Arkansas 4-6-0 they are painting up as a Tennessee Central engine.What I ment by sparking more interest is if the replica were somewhere like the Southern Appalachia rail museum at Oak Ridge,Tenn where they have nothing but diesels.Also thought a M-1 standin might look good as a display in a city along the ex-L&N,like at the restored Etowah,Tenn depot.The "Old Mainline" out of Etowah could one day become a tourist railroad or walking trail comparable to the Virginia Creeper trail. A fake L&N loco might draw people off of Hwy 411 that otherwise would not stop and check things out.I know M-1s did not go farther south than Corbin.

WINK638@aol.com

Let me take a shot at answering this question. Replicas are seldom what they try to be. Because of years of fake Hollywood "old west" movies,
taudry tourist trains with engines painted every color under the sun, people do not trust them.

Steam engines were not mass produced even the same class built by ALCO differed from those put out by Baldwin. Diesels however were often just a coat of paint apart.

Steam engine replicas have succeeded because of the details. Small things like the sand domes and the flag stands mainly found on 19th century locos. A small flamboyand wood burner like the engine at Promontory NHS has made a good replica.

A large 20th century engine would be a failure because the visiting public knows more than we think thay do.

I have noted that Thomas The Tank Engine draws crowds everywhere he goes. But the real 0-6-0 ex BEDT #16 gets the biggest ones.

I hope the British A-1 Pacific project succeeds but I am not holding my breath!

I will get off the soap box.

ted_miles@nps.gov

> Let me take a shot at answering this
> question. Replicas are seldom what they try
> to be. Because of years of fake Hollywood
> "old west" movies,
> taudry tourist trains with engines painted
> every color under the sun, people do not
> trust them.

> Steam engines were not mass produced even
> the same class built by ALCO differed from
> those put out by Baldwin. Diesels however
> were often just a coat of paint apart.

> Steam engine replicas have succeeded because
> of the details. Small things like the sand
> domes and the flag stands mainly found on
> 19th century locos. A small flamboyand wood
> burner like the engine at Promontory NHS has
> made a good replica.

> A large 20th century engine would be a
> failure because the visiting public knows
> more than we think thay do.

> I have noted that Thomas The Tank Engine
> draws crowds everywhere he goes. But the
> real 0-6-0 ex BEDT #16 gets the biggest
> ones.

> I hope the British A-1 Pacific project
> succeeds but I am not holding my breath!

> I will get off the soap box.

I will NEVER understand why a "Big Emma" wasn't saved. Everyone on the L&N seemed to admire the locomotives. And there were some still "stored" well into the preservation era (as per the previously mentioned TRAINS Magazine article.) Certainly one should have gone to KRM or some other museum. I know that the L&N management was not receptive to saving steam but why didn't those many admirers try to make a deal at the time to try to at least raise the money to purchase one? Oh well, one of many "if only...." stories from the steam preservation era.

Les Beckman (Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum/North Judson, IN)

midlandblb@cs.com

Add to that the scrapping of RF&P's 4-8-4s. There's a picture out there, showing one of the last of these great locomotives pulled out onto a turntable for the local NHRS chapter (I think). They came, they saw, they took pictures, they went home.

jcpdeke@aol.com

Ahh, the engines that "almost" were saved. Anthracite road fans mourn many losses like the DL&W 4-8-4 that the city of Scranton turned down. In some cicles, you still can't mention Jersey Central mother hubbard 4-6-0 #774, which was the subject of intense pursuit. Some of the same gents also tried to grab one of the Reading's almost-new 4-6-2's. No luck.

If anything, these stories should resonate with us today.

Rob


rdavis@rypn.org

> Ahh, the engines that "almost"
> were saved. Anthracite road fans mourn many
> losses like the DL&W 4-8-4 that the city
> of Scranton turned down. In some cicles, you
> still can't mention Jersey Central mother
> hubbard 4-6-0 #774, which was the subject of
> intense pursuit. Some of the same gents also
> tried to grab one of the Reading's
> almost-new 4-6-2's. No luck.

> If anything, these stories should resonate
> with us today.

> Rob

Rob: Seems like there were a few of those stories (a Soo Line, ex-Monon 2-8-2 comes to mind.) But here's one I never heard the story about - Great Northern saved one of their S-2 class 4-8-4s #2584. But there was a railfan group of some kind that held title to sister engine #2580 in a roundhouse somewhere on the Great Northen system. They were trying to raise money to restore it to operation. I recall an old ad in Trains Magazine. Anyone know whatever happened to the group and of course, the locomotive?

Les

midlandblb@cs.com

Found a site that says #2580 and 5 sisters hung on until 1963! Pretty late for six of one calss to be around. Only #2584 at Havre hung with us.

Rob

http://www.xs4all.nl/~bringnal/GNEGNSteamRosterS2.htm

http://www.xs4all.nl/~bringnal/GNEGNSteamRosterS2.htm
rdavis@rypn.org

About two years ago we had a long sob session with horror stories of steam locomotive genocide from coast to coast. Many of these are unconfirmable, like the B&O EM-1 and NYC Hudson that were set aside while some unknown in middle management went ahead and orders them cut up. Then there are those which never had a chance for a pardon, such as a whole series of big PRR locos.
Sad as the stories are, they seem to be something of which we never tire. They say there is nothing as romantic as a lost cause.
Looking over the GN site posted in one of the above messages, I see a 2-8-0 which appears to be sitting awash in a sea of dismembered locomotives. We have our work cut out for us right now. Use 'em or lose 'em.

glueck@maine.edu

Just because something was removed from the scrappers and put aside doesn't mean it is preserved. Just because something has found its way into a museum doesn't mean it is preserved.

Consider the fate of park hulks all over the country. Many have been rotting in place for half a century. Last year there was a panic about a park hulk in North Dakota getting buried due to asbestos. Now we are seeing tons of trouble trying to get another out of its swamp in Richmond. One is for sale in kit form without a willing buyer in the wings. I'd be willing to bet at least one somewhere will be lost by panicky, ignorant civil servants in full reaction mode.

Private collections have also been the subject of some discussion. Not all collectors can afford to both collect and conserve, and collecting is fun and preservation is just hard work, so guess which is ignored? Good intentions reputedly have paved a frequently traveled road......

And let's not be afraid to take a hard critical look in our own houses. If we call ourselves museums, shouldn't we reconsider our missions and collections from a rational POV? Shouldn't ability to properly care for our artifacts be a primary criteria within that consideration? We may choose a mission of interpreting all railroading in the universe, but if our budget is only capable of maintaining 3 pieces is the mission appropriate to our ability to carry it out, and should we be actively pursuing all railroad artifacts in the universe despite our inability to care for them?

What will happen to the rolling stock which is rendered no longer operable as a result of the new FRA regulation and the ballooning insurance premium cost? Marginal operators will be squeezed out of the train ride business. Some may be able to reinvent themselves, some may not. More stuff to be cared for.

It has been very gratifying to read more and more on this board about the growing level of responsible planning and execution going on in many places. Looks like we are maturing at long last from the good old boy's play with trains club mentality. We still have a long way to go, some of us more than others.

Dave


irondave@bellsouth.net

Billy Byrd, the great L&N man, said that the reason he would not be associated with KRM was because they turned down a Big Emma stating that "they already had a 2-8-4" (C&O 2716). True? Not sure, but Billy would have been a natural at KRM. Wonder why he avoided the place?

KRM website

It is true that L&N offered KRM an M1 around 1960-61 when they still had a few waiting for scrap. KRM had received the C&O 2716 in 1959 and L&N 152 in 1957. KRM officials felt that the 2716 represented the 2-8-4 so they turned down the offer and the last M1's went to scrap.

Also, one member of KRM considered buying IC 4-8-2 2613 after it had run the L&N Centennial train in 1959 and 2 excursions on the IC in 1960. IC wanted $ 10,000 for the engine and, while he could have bought the engine, he decided not to. The 2613 was scrapped at Paducah. Years later, this man told me he was very sorry not to have bought it. The engine would no doubt have gone to KRM.

So, two great engines escaped preservation by KRM. In defense of today's KRM, it's doubtful that either would be passed over if still available today.

> It is true that L&N offered KRM an M1
> around 1960-61 when they still had a few
> waiting for scrap. KRM had received the
> C&O 2716 in 1959 and L&N 152 in
> 1957. KRM officials felt that the 2716
> represented the 2-8-4 so they turned down
> the offer and the last M1's went to scrap.

> Also, one member of KRM considered buying IC
> 4-8-2 2613 after it had run the L&N
> Centennial train in 1959 and 2 excursions on
> the IC in 1960. IC wanted $ 10,000 for the
> engine and, while he could have bought the
> engine, he decided not to. The 2613 was
> scrapped at Paducah. Years later, this man
> told me he was very sorry not to have bought
> it. The engine would no doubt have gone to
> KRM.

> So, two great engines escaped preservation
> by KRM. In defense of today's KRM, it's
> doubtful that either would be passed over if
> still available today.

Interesting story.
I think another reason no L&N 2-8-4's were saved is the relatively small area they operated in and except for Cincinnati(north of Decoursey Yard) these were not high population areas nor areas of wealth for the most part.

Speaking of turning down engines, I think it is pretty well known that Cincinnati turned down a C&O 2-8-4(I think it is the one that went to Washington Court House, Ohio), therefore you can assume they would have turned down an L&N engine as well. Its no wonder they were scrapped.

On another note, I was working on sorting some of my dads old train negatives and ran across a strip of 3 L&N shots. The left one looks like a pacific(might be 152), the middle shot looks to be a streamlined pacific, and the right shot another shot of the older pacific. Hard to see numbers without a glass. Did the L&N have streamlined Pacifics??? Or any other class engine streamlined?
Greg Scholl



Videos
sales@gregschollvideo.com

If the late Mr. Byrd actually said that, it would be an unfortunate thing. To punish the museum membership for supposedly turning down a locomotive donation when much of the membership of the last 25 years wasn't even alive when the museum was founded is a bit ridiculous.

Now, I have never seen anything in the official KRM correspondence that indicated that the L&N offered the museum another locomotive, namely a Big Emma. While that is not definate, most of the informaiton that I have heard it tend to come more from rumor than fact. At the time,(the late 1950s) the KRM was cramped in a very small tract of land by the Ohio River in Downtown Louisville. If they L&N actually offered another locomotive to the museum, I can honestly see why it was turned down. If the museum didn't have the space, and was having a hard enough time preserving what they had, then they made a pretty wise choice. Had the L&N really wanted one preserved, they could have put one on display at South Louisville Shops, kept one, or offered it to another museum. While I will dig more on this, I honestly don't think that it is true that the L&N even offered such a donation. Most of the preserved L&N equipment occurred quite by chance, with no real rhyme or reason. It just happened to be sitting around at the right time, like 152, or our Jim Crow combine. I just hate to see unverifiable rumors spread around on subject such as this. It is important to remember that what is done is done and complaining about it is not very constructive.

david.wilkins@inisightbb.com