Back in High School one of my favorite books to read in the school library was Jim Boyd's Steam Locomotive. One of the stories in the book was the 1981 steam up of John Bull which made it "The Worlds Oldest Operating Steam Locomotive." The Wikipedia article still states this, noting John Bull was 150 years old at the time of operation in 1981.

However, I am wondering if that title is still appropriate for John Bull? It has been on static display so to claim it is operating anymore is a stretch. The advent of the FRA 15 Year inspection, and the desire to preserve the historicity of the original John Bull likely means it will never steam again.

Meanwhile I can name a few operating steam engines that have gone past the 150th year mark, on the Ffestiniog Railway in Wales the George England set of locomotives are still operating. The oldest of their operational fleet Prince and sister engine Palmerston hit their 150th anniversary in 2014. South of the Ffestiniog in Tywyn both Talyllyn and Dolgoch are a year younger than the Ffestiniog engines and hit their 150th in steam in 2015. Virginia and Truckee Inyo and Carson and Tahoe Glenbrook both built 1875 will be hitting their 150th anniversary in 2025 and see limited operation at the Nevada State Railroad Museum. Rio Grande 168 which just returned to steam at the Cumbres and Toltec is looking at 2033 for its 150th, nearing the end of its current 15 year rebuilt cycle. As many operating steam engines are already centenarians, in the next 50 years or so many many more will surpass John Bull's 150th steam mark.

I mean we could still consider John Bull 'operational' in spirit, but the fact it hasn't steamed in 38 years and likely hasn't undergone a modern 15 year inspection makes me think it is best considered a static display engine. Not to mention a modern restoration could undo many historical aspects of the John Bull. Personally in my opinion Prince has already bested the title, and continues to do so nearly every day it operates in the mountains of Wales. Wouldn't shock me if somebody could produce evidence of engines older than Prince out there still in steam.

Honestly though, I want to know what the opinions of the community are. I don't think a one man opinion is going to change any official record keeping, but I want to know what opinions other people have on the subject.

Edit: I brought this idea up to a friend and he pointed me to the 1855 built Fairy Queen in India which is 9 years senior to even Prince... and is listed in Guinness as the oldest regularly operating steam engine apparently. So another thing to point out in why I wonder why John Bull still gets the title it has.

John H. "Jack" White Jr. the Smithsonian curator responsible for the seemingly impulsive reactivation of the John Bull in 1980-81, was asked, back when the big public shindig for the loco's 150th anniversary was over, if and when they'd consider another steaming (remember, this is back in the era of Railfair 1981 at Sacramento and the Chessie Steam Specials). Jack supposedly, sarcastically, replied, "Ask us again in 2031!!"

There are a great multitude of old locos out there that you certainly COULD "fire up" and get to move under its own power, if only as a "thought experiment" or to "prove something" or set a record. But in nearly every such case, it would have to operate at reduced pressure, never have any hope of passing current boiler safety regulations, would probably leak, and/or wear out promptly if actually used. Three classic examples: PRR 1361, 1223, and "7002." You could have operated 1361 with the firebox/boiler it had at reduced pressure, reducing its power and utility severely. If you went through the paperwork and had an excuse, you could steam 1223 or 7002 for a one-off occasion, again at reduced pressure or the like--but not worth the expense. Another contender: the B&O Railroad Museum's B&O "William Mason" 4-4-0. It's at least operable on paper, but other paper--certification, insurance, whatever--as well as a desire to preserve it, keeps it from being fired up.

One issue is that most of the contenders for "world's oldest operable" suffer from the "George Washington's Hatchet Syndrome"--so much has been rebuilt or replaced that considering it "original" is a joke. My understanding is that both the Welsh narrow-gauge contenders--Tallylyn and Ffestiniog--openly acknowledge as such for their contenders. I'm not sure what the story is for the Indian contender.

Look around this nation. There are vehicles up on blocks in the backyard that only await an infusion of cash, a parts order, some weekends under the shade tree, new tires, and/or a license plate and insurance to run it on the highway. There are cars that only need a jump start and/or fresh batteries. There's a hybrid parked because the owner let her insurance lapse and has to pay off the exorbitant fine before she gets a sticker on her plate. There are farm trucks puttering about ranches without tags to deliver hay to the horses or cows. I've seen trucks on the road that run as long as you keep pouring more gas in the carburetor every couple of miles. How many of these do we consider "operable"?

In part the "George Washington's Hatchet" or as I was thinking of it the "Ship of Theseus" problem is an underlying discussion in this type of debate. In the case of the Ffestiniog and Talyllyn engines though, even if there is only say 5% of the original 1800's components on the locomotive I would say they still qualify for the discussion since they have been continually maintained and operated for most of those 150 years in the same spirit of use and maintenance they would have received in the 1800's and early 1900's. So in a sense all the new components maintain the historic nature of what they replaced due to their operation. Because now some of the parts are a mix of 1800's, early 1900's, post preservation 1900's up to modern preservation in the 2000's showing the history of use on the engine. The new parts are part of the same history of preserving and maintaining the locomotive that stretch back to their build date.

Its also why I think and engine like John Bull would be a poor candidate for a modern type restoration. It has spent so much of its life in a museum on static display that it lacks the history of continuous maintenance and use and so much that made it historic comes from its original use and not its preservation life. Similar reasons as to why I think engines like Lyon, Rocket, William Mason, and The General are also poor choices for operation; but engines like Flying Scotsman, UP 844, Nevada Northern 40, etc. all feel like they should constantly be restored, constantly put back into steam and always have a fire in their belly. Their preservation and continued use is as if not more historic than their original use!

With John Bull, to do a drastic full to steam restoration now would just end up replacing most of the original parts with replicas, at which point it would make more sense to get to the Pennsylvania Railroad Museum and just restore their replica instead. There's a YouTube video that dives into the issue a bit I found the other day that makes me think on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KwdwhuyZWE&t=1s

In the USA - the Torch Lake At Henry Ford runs regularly. It was built in 1873.
The Henry Ford also runs the Edison... I’m not sure which parts are actually original, but it was rebuilt into a 4-4-0 From an 1870 Manchester built 0-4-0 switcher.

Those are the two oldest that I’m aware of that actually operate in regular service.

I think this is the best answer.....with a caveat. Torch Lake does not have it’s original boiler. Inyo, Glenbrook and Eureka all do.....although I know that Glenbrook’s was extensively repaired when it was restored.

I believe that William Mason is no longer operable. It was inspected a couple of years back and it’s crown sheet was found to be unsuitable for any further operation.

/Kevin Madore

I think anything that can still be steamed up and move built before 1900 should be mentioned as among the oldest.... if anyone knows which of these are more original than others (original boilers etc.) please chime in.

36" Gauge -
Knotts Berry Farm - #340 and #41 built in 1881 by Baldwin.
Colorado Railroad Museum #346 built in 1881 by Baldwin.
Disneyland Railroad #3 the Fred Gurley built in 1894 by Baldwin.
Six Flags Texas #2 built in 1897 by Porter.
Roaring Camp Heisler #2 built in 1899.
Midwest Central #6 built in 1891 by Baldwin.
Nevada State - Glennbrook built in 1875 by Baldwin.
Eureka & Palisade - Eureka built in 1875 by Baldwin.
Rio Grande #315 - built in 1895 by Baldwin.

Standard Gauge -
Henry Ford #1 "Edison" rebuilt in 1930's from an 1870 Manchester built 0-4-0.
Henry Ford #3 "Torch Lake" built in 1873 by Mason.
Henry Ford #7 built in 1897 by Baldwin.
Railtown 1897 - #3 built in 1891 by Rogers.
3 Rivers Rambler - Southern #154 built in 1890 by Schenectady.
Nevada State - #22 Inyo built in 1875 by Baldwin.

24" Gauge -
WW&F #9 (Ex-Sandy River 5, Ex-Kennebec Central 4) - Built 1891 by Portland Co. Now in regular service (new boiler, new frame) at WW&F Railway Museum in Alna, Maine.

NOT.
GONNA.
HAPPEN.

The entire point of the John Bull reactivation in 1980-81 was that it was essentially as built, or at least as it showed up in the Smithsonian, and sat there for decades, yet was still intact enough to BE steamed. You can't do that with what remains of Stephenson's Rocket, the Stourbridge Lion, etc. It probably couldn't be done to any of the pre-Civil War locos at the B&O Museum, either, aside from the William Mason.

Early in the "could we do this?" process, the curators actually brought in an air compressor to its display, jacked up the loco, and applied pressure to the boiler as a preliminary test to see if it could hold or leaked like the proverbial sieve. It held. Then, just to see what happened, they tried opening the throttle slightly. With nothing to act against, the drivers roared to life, so fast that they were afraid it would vibrate off the jacks and go running across the floor into other exhibits!

SHOULD the "powers that be" deem another revival worthy in 2031, I'm fairly certain that it would be nurtured only enough to run a few hundred feet, at slow speed, with the lowest boiler pressure they can muster and still run. This IS NOT UP 4014 on a multi-state tour. They WILL NOT undertake any replacement of parts, except maybe to patch in a legally-mandated PTC unit or something. </sarcasm>


But is that full regular working pressure, or any steam-up whatsoever?
Again, if we're engaging in these Gedanken experiments and/or just trying to set some token record, you only need to have it run back and forth in the yard. Not star in another over-budgeted sci-fi movie, not run to Promontory, not make time on a Baltimore-to-DC commuter run--just move itself and maybe one light wooden car.

Don't forget the most recent entry into "operating Victorian locomotives":

D&RG 4-6-0 #168 at Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad --- built in 1883. Congratulations C&T!!! (And "thank you" to Colorado Springs for sharing this fine piece of history!)

Anything like the "John Bull" steaming again is highly unlikely because there are no more railroad transportation curators left at the Smithsonian Institution's NMAH to make it happen. Railroads for all intents and purposes is a subject area that has "collapsed" like many other sections at NMAH like mining, civil and mechanical engineering, etc. The last railroad curator, Susan Tolbert (who succeeded the late Bill Withuhn who retired in 2010) retired last December and will not be replaced.

"Past performance is not an indication of future results."

True as your current analysis may be, I know how much crow we had to eat when:
1) steam actually returned to Saluda, the Horse Shoe Curve, etc.; and
2) Union Pacific restored a Big Boy to operation, and not just on local Cheyenne service either.

Yup! I said the phrase "Oh you'll never see a mainline steam excursion on NS again unless there is an Amtrak diesel in the consist" My trips behind #630, #4501, #765, and #611 (and all but the #765 trips without any diesel!) more than proved how wrong I was!

Never say never. But it does take alot of stars to align to get some things done.