The "Diesel Steamer" Returns: Sumter & Choctaw 102 at NRM

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:14 pm

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger........

https://www.facebook.com/nationalrailro ... =3&theater

Quote:

Visit the Museum as #102 takes to the tracks tomorrow, Wednesday, June 3, 2020.

This converted steam engine now runs on diesel and is making its first run at the Museum in four years. Train rides are at 10 a.m., 12 p.m., 2 p.m., and 4 p.m. To schedule your visit, go to http://www.nationalrrmuseum.org

rlsteam · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2020 11:08 pm

How does it run? Is there a diesel engine in the tender, or is it just an oil-burner using diesel fuel?

Earl Knoob · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2020 11:21 pm

The tender appears to be the running gear of a GE 45-ton switcher with a tender tank shell put over the top of it. The 45 tonner running gear is complete with side rods.

Brian Norden · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2020 11:25 pm

rlsteam wrote:

How does it run? Is there a diesel engine in the tender, or is it just an oil-burner using diesel fuel?

From what I've found, a Diesel engine is located in the tender.

See notes about this locomotive on the Steam Locomotive Information website: Sumter & Choctaw RR No. 102

70000 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:41 am

I had the "pleasure" of seeing it in operation when I visited Green Bay back in 2011, and, to be honest, from a distance, it had me fooled for a bit, until I got closer to it!

It was switching some stock in and out of one of the buildings at the time, so I had an opportunity for a close look at it working. Certainly an "Interesting" conversion.....

Richard Glueck · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:07 am

Like candy with a bitter after-taste.

WVNorthern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:29 am

How about a diesel Shay?

http://rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39326

Faller? · **Joined:** Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:57 pm **Posts:** 106

This is a really nice steam locomotive! could it be returned to steam?

Rob Gardner · **Joined:** Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:50 pm **Posts:** 576

Question.

For the money spent on hiding the guts of a 44-tonner in the tender of this engine and making it operational from the cab, how much work could have been done towards making the boiler FRA-compliant? Apparently very little running gear work would be needed for an operational steam restoration because they're OK with shoving it around with the powered tender.

Rob Gardner

David Dewey · **Posted:** Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:28 pm

They are using the excuse of not being legal to burn coal. Oil conversion would not be that difficult, and for a MUSEUM to foist such a sham on the public is shameful. yes, steam is expensive to operate, but so was the conversion.
Do it right folks, you are supposed to be preserving & presenting HISTORY!

Aaron F · **Posted:** Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:49 am

David Dewey wrote:

They are using the excuse of not being legal to burn coal. Oil conversion would not be that difficult, and for a MUSEUM to foist such a sham on the public is shameful. yes, steam is expensive to operate, but so was the conversion.
Do it right folks, you are supposed to be preserving & presenting HISTORY!

I GUARANTEE a full restoration would be 3x more expensive then this conversion. Not only would the initail restoration cost big bucks, think about the infrastructure you would have to build up to keep an operating steam loco running. Tools, oils, coal/oil storage, water, and most importantly a competent group of people who know steam. Its not like they're tricking their visitors into thinking its a live steam engine (and lets be honest, half of them probably couldn't care enough tell the difference anyway). Would I do this myself, no. Would I advocate others do this, no. I know of plenty of locomotive that are literally rotting away in museums, because the owners have no money to restore them. Instead of complaining about the NRM and unjustly calling them scammers, how about putting some money up to some smaller museums, who could really benefit from it. If your so concerned about losing history, help out a basket case before its lost for good.

rem1028 · **Joined:** Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:32 am **Posts:** 292

A more historically accurate paint job would help also. I doubt the engine had a red cab or drive wheels in regular service. It's reminiscent of a gas powered CP Huntington.

John T · **Joined:** Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:05 pm **Posts:** 1270

I agree with Aaron F. Put your money where your mouth is.

Getting back on topic, didn't the Stone Mountain RR at Atlanta, GA do something similar years ago?

Bobharbison · **Joined:** Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:42 pm **Posts:** 3011

Aaron F wrote:

I GUARANTEE a full restoration would be 3x more expensive then this conversion. Not only would the initail restoration cost big bucks, think about the infrastructure you would have to build up to keep an operating steam loco running. Tools, oils, coal/oil storage, water, and most importantly a competent group of people who know steam. Its not like they're tricking their visitors into thinking its a live steam engine (and lets be honest, half of them probably couldn't care enough tell the difference anyway). Would I do this myself, no. Would I advocate others do this, no. I know of plenty of locomotive that are literally rotting away in museums, because the owners have no money to restore them. Instead of complaining about the NRM and unjustly calling them scammers, how about putting some money up to some smaller museums, who could really benefit from it. If your so concerned about losing history, help out a basket case before its lost for good.

I agree with your reasons on why they did it. However, I have to wonder what would have happened if they'd simply put the 44 Tonner to work hauling the train, as is, slapped a nice paint job on this loco and put it on static display nearby and called it good?

As you stated, most folks won't care. They're advertised as a museum, not a train ride. Been to the Air and Space Museum? You probably didn't get to go on a ride in a biplane while you were there, did you? It's a matter of expectations.

I totally get how much work steam is, and the idea that this thing can (probably) be running and ready to go in 15 minutes, and shut down in 5 minutes is appealing to them. It also doesn't need any Form 4s, and training operators is a lot easier as well.

I understand wanting to go to diesel operation, you could even make it part of the interpretation. "We're not using a steam locomotive for the exact same reasons railroads stopped using them...". But why not be honest about what's pulling the train? (Or just go full on Thomas?)

Randy Gustafson · **Posted:** Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:07 am

John T wrote:

I agree with Aaron F. Put your money where your mouth is.

Getting back on topic, didn't the Stone Mountain RR at Atlanta, GA do something similar years ago?

Yes, and I remember it well. I came across it in 1982 or 1983, and I 'think' it was a 2-6-2 that was being pushed by an SW-something that had a fake boxcar built over top of it. The engineer ran it from the steam locomotive cab, and there was an air hose draped over top of the tender to run the whistle on air. The running gear - side rods and valve gear, audibly clanked horribly with loose bearings. And the diesel was fairly loud. Round the circle you went. It was obvious that the steam locomotive was beat and was even questionable to be pushed much longer. It appears to be what was then the "Yonah II", was withdrawn not long after I saw it, and has ended up on display at the New Hope Valley for possible restoration. AKA the Cliffside #110.

As a Pennsylvanian in that Confederate-theme park, you keep a low profile and don't even talk much, and keep your opinions to yourself. I remember seeing people point to my license plate....