Rio Grande Southern 20 update.

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:39 pm

Robby Peartree wrote:

Wow the 1522 was a success. What is its current schedule? While operating for a while when is the last point it been out on the road? By the way the only brake valve I seen suddenly fail on the road is the 26L automatic. The 6 systems on a couple of railroads and even the 24 rl in trailing diesels at GCR while I was there were more dependable.

Robby Peartree

Hmmm--I seem to recall there was a problem with insurance. Didn't have a thing to do with the engine's reliability. More a matter of economics and (I would say) questionable pricing in the insurance industry.

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:44 pm

elueck wrote:

I am sure that when a railroad repaired an engine that they used the materials currently on hand. Thus a wood cab from 1880 destroyed in a wreck in 1920, would use wood from 1920, and another wreck in 1940 would necessitate 1940 wood and the same for steel and paint. So we get an engine at a museum built in 1880 but last rebuilt in 1940. What is "original"?.

Would an engine with a damaged cab in 1920--and especially in 1940--even get a new wood cab, or would it get a replacement in steel?

Cass Scenic No. 5 was built with a wood cab, but got a steel one from a retired 4-trucker, as I recall. Sierra 3, the famous movie engine, was built with a wood cab--but has a steel one installed when the engine went through a contract overhaul in a Southern Pacific shop. That's why the cab that's on it now looks like an SP cab.

Neither of these two engines were built with electric headlights and the required dynamos to power them. Both conversions would have taken place in the early 20th century. Should those be forbidden, too?

R.L.Kennedy · **Joined:** Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:37 pm **Posts:** 242

One matter that seems to have been overlooked in all this discussion about authenticity etc. No steam locomotive that has existed over many decades of operation is "authentic" as regards its original construction. In other words, RR's updated and improved their steam locomotives either to improve their performance or to bring them into compliance with ICC regulations.

Oil headlights were replaced with carbon burners and they were replaced with electric ones. Couplers were link and pin to start and then various knuckle couplers came along. Hand-fired engines were equipped with mechanical stokers or if larger built new with a stoker. Steam brakes were replaced with air brakes and air brakes were changed to automatic air brake systems as per Mr. Westinghouse.

On and on. No RR kept obsolete equipment in use just for the sake of "authenticity".

Not even taking into account plain old wear and tear! Tyres, tubes, valves, etc. etc.

All of this I say as railroader who gets more than a little annoyed by current steam crews who don't dress appropriately and work by radio instead of hand signals that few even know their meaning. Bah! Humbug!

EJ Berry · **Posted:** Wed Jun 10, 2020 6:52 pm

Actually B&O kept 4-4-0 26 William Mason in 1856 condition for decades to keep it authentic. It did get a steel boiler in 1926 (mandated), but no air brakes, no injector, no electric headlight. It was in that condition for the filming of The Great Locomotive Chase in 1956. You should watch the movie just for the train handling.

The engine has since acquired modern appliances.

Phil Mulligan

Kelly Anderson · **Joined:** Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:52 am **Posts:** 2477

nedsn3 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:09 am

Thanks Kelly. Those tender trucks are huge. I wonder what they came off of?

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:02 pm

nedsn3 wrote:

Thanks Kelly. Those tender trucks are huge. I wonder what they came off of?

I'm not sure those tender trucks are that big, at least not for something like a freight car built after 1890 or so.

What you have is a pretty small locomotive and tender!!

Really, visiting the B&O Museum, I am still astounded at how small some of the equipment was and is. It's amazing we conquered prairies, deserts, and the Rocky Mountains with machines not much larger than this--and with link and pin couplers and no air to boot.

Those old timers must have been made of iron, like their locomotives.

nedsn3 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:09 pm

You're right, but for certain it beat riding in a Conestoga wagon!

KevinM · **Posted:** Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:29 am

FWIW, this is what the 25 looks like today....

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/739078/

It's a bit of a shock to the system, if you haven't seen it in a while.

/Kevin Madore

Kelly Anderson · **Joined:** Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:52 am **Posts:** 2477

PaulWWoodring · **Posted:** Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:01 pm

Restoring any railroad artifact to operating condition is going to require updating critical components in ways that change it permanently, period. It's really a matter of deciding if making those changes to operate it are worth that destruction of original fabric, or if it is so significant in it's original condition that those experts who control it decide that doing so would be the worse outcome. I believe it's been decided by the Smithsonian that they are not going to try and bring the John Bull back to operating condition again because of the modifications that would be needed to make doing so safe, so we will have to be satisfied with the imagery from the 1981 operation. And that is perfectly fine. The vast majority of those riding to pay the bills for operating a steam locomotive today would like to take their ride and get home the same day, and not watch the Sun rise over a freight yard a long way from home after having been stuck on a train overnight because something happened. I was on a trip like that as a child, back in the 1960's. It brought to mind the plight of another group of passengers on a "three hour tour". It wasn't the sponsoring group's fault, it was a freight derailment between us and home, but I'm sure a lot of people on that trip said "never again".

Robby Peartree · **Joined:** Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:16 am **Posts:** 767

Kelly Anderson wrote:

EJ Berry wrote:

Actually B&O Museum kept 4-4-0 26 William Mason in 1856 condition for decades to keep it authentic. It did get a steel boiler in 1926 (mandated), but no air brakes, no injector, no electric headlight. It was in that condition for the filming of The Great Locomotive Chase in 1956.

It's my understanding that William Mason's original boiler was not a wagon top design. The current boiler was built by apprentices and it shows. The barrel is riveted together with a substantial hump built in. The first course slopes down toward the smokebox, and the wrapper slopes down toward the backhead. In 1998, we "adjusted" the thickness of the insulation to make it appear straight.

Mason got an injector in the 1926 rebuild. You can see the steam line coming out of the side of the done, and the delivery entering the barrel just above the check valve from the crosshead pump.

Mason never did get an air compressor. We did add air brakes, but with air supplied from a following car. One improvement from the 1998 overhaul, he now has an accurate reproduction of a Mason pilot, which the 1926 version definitely was not. The pilot was the last project built by my friend Ed Peters before his death from aggressive cancer about two months later at age 36, something to consider when prioritizing complaints about invisible minutiae in good faith restorations.

I assume that the tender was cobbled together in 1926 as well. Those ginormous trucks just don't fit. IIRC, you have to step down from the tender deck to the footplate.

So Robby, bitch about the Mason if you want to bitch about something, for what the B&O did in 1926, and for what SRC did in 1998 to meet the wishes of the movie company, with the full blessing of the B&O Museum. CRRM and SRC don't deserve your ridicule for the restoration of #20. We did the best job possible consistent with safe operation, and there are way worse examples out there.

Attachment:

86466284_2575720042711617_5363043349466972160_n.jpg

From Google

Attachment:

C0228957-William_Mason_locomotive.jpg

From Google

Dear Mr Anderson
I still stand behind the statement that the Colorado Railroad Museum did a great job of converting an artifact into a replica. I also recognize that Mr. Taylor was not there when the decision was made to return #20 to operation. I do recognize that there were several individuals involved in the decision-making process. The fact remains that this “restoration process” destroyed the poor condition of the RGS 20 which was a great tribute to the poor financial condition the RGS found itself in at the end of its existence. The Colorado Railroad Museum web site states their mission as “The mission of the Colorado Railroad Museum is to preserve and convey the rich history of railroading in the Rocky Mountain region through acquisition, research, exhibition, and education.”

Nowhere in this mission statement does it say everything has to operate to be preserved. Further if that is the standard to determine if something is preserved then they are not preserving any of the standard gauge equipment they own because it does not operate.
Further in many places where equipment operates the repair and operating procedures are not always similar to the ones from the past. Then you are not only altering the artifact by wearing it out but you are also not taking the opportunity to preserve the maintenance techniques no matter how outdated they are by today’s standards.

The RGS, Rio Grande, B&O, UP, and other railroads were not are not in the preservation business. They bought equipment, made improvements to it and latter disposed of the equipment when it became obsolete to their needs. Given the B&O in 1926 was working on self-promotion of their business, why use them as an example of preservation? Further have we not advanced anywhere in railroad preservation since 1926?

Robby Peartree

Chris Salmonson · **Posted:** Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:25 pm

This is a very interesting discussion. Given the points from earlier comments, the above photo is of two 41 year old artifacts. These two steam locomotives were built to run at a specific location. Amazingly they currently hold the same assignment that they were designed for! You can't ask for any better artifacts, could you?

photo credit: Brian W. Schaller

David Dewey · **Posted:** Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:10 pm

Ah yes, but 40 years ago they were built to burn oil. They have been modified to now burn wood and coal, which is what the original engines burned that they were patterned after--so even these "artifacts" have been modified.

Frisco1522 · **Posted:** Sat Jun 13, 2020 11:49 pm

I agree with the arguing. Give it a rest.
In restoring 1522, I counted parts on the engine from 12 different engines with their number stamped on the pieces.
I would think that in steam shop days/operation, it would be like a transmission shop that I worked in back in the 50s. They had rebuilt transmissions on the shelf and if you took your car in, they would just replace it outright rather than overhaul it at that time. I'm sure the RRs did the same thing.
Parts of our booster engine were from 4003, a USRA light mike, the eccentric cranks were from the 1527 as examples. The pistons and piston rods came out of the 1501 on display at Rolla, MO.
So much for the original fabric.
Put the pole vault away.