Also see NKP 765's short moves over CSX to access Cuyahoga Valley's line in Ohio the last few times the locomotive visited. I'd say change is in the air...

Shhhh.

Steamtown has heavy-duty track in good condition and would make a great place for 1309 to stretch her legs. The only operable steam at Dieseltown is the Baldwin shop switcher which is too small for trips to Moscow. Unfortunately, there is CSX and the National Park Service to deal with.

What I’m most concerned about 1309 and why I question its suitability as an excursion locomotive in the same way 765 or 611 is considered isn’t really the weight or the length, but rather 1 major factor. Well, 2 if you count speed (but I don’t see this locomotive expected to go over 30 mph anyways).

Hammer Blow.

Is a locomotive like the 1309 hard on track? I’ve heard many cases not about the C&O’s mallets specifically but just larger locomotives including mallets in general being very difficult on track. Of course it depends on a class to class basis but i would like to know what maintenance crews would have to say about a typical 2-6-6-2 mallet like this

Don't both of those locomotives have the roller bearings that CSX loves so much on every axle? Both of the groups made a big deal about that in their various videos and social media posts; Kentucky Steam Heritage even saying they had to do the tender buckeye truck swap before CSX would let them move the engine.

NPS will play ball if you follow the rules and fill out all of your paperwork. TE is more than enough for the grade and they certainly have the coaches. Covid may present a problem though. Any issue running her backwards for extended periods? Turntable is only 90 foot.

I’m sure Andy doesn’t want her near the R&N, his 2102 has a chance of hitting the iron again in 2021 and he’ll want his baby to be the center of attention (can’t blame him!).

The WMSR crew is still putting the finishing touches on 1309, and some of you are already speculating about where else it could/will/should operate? Let's all sit back and let them do their thing with 1309, and get their railroad in order.

While it's fun to speculate and have these "what if?" fantasies, I doubt the locomotive is going to Steamtown, or R&N, or even the Naugy, anytime soon. (Although I'm sure Kelly would love to host it, as would I)

And, look at the driver wheelbase and axle loadings. That thing is way easier on track than an SD40. Just because it bends in the middle, does not make it the equal of a BIG UP THING (4-6-6-4, 4-8-8-4, Turbine, DD-40X, etc).

Howard P.

Steamtown does not have any track outside of the Scranton Yard. The former DL&W (east) and D&H (north) routes out of Scranton are owned by the regional rail authority and operated by the D-L. That may sound like nitpicking, but the reality is that Steamtown can’t just go run what it wants when it wants. - Rob

But note the difference in professional discipline, and proven planning and integrity, and proper establishment of relationships and trust with CSX people, involved with the Kentucky Berkshire move. Can WMSR command that level of performance setting up to move something? If I were at CSX I might be more skeptical than not until actively convinced...

True, but the park service also pays to use that line, and I doubt that the DL is in a position to turn down revenue. Not saying it’s ever going to happen but there are a million other reasons why you’ll never see 1309 in Scranton. Permission to operate over the DL has to be on the very bottom of that list.

What was the arrangement that 765 had a few years ago? R&N 425 came to Railfest awhile back as well but was only stationary - something about not having the necessary paperwork submitted to run excursions and also wouldn’t let the NPS crew operate her (which would have been allowed).

As noted, she has a rigid driver wheelbase of only 10 feet (shorter than a lot of diesel trucks), and a maximum axle load of 62,600 lbs. (No. 5 driving axle, all others carry less). This comes from her diagram on the previous page.

She could probably fit on a 90 foot table, but it would be very tight and there'd be some overhang at each end; total wheelbase is 88 feet, 6 3/4 inches. For comparison, C&O's Alleghenys were 125 feet long but had a total wheelbase of 113 feet, which meant they could fit on a standard 115 foot turntable. How critical would be those extra 6 3/4 inches in the difference between wheelbase and turntable length?

As to running in tender first, a lot of these engines and the earlier versions of them (the design goes back to 1911) spent nearly half their lives doing just that. There were a lot of coal branches in West Virginia that ended in narrow hollows where there wasn't room to turn a locomotive, not even with a turntable.

P.S.--I got to see this engine when it was really apart, and one thing that struck me was that the main rods and eccentric rods are about 4 inches longer for the front engine than for the rear. This is to allow for the transverse equalizer that runs across the frame ahead of the lead driving axle, which ties the spring rigging for both sides of the front set of drivers to each other and connects with the longitudinal equalizer that ties the lead truck to the rest of the suspension system for the front engine. That transverse equalizer isn't needed on the rear engine, which has the two sides of its suspension system from the No. 4 driving axle to the trailing truck independent of each other. The whole lot gives the lengthy engine three point suspension.

If her wheel base is shorter than NKP Berk's she'll fit on the table. It's my understanding they safety railings need be removed for 759 to be moved.

.

To be fair... “foamers” discussing and deciding the fate of equipment is why most equipment is preserved and operating today.

We are only at a low-foam condition currently, discussing logistics. Care to up your wager to medium-foam with a 1309-2102 double header???