> My fondest riding memory of that engine was
> riding the one-way trip from Cumberland to
> Pittsburgh, and how we almost stalled
> several times on Sand Patch. Also the
> helicopter from Sunday Rivers was killing
> all the audio of the guys with sound
> recorders on the train.

> I don't have any way to scan the slides for
> internet at this time. Maybe someday I will
> get the films transfered, but I doubt there
> is a large market for 2101 these days.
> Greg Scholl

I was eight years old when I rode behind the 2101 in 1977 for the Chessie Steam special over the W&P subdivision of the B&O. Definitely my first mainline steam excursion and I've never, ever found footage of the CSS on that route. There was a helicopter pacing that trip too, so somebody has to have footage, but I've never found it. I rode from Washington, PA to where I believe is Benwood, WV just outside of Wheeling, WV.

Anyone have any leads on any CSS footage on the B&O's W&P? The 2101 definitely had a large impact on me being a railfan.

JimE

Steam locos at the Reading & Northern open house
jrevans@accusort.com

> I was eight years old when I rode behind the
> 2101 in 1977 for the Chessie Steam special
> over the W&P subdivision of the B&O.
> Definitely my first mainline steam excursion
> and I've never, ever found footage of the
> CSS on that route. There was a helicopter
> pacing that trip too, so somebody has to
> have footage, but I've never found it. I
> rode from Washington, PA to where I believe
> is Benwood, WV just outside of Wheeling, WV.

> Anyone have any leads on any CSS footage on
> the B&O's W&P? The 2101 definitely
> had a large impact on me being a railfan.

> JimE

I offer the following in VHS, in color with live sound (no helicopter stuff):

2101: PITTSBURGH
Shows Cleveland to Pittsburgh via the P&W, Pittsburgh to Rockwood via Connellsville, and Pittsburgh to Wheeling and New Martinsville via Washington. Many scenes are paced, including tough climbs up the entire length of Streets Run and the now-abandoned "Pike" along US 40.

2101: REQUIEM
Shows a last run from Huntington to Hinton in 1978, with dynamite pacing near St. Albans, the only footage in existence of her removal from the roundhouse after the fire, her dedication ceremony at the B&O Museum, plus scenes of 2100 under steam between Rook and Mingo Jct. on the W&LE in 1991.

Please e-mail me directly if interested.

Bruce Manwiller


bruceman@stargate.net

> Since it wasn't mentioned in this thread,
> No. 1, as 2101 went by during AFT days, went
> to Birmingham in early 1976 where SR worked
> it 'til May or June. It arrived in
> Chattanooga with the AFT in June looking
> rather different than it had on the
> southbound trip in mid-winter. One would
> presume the work done was more than
> cosmetic. It made for memorable images
> either way.

You are absolutely correct. I remember chasing the Freedom Train from Columbus to Cincinnati via Springfield, and #1 had a tough time with the train, and didn't seem quite right(1975).

After it left Birmingham, I chased it from Evansville to Louisville, then from Cincinnati toward Huntington. Man, she was flying along the Ohio River. She had to be doing passenger train speed at times, close to 70-75. A buddy of mine(a B&O engineer), was also chasing, and said the same thing. Only a few of us were chasing, and even fewer could keep up. What a difference some shop time makes.
Greg


Videos and DVD's
sales@gregschollvideo.com

Ted Miles wrote:
> I have read that they needed two engines because the 4449 would not fit into some of the Eastern tunnels that were part of the planned route.

How to delicately put this....

This was a red herring. In fact, somewhere along the line, a set of blueprints surfaced on which someone had clandestinely doctored the 4449's width dimension by adding 12 inches to the actual distance. I can't remember now, but it's possible that the height was altered by some amount, too.

The effect of this sleight-of-hand was to make it falsely appear to whoever saw that blueprint that 4449 was incapable of passing the normal clearance diagrams in the East. The source of this account was a railroad employee affiliated with the AFT operation, who discovered the altered diagram almost by accident. An official of one of the host railroads commented to this employee, something to the effect that "It's too bad 4449 couldn't come on our lines, but it's just SO HUGE." The employee said, "Well, it's big, but not THAT big. What are you talking about?" The RR official pulled out the diagram, pointing to the (altered) width dimension. By this time, it was too late to change any of the scheduling, so the 4449 remained barred from the East through no fault of its own.

Remember, too, that while Eastern tunnel and bridge clearances in 1976 were not as generous as they are today with the coming of double-stacks, that period was still well after the introduction of tri-level auto-rack cars, for which most Eastern railroads had already made adjustments or had operating contingency plans. This was particularly so on any main lines that were heavily used enough to make them candidates for routing a consist like the Freedom Train.

For instance, on a CSX(ex-B&O) double-track line in western Pennsylvania with multiple old tunnels, high cars could safely pass the tunnels on only one of the two tracks. If a train had to run against the flow of traffic in order to meet this condition, the dispatcher crossed it over and ran it "wrong main." Those were still the days of timetable & train order rules, so block operators had to hand up "19" orders to permit it to operate against the assigned direction. Once this occurred, it took hours to get following and opposing trains back into the normal flow--but the point is, excess dimension rolling stock *could* be accommodated.

So 4449 was not quite the behemoth that someone was portraying it to be. It appears now that between its true size and maybe some operational flexing as noted above, it could have run many if not most places in the East.

Moral of the story is the classic journalist's rule of thumb: If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.

Dan Cupper
Harrisburg, Pa.

cupper@att.net

> Ted Miles wrote:

> How to delicately put this....

> This was a red herring. In fact, somewhere
> along the line, a set of blueprints surfaced
> on which someone had clandestinely doctored
> the 4449's width dimension by adding 12
> inches to the actual distance. I can't
> remember now, but it's possible that the
> height was altered by some amount, too.

Uhm, at the risk of opening the proverbial can of slimy squigglers... why was the blueprint altered? Inquiring minds and all that.

The South Carolina Railroad Museum
mconrad@compuzone.net

> Uhm, at the risk of opening the proverbial
> can of slimy squigglers... why was the
> blueprint altered? Inquiring minds and all
> that.

Matt:

Right, we *are* talking cans of worms here. The person who viewed this document thought it was clear that someone wanted to build a case for the need for a second and allegedly smaller locomotive. The obvious question is who would benefit from such a decision and why anyone or any group would go to such lengths to make that happen. That's a can that remains to be opened, but not by me. The point is, it happened and apparently the wool was pulled over *somebody's* eyes.

Dan Cupper
Harrisburg, Pa.

cupper@att.net

To be honest I do not remember any mention of tunnel or bridge restrictions for the 4449. The restriction I was told about was under the wire of what I think would have been Penn Central in 1974 or 75. To that end the 763 which was already on hand was rejected because it was a few inches to tall. Frankly I have never bothered to look at a clearance diagram to see how much difference there is in the height of a daylight, NKP berk, and the T-1. I also have never heard of the altered diagram. That is very interesting to say the least. Honestly I am just glad the 2101 was restored to service. Fire on another set of grates is about all we can ask for in the post steam era.

Having had a little time to think about a subject I have not given much thought in the last 25 years or so I remember Don Ball telling me that it was Rowland, Bill Benson, and he who were most interested in using the 614 on the Freedom Train. At the time I did not ask if it started with the foundation investigating the 614 or if the trio did most or all of the negotiating. He said after the 4449 was picked for the main power and time was running out to get another engine ready in the east it came down to only three engines that were deemed to be available and in good enough condition to be restored in time for the beginning of the train, 614 and the two T-1`'s. The Chessie was dragging their feet and finally the only choice was one of the T-1's. I believe he told me this during the final hours of the original 614 restoration when we were both in the Hagerstown roundhouse working on 614. He was quite pleased to see the 614 so close to being returned to service.

I must admit I am amazed that so many people remember and are interested in this subject nearly 30 years later. I thought I was pretty much alone in my interest in the Freedom Train and 2101.

John

jhbohon@yahoo.com

No Message

OK - Help my memory here. I recall a photo and/or quote in ca. 1977 TRAINS that AFT 4449 and UP 844 were ferried west on the point of an Amtrak train (maybe CZ?). The details were that 4449 was returning to the Freedom train after repairs and 844 needed to ferry to an excursion, so off they went together?

Thanks.

Wesley

Steve Gilbert, correct me if I'm wrong (you have one there) but a T-1 measures 15' 5 1/2" high or thereabouts. I can't picture an 80" drivered Western engine coming in anywhere near that.

An NKP Berkshire is another story; I recall the Erie ones were tall, but how high is an NKP Berk?

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

As I recall when the 4449 left Portland heading east it was out of tram and cutting the flanges on one side of the drivers. By the time it got the train on the UP the flanges must have been at or near the condemning limit. They used a portable machine that attached to the brake beam or brake head to cut the tires and pulled the 4449 back and forth on an enginehouse track with a diesel to rotate the wheels. Meanwhile the train went on ahead behind diesels. I think this work was done at Cheyenne.

After the tires had been turned they needed to get 4449 back to the train. The 844 must have been scheduled to go the same way and it was decided to doublehead them. I am sure both organizations saw the publicity opportunity at hand. I have often wondered why the 844 was not used to pull the Freedom Train while the 4449 was being repaired. The thought had to have occured to both the railroad and the foundation. I have no recall what kind of train the two engines pulled.

John

jhbohon@yahoo.com

> This was a red herring. In fact, somewhere
> along the line, a set of blueprints surfaced
> on which someone had clandestinely doctored
> the 4449's width dimension by adding 12
> inches to the actual distance. I can't
> remember now, but it's possible that the
> height was altered by some amount, too.

From the Winter 1976 "Railfan" magazine:

" . . . things reached a crisis stage when the Penn Central notified [AFT] that due to clearance restrictions the GS4 would not be permitted to operate on their trackage . . . NKP 763 was 2" too tall to fit the PC clearance limits in electrified territory."

Questions:

a. Is a T-1 at least 2" shorter than an S2?
b. Is a GS-4 taller than an S2?
c. Did an S2 (759 or 765) ever run under Pennsy wires?

The very first Freedom Train movement was on the PRR from Alexandria to Wilmington, under wires.

I just find it hard to believe that someone with responsibility for checking clearances would be fooled by a width dimension that far off.

JAC

> As I recall when the 4449 left Portland
> heading east it was out of tram and cutting
> the flanges on one side of the drivers. By
> the time it got the train on the UP the
> flanges must have been at or near the
> condemning limit. They used a portable
> machine that attached to the brake beam or
> brake head to cut the tires and pulled the
> 4449 back and forth on an enginehouse track
> with a diesel to rotate the wheels.
> Meanwhile the train went on ahead behind
> diesels. I think this work was done at
> Cheyenne.

> After the tires had been turned they needed
> to get 4449 back to the train. The 844 must
> have been scheduled to go the same way and
> it was decided to doublehead them. I am sure
> both organizations saw the publicity
> opportunity at hand. I have often wondered
> why the 844 was not used to pull the Freedom
> Train while the 4449 was being repaired. The
> thought had to have occured to both the
> railroad and the foundation. I have no
> recall what kind of train the two engines
> pulled.

> John

The just pulled a handful of freight cars for braking power.

UP's 8444 needed to go back to Cheyenne, which was and is it's home base.

UP didn't want it's engine wandering all over the place and out of it's control, thus it never pulled the AFT.

I checked a Reading Company diagram for the class T-1. It lists 15' 5" over the stack.
2102 is probably a little shorter now, her springs are sagging.

I find it hard to believe I am looking this up 28 years after the fact but here they are.

NKP S-2 Berk: 15'8" over stack.

SP GS-4 Daylight: 16'4" over stack.

I remember old PRR engineman telling me they were not allowed to use firehooks under the wire so I think the clearance must have been pretty close. They would not have had to tell me twice.

John

jhbohon@yahoo.com