Randy - I believe that "Q" addressed that issue by rebuilding all of the "Colorado's". The B&LE 2-10-4's were actually copies of the CB&Q engines, and probably as originally built.

Les

Keep in mind that the Chinese engines aren't exactly new anymore either. The QJs are all well into their 30s at least, and any that might still be available in China probably haven't turned a wheel in a decade or more. Even the youngest SY is older now than the oldest Pennsy T1 or NYC Niagara ever got to be. The only real advantage is the availability of parts from China, but I imagine that supply will be drying up in the not-too-distant future too.

For some reason I remember 643 being built, or rebuilt, with lighter alloy rods to cut down on the augment. That would still leave the axle load high, but make the engine tractable at 'excursion speed'. I suspect the treatment given T&P 610 might be useful to consider if not.

If i remember correctly, CB&Q 2-10-2s were built with some of te balance carried in bobweights inside the frame. That might be difficult to arrange on an engine with roller bearings or cannon boxes, but it remains a background possibility.

We could always form an organization to build a Woodard central machinery support 2-12-6 ;-}

The Santa Fe last Texas units routinely ran at 70 MPH and also were used in WW2 on troop trains with no ill effects on track. They were well balanced and also powerful. If any Texas type gets restored one of these should get restored.

About five years ago I was working on a proposed operation with a client (unnamed) to operate a restored steam locomotive over a Class 1 branch - not a main line - (unnamed) and was called to corporate HQ to discuss the concept with an executive VP.

Said VP didn't love the idea, but his boss did - but he had a personal pink purple passion against steam locomotives as they were 'known to damage the track' with slipping and dynamic augment', and there was no way he was going to allow steam. you could do a diesel, but not steam. Which was a complete non-starter for the client.

And it was one of those 'don't confuse me with facts' meetings, he wasn't necessarily wrong, but it really didn't apply to that particular locomotive, and the track was all welded rail and in excellent condition.... The fact that movies and TV shows always show steam locomotive wheels spinning around sure didn't help, as well as the slipping videos out there. And that was the end of that one.

And yeah, there's plenty of engine burns out there from diesels, see them all the time. But what research I have done on the dynamic augment issues is particularly bad on a handful of locomotive classes, and in direct physics relationship to particular speed ranges.

So the moral is - you best be prepared if and when something like this comes up if you ever get the opportunity, using any factual data you can demonstrate. I've had two cases where the accusation of potential track damage from steam thoroughly buried a concept of working with a particular railroad.

That is a real shame that occurred. With that being said, dynamic augment could be corrected if the will and the funds were there in the case of the 940. As far as the 982 is concerned, her main drivers were cross balanced and she was used in passenger service on more than one occasion powered the Argonaut, a train which ran between Houston and San Antonio. We have the paperwork to prove it.

Kenneth Cotton

President

Texas Railway Preservation Asociation