Gentlemen Ladies,

Two pieces of additional history for those of you whose knickers are in a knot about narrow gage diesels on the preserved lines, these are not an abomination, they represent a reasonable progression.

1 - in the 1950s the D&RGW tested both GE (USA 3000) and Whitcomb (USA 4700N) road diesels between Antonito, Durango, and Farmington. I believe 4700N was actually the last locomotive in revenue service on the Rio Grande Southern out of Silverton due to the need to bring out uranite ore after the last of their steamers had quit. While the tests may have have been intended as a distraction from the real purpose of the diesels (being there to insure that there was adequate reliable motive power available for the Atomic Energy Commission to extract the ore in the days before highways) they did show the practicality of using diesels for the remaining traffic. Had the D&RG not been permitted to discontinue the narrow gauge freight service as rapidly as they did I suspect it would have become the home to part of the DOD fleet of narrow gage power.
(Note: USA3000 ended up on the White Pass and was scrapped around 2006.)

2 - If I recall properly in its last days as a common carrier the East Broad Top considered a wholesale replacement of its steam engines with a small fleet of GE 44t diesels in both gages. Unfortunately the traffic which would have justified this did not materialize. While the M-7 is a 47t Mill engine classified as a 45t it is essentially a 44t on oversized trucks and could be considered to be a proper representation of what the next generation of power at the EBT would have been.


GME

“The railroad would have eventually run diesels” is an odd argument for adding diesels to an all-steam fleet of historic road engines.

I think that anyone with common sense can understand that this indeed a loss from a preservation and historical standpoint even if you can see both sides and understand the business decisions.

I understand that a railroad decided to extend the life of its steam locomotives while adding protect power for high fire risk days. I'm not quite sure how this is a "loss from a preservation" standpoint if it reduces needless wear and tear on the steam locomotives.

Personally, I've ridden behind those diesels dozens of times on the White Pass, and if the C&TS puts them in a good paint job, I look forward to riding behind them on their line. They are neat locomotives to me and an occasional trip with them would only add to the railroad. If you don't want to see a diesel, don't be there if they run. Steam will still be the regular power.
Bart

If they really wanted to have a "neat locomotives," they should have bought one of those shovelnose engines.

1) Nobody is making an argument that the reason to acquire internal combustion locomotives as additional power for is because the the EBT or the D&RGW would or might have gone diesel had traffic warranted. The argument is entirely economic and very similar to the economic argument which the freight carriers would have used for replacement. Operating steam locomotives wear out and need expensive maintenance. In the case of the tourist carriers being able to limit the use of the steam locomotives allows a greater return on the maintenace expense in terms of availability for use on the revenue trains.

Even though the seven Rio Grande engines which were used on the White Pass by the Army didn't stay after the war they picked up enough of the load that the the White Pass' own engines survived to be replaced by the diesels INCLUDING USA 3000 which had served on the Rio Grande.

Now having established that the reason for the diesels is economic reality, not historical fantasy, what is so bad about using diesels which are at least somewhat historically appropriate in terms of pedigree and prior service? Would you feel better about these decisions if all of the remaining RS-4-TCs were rounded up, converted to 3ft gage, and dispatched to the C&TS, the D&SNG, and the EBT (even though I don't believe USA 4700N ever operated there)?

2) While I will admit that I have never been successfully accused of having an excess of common sense, both Significant Other and my lovely grand-daughter will acknowledge (though somewhat grudgingly) that I am not totally bereft of that particular trait. You have me utterly befuddled here - How is reducing the wear and tear on the heritage equipment and making provision for a longer interval between major expenses a loss from a preservation and historical standpoint?

GME
Who happens to be older than either of the diesels tested on the D&RGW!

Look, I can see the economic sense in having the diesel for protection and work train service. That’s obvious to me.

But it seems odd that others don’t see what is being lost. Colorado narrow gauge was, until about 10 years ago, one of the few places that was truly all steam with no road power other than steam. Strasburg was also on that list until fairly recently.

Now we will be down to just Cass I think, any others I’m missing?

For the record, Strasburg has rescued and replaced failed steam with its 44-tonner long before the freight SW showed up from the Lewisburg & Buffalo Creek/UCIR. I witnessed and photographed one such rescue sometime in the mid-1980s while commuting between home in Pa. and university in Delaware--a broken spring/hanger on #90. I have a photo somewhere of Strasburg #33 pulling its departure past the lame #90 and the crew looking over the problem springs.

And the fact remains that the ONLY way to sustain an all-steam practice like this over a century or more is to either rebuild the locos repeatedly until they're as "authentic" as "George Washington's original hatchet" (seven heads and 32 handles later!), OR build all-new replacement steam in kind to the old designs, maybe modified with new welding/metallurgy/firing technology.

The historian in me doesn't want the former, and you apparently seem hell-bent on opposing the latter. And if push comes to shove, the people in charge of such operations are almost sure to pursue the latter option if at all possible.

Thank you Alexander and I will add the first rescue of a failed GG1 by the Stasburgs 44t

For the record:
The D&RGW purchased a narrow gage Davenport in 1963.
The Strasburg started its tourist operations with an internal combustion locomotive.
Cass has had diesels kicking around ever since I first heard about it as a tourist trap.

My son-in-law has a very good friend who remarried several years ago. For a number of reasons, even though it was a second wedding for both, they decided to go all out rather than making an appointment with a judge. This included the bride and her eight-year-old daughter being being delivered to the venue in a horse-drawn carriage. The bride was at the time an employee of a fairly large city and was accustomed to being addressed by her subordinates as 'Ma'am'. A cousin of hers (who was also supposed to have been the Matron of Honor) was employed by a different division the same city agency. This second lady decided that the carriage should have some proper outriders. I have no idea how much paper work or bribery was involved but on the day of the wedding a box truck and a carryall, both marked POLICE MOUNTED DIVISION, along with four young ladies properly done up in boots and britches, showed up in front of the suburban house where the bride and her daughter were staying.

I suppose that in your world, in order to be historically proper, the horses should have been ridden the thirty miles or so from the City's stables!

GME

[quote="Trainlawyer"][quote="PaulWWoodring"]I haven't heard any strong objections to the "M-7" center-cab Diesel at the EBT that kept them going for awhile, and still gets used on lighter ridership days...[/quote]
Gentlemen Ladies,

Two pieces of additional history for those of you whose knickers are in a knot about narrow gage diesels on the preserved lines, these are not an abomination, they represent a reasonable progression.

1 - in the 1950s the D&RGW tested both GE (USA 3000) and Whitcomb (USA 4700N) road diesels between Antonito, Durango, and Farmington. I believe 4700N was actually the last locomotive in revenue service on the Rio Grande Southern out of Silverton due to the need to bring out uranite ore after the last of their steamers had quit. While the tests may have have been intended as a distraction from the real purpose of the diesels (being there to insure that there was adequate reliable motive power available for the Atomic Energy Commission to extract the ore in the days before highways) they did show the practicality of using diesels for the remaining traffic. Had the D&RG not been permitted to discontinue the narrow gauge freight service as rapidly as they did I suspect it would have become the home to part of the DOD fleet of narrow gage power.
(Note: USA3000 ended up on the White Pass and was scrapped around 2006.)

A couple of points of correction........

1. The RGS never served Silverton, CO.
2. N4700 arrived on the D&RGW in 1954 with a build date of November 1953.
3. 3000 arrived on the D&RGW in 1957.
4. The Rio Grande Southern officially was abandoned on 4/24/52. Steam locomotives 42 and 461 powered the scrap trains.

So N4700 did not power any trains on the RGS, particularly out of Silverton, CO.

What everyone is forgetting is this simple fact. You can't keep pushing 100+ year old machines at full power year in year out without them wearing out to the point were the next overhaul is not going to be about refurbishing the locomotive but replacing parts that 1 are NOT MADE commercially anymore by anyone and 2 having to spend what would have been enough money to replace the locomotive with a new built one.


Having that diesel there to take off the strain of running steam all the time is going to 1 help with fuel costs. Diesel while expensive is still CHEAPER than getting steam grade coal delivered anymore. 2 you save on maintenance costs. No boiler washing no checking for loose stays tubes or loose steam fittings. The younger generation grew up with diesels not steam. There are people who would like to see them instead of steam also.

Why do you all bother with this senseless argument that is no more than an opinion? Regards, John.

I continue to assert that some of the most "authentic" old-time railroad experiences I ever had were on the Gettysburg Railroad under Sloan Cornell--passenger operations with thirdhand, worn-out equipment, passenger outings spontaneously turning into "mixed trains" by grabbing freight at the interchange, slipshod conversions of freight cars into open cars, stalled trains having to be rescued by diesels and then stalling AGAIN with the diesels, trains at above normal "safe" speeds just to make up time, etc.

We saw what happened to "authenticity" a bit later.

I used to enjoy such operations.

The bit about slipshod conversions of freight cars to open cars reminded me how much fun it was to ride in some of those. An outside-braced wooden boxcar with the upper sides cut away beat the hell out of a fusty old heavyweight coach.

An all-steam operation is a very different kind of historic than an unsafe operation in my book.