Can any of us think of
> two individual steam locomotives that have
> had a comparible impact on world history?

I know there are steam ecamples, but I keep coming up with diesel ones. The FT #103 changed the face of railroading around the world, not just here, by proving many long held beliefs about the inabilities of diesel power wrong. Do you honestly believe that railroads around the world didn't notice when she traveled the country to prove her self? To me, the EMD demostrators for the F3, F7, and GP7 should be put on that plane as well.

TJ

tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

Everything at Rainhill Trials.

Stourbridge Lion.

Now getting down to this country:

Tom Thumb.

Best Friend.

The Norris.

General and Texas.

Jupiter and 119.

999.

614T.

dave



irondave@bellsouth.net

Thanks, Dave-

I would add steam-wise:

The "Four Aces" (Timken-rollers)

Big Boy (largest steam)

Dreyfuss Hudson (or any steamlined steam)

844 (only steam not retired)

4449 (AFT)

Others?

> Everything at Rainhill Trials.

> Stourbridge Lion.

> Now getting down to this country:

> Tom Thumb.

> Best Friend.

> The Norris.

> General and Texas.

> Jupiter and 119.

> 999.

> 614T.

> dave


tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

Seeing how this is a collection of National Treasures ... to back up a collection of the golden spike stuff for the transcontinental you would have the Twentieth Century Limited train (pulled by a Niagara) and one of the premier Zephyrs. These would be from the era when everybody who was anybody was riding ... of course none of this stuff ever had any impact of either the history of transportation or of the country, just common everyday stuff ...nuts and bolts.

lamontdc@adelphia.net

> Does anyone know why the Smithsonian didn't
> save more steam? Were there any efforts by
> them to do so?

Well, possibly part of the reason is right up there in Baltimore. The B&O Museum has a far more extensive collection than the Smithsonian could ever hope to have.

Some years back when John Hankey was fairly new to the B&O Museum the B&OHS Sentinel printed an address he made concerning the state of the museum's collection and specifically addressing the operating question. The gist of it was that the various replicas and other locomotives which have been mostly kept operational would be allowed to continue operating precisely because the issue of preserving original fabric was, by now, moot. From what I've seen they've largely stuck to this principle. That said, none of their "recent" steam is operable, so many of the issues discussed here aren't entirely applicable.



whitby@SPAMLESSerols.com

Actually, Langley's "aerodromme" was catapulted from its houseboat and went directly into the Potomac without really flying. I'll refer you to the many publications about the 100th anniversary of flight for the details of the events.


Electric City Trolley Museum Association

> Actually, Langley's "aerodromme"
> was catapulted from its houseboat and went
> directly into the Potomac without really
> flying. I'll refer you to the many
> publications about the 100th anniversary of
> flight for the details of the events.

To me the most interesting "version" is the Curtiss rebuild of Langleys whatever and the vehemence of OW&WW against it. If it was such a dud why didn't they want a fair trial ??? I know they were sure the trial would have been finagled to make use of "modern" improvements but that could have been easily monitored ?????


lamontdc@adelphia.net

That is correct, the man-carrying version did. But, he built three smaller "proof of concept" models, of which #3 flew for some distance down the Potomac.

All three of the proof of concept models were steam powered, while the full size aerodromme was powered by a petrol engine. It was later rebuilt, fitted with floats, and flown by Glenn Curtiss; hence the basis of the claim that Langley was the "first to fly."

To the best of my knowledge, the Smithsonian has both the rebuilt full-size aerodromme and the Aerodromme #3 model.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

> Actually, Langley's "aerodromme"
> was catapulted from its houseboat and went
> directly into the Potomac without really
> flying. I'll refer you to the many
> publications about the 100th anniversary of
> flight for the details of the events.


Surviving World Steam Project
james@survivingworldsteam.com

The problem behind the Curtiss rebuild was that Glenn Curtiss was using it as part of his defense in a lawsuit over wing warping technology as a means of directional control with the Wright Bros. That, plus the fact that Glenn was able to fly the aerodromme with much modification supposively provided that Langley "flew" before the Wright Bros.; even though his aerodromme snagged a cable on the houseboat and went down immediately after launching.

Along with the wing floats (to allow it take off from the water instead of using the catapult), Curtiss fitted different propellers and added extensive dihedral to the aerodromme's wings to make it flyable. It was indeed capable of flight after that, but it was not the same plane Langley tried to fly by that point, but a modified example.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:2a

> To me the most interesting
> "version" is the Curtiss rebuild
> of Langleys whatever and the vehemence of
> OW&WW against it. If it was such a dud
> why didn't they want a fair trial ??? I know
> they were sure the trial would have been
> finagled to make use of "modern"
> improvements but that could have been easily
> monitored ?????


Surviving World Steam Project
james@survivingworldsteam.com