With the recent rumors of SP 4-6-0 No. 2252 going to Texas, I wonder if anyone has some photos of it as it looks today. I've never seen photos of it. Does it retain its "fire engine" pumping gear?

bobyar2001@yahoo.com

I found three photos of SP 2252 at "http://irf.railfan.net/sp2252.html"

These are the only current photos I have found of the locomotive on the web.

>With the recent rumors of SP 4-6-0 No. 2252
> going to Texas, I wonder if anyone has some
> photos of it as it looks today. I've never
> seen photos of it. Does it retain its
> "fire engine" pumping gear?


http://irf.railfan.net/sp2252.html
greggwallace@home.com

> I found three photos of SP 2252 at
> "http://irf.railfan.net/sp2252.html"

> These are the only current photos I have
> found of the locomotive on the web.

It looks as though her shelter is about to give way! Too bad her tender isn't original. She doesn't look quite right with that whaleback tender.


hubbard5004@msn.com

Many thanks for that link. Looks like it could some TLC. Too bad I don't live out there; I would love to work on it.

I found three photos of SP 2252 at
> "http://irf.railfan.net/sp2252.html"

> These are the only current photos I have
> found of the locomotive on the web.


bobyar2001@yahoo.com

Well, that's the Tender the SP put on her when placed in fire train service, so what makes it un-authentic?

I was hoping she would go to Portola or to Folsom, Texas is a Loooong ways away!
S'
David D.

djdewey@cncnet.com

> Well, that's the Tender the SP put on her
> when placed in fire train service, so what
> makes it un-authentic?

> I was hoping she would go to Portola or to
> Folsom, Texas is a Loooong ways away!
> S'
> David D.

David,

You are right that the tender is authentic SP, but it is likely not the original as built tender. It still makes for an interesting looking engine. I would like to see it leave it's park home as well.


hubbard5004@msn.com

Yes, I'm sure it's not the "as built" tender, SP swapped tenders frequently, I believe 4449 has a tender from a different GS loco. 1727 in Dunsmuir (Free the 1727!) has a nice Vanderbuilt tender, but the builder's photos show a square tender (and Vulcain cylinders too); all the late in-service pics are of a vanderbuilt job (but they don't look quite like the one that she has now either!).
The whaleback tender was probably added when the 2252 was put into fire train service. It seems quite unusual, so I'm happy that this one, at least, has been saved (so far!).
S'
David D.

djdewey@cncnet.com

A replica tender would be very easy to build. Many restored small locomotives have all new, or frame up replica "tanks". Sumter Valley 19 has a "frame up" new tender, but for the work involved, it would've been just as easy to go all new.

Smokebox

The Southern Pacific considered tenders to be seperate from the locomotives. The tenders had their own class designations, numbers, and diagram sheets.

Brian Norden

bnorden@gateway.net

> A replica tender would be very easy to
> build. Many restored small locomotives have
> all new, or frame up replica
> "tanks".

Why replace the tank at all? This engine has a lot of history with this tank and it is a good design for a fire engine. Presumably as a fire engine, she would be backing almost as much as running forward. The whale back would give the crew almost as much visibility in reverse as the boiler does in forward as well as giving a maximum supply of fuel and water space. In excursion service, where turning facilities are sometimes rare and water stops are costly, this type of tender could be an advantage. I am, however, not saying that it is the prettiest type.

ironbartom@aol.com

Bob,

I was just down looking at the 2252 a few months back, its not in that bad condition. I seem to remember the headlight being back on, and the numberboards fixed as well as a new roof over on the structure over it. The Roseville Historical Society and the Sierra Mountain Railroad Club are very protective so to speak of that engine. I will have to talk to a couple friends of mine on the inside to find out what is going on to put an end to the rumors.

-=Andrew=-


abrandon@foothill.net

Personally, I would like to see the locomotive keep its "whaleback" tender. I think it's one of two standard gauge whalebacks left, and if there is a choice, why have two identical looking locomotives?

Smokebox

> Personally, I would like to see the
> locomotive keep its "whaleback"
> tender. I think it's one of two standard
> gauge whalebacks left, and if there is a
> choice, why have two identical looking
> locomotives?

> Smokebox

The city of Grapevine has no intention of doing anything resembling a historically accurate restoration of this engine. The tender behind the 2248 is an inaccurate, modern high coal board adapted replica, (the fake waterlegs contain tool boxes). It will get either a fake diamond stack, or a poorly done brass cap, and come in Technicolor.

These engines as built had typical late 1800's rectangular waterleg tenders with low, flared out coal boards. Picture a V&T tender with a glandular condition. They were replaced prior to firetrain service by larger capacity whale back jobs circa 1910,probably about the same time they were converted from coal to oil firing.

I have seen pictures of them in some old George Abdil book called "Rails West," I believe, both ways. This class of ten wheelers carried the whalebacks(cute in a hideous sort of way) for the lions share of their service life.Plus, there is a detailed drawing of the class as built in the reprinted "1906 Locomotive Dictionary", wood cab and all.

expect the 2252 to look like an amusement park engine if and when it gets done, as they have only budgeted 120K to buy AND fix the engine.


lorija799@aol.com

I was in contact with Deam Moore of the Roseville Historical Society earlier today. The Grapevine folks contacted the city of Roseville to try and get to use the wheels off 2252 for a year while theirs was in for repairs. At some point the grapevine folks mentioned possibly buying the engine but there is a dispute over who actually owns the engine now. The city is planning on moving the engine somewhere downtown. Now the latest response from Texas is they only want to borrow the 4 little pony wheels for a year. That is the latest that he knows and that is probably a month old.

-=Andrew=-

abrandon@foothill.net

I believe the big Beebe & Clegg book on the SP had a painting of two of these 1800s on the dust jacket, in their original condition, powering a passenger train. SP did a lot of the fakery on the 2248 in the 1950s, for special events, but the Tarantula group hasn't improved it. If the 2252 does really go to Texas and ends up looking like the 2248, it's more proof that a lot of us aren't really historians, just middle-aged adolescents playing with trains.

The city of Grapevine has no intention of
> doing anything resembling a historically
> accurate restoration of this engine. The
> tender behind the 2248 is an inaccurate,
> modern high coal board adapted replica, (the
> fake waterlegs contain tool boxes). It will
> get either a fake diamond stack, or a poorly
> done brass cap, and come in Technicolor.

> These engines as built had typical late
> 1800's rectangular waterleg tenders with
> low, flared out coal boards. Picture a
> V&T tender with a glandular condition.
> They were replaced prior to firetrain
> service by larger capacity whale back jobs
> circa 1910,probably about the same time they
> were converted from coal to oil firing.

> I have seen pictures of them in some old
> George Abdil book called "Rails
> West," I believe, both ways. This class
> of ten wheelers carried the whalebacks(cute
> in a hideous sort of way) for the lions
> share of their service life.Plus, there is a
> detailed drawing of the class as built in
> the reprinted "1906 Locomotive
> Dictionary", wood cab and all.

> expect the 2252 to look like an amusement
> park engine if and when it gets done, as
> they have only budgeted 120K to buy AND fix
> the engine.


bobyar2001@yahoo.com