Forwarding a link from Bob Harbison to a link on another forum concerning the subject.

http://www.railroadforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11621

As noted on that linked thread 2100 did finally get to the summit of the 3.5% Tacoma grade yesterday with an aux. tender and 6 lightweight coaches and an F-40 dismal. From accounts of trackside observers the dismal was running flat out the whole way, so how much of the effort was being accomplished by the T-1 is of course impossible to determine. The good news is that unlike the November attempt (without dismal) this time they did finally get to the summit and it appears that the 2100 was able to hold a head of steam(although there's some question still on this) to the top.
There's no doubt in my mind that once they get the hang of her that she'll be able to take that small train up that hill unassisted without any problem(assuming that the Rube Goldberg firing set-up can indeed keep her hot??) and that there's a competent hogger aboard.
When the 2100 was rebuilt in 1987-89 at Hagerstown Md. Bill Benson and Dick Kughn decided to remove the booster as they felt it wasn't needed for the pssgr. service envisioned for her and it layed on the roundhouse floor until the eve of the CSX demolition when I salvaged it rather than see it scrapped. I offered it to Tom Payne and have strongly suggested to him that he reinstall it as if he decides to run a pure steam show out there he'll for sure want the booster on that 3.5% hill. The booster makes a TREMENDOUS difference in performance at speeds under 15 mph. The slower the more so. I'd guess that without the booster the 2100 will take about 250 trailing tons up that hill whereas with the booster she'll be good for about 800 tons(assuming again she can maintain a full head of steam).
The biggest challenge they're going to face is being able to generate sufficient ridership. Offering a 22 mile round trip through urban blight for $50 ain't gonna work for average non-railfans and it won't work for the railfans either with an F-40 really doing most/all of the work.
Hopefully they'll get the 2100 back in fully capable shape and let her " do her thing" on that tough pull???
Ross Rowland

Ross, All in all do you think the 2100 should have been left coal fired?
Does oil in the modern tourist era make sense, are they harder to
run? The New Hope 3028 comes to mind also. Just looking for your thoughts.

From a strictly personal preference point of view I much prefer a coal fired loco. vs. oil. I like the smells, sounds and overall atmosphere of the coal machine way way better than an oil burner.
However in todays world it's much more practical to operate an oil fired engine particularly if you're some distance from a source of good soft coal( the far west for instance) and/or your involved in a non-fixed location operation. When you include the cost of shipping the coal, getting it loaded into the tender, handling the environmentally acceptable disposal of the ashes etc., you're far better off being able to call the local oil dealer and saying ' bring me 5,000 gals. of #3 fuel oil and " fill 'er up". No crane, no ashes, no problems!! Plus on a 10,000 gal. tank of fuel oil(that will easily fit into the space of 25 tons of coal) you'll be able to go an easy 1,000 miles vs. 150/200 miles on the coal.
Unfortunatley those are todays realities. Bottom line is- better oil fired than nothing!!!
Ross Rowland

Ross,

On November 30th, 2005 you posted an message here stating "I'm not sure of the status of the 2100's booster", I seem to recall a couple more places where you said the same thing, that you did not know where the booster was.... Now you are saying "I offered it to Tom Payne".

So what is the truth? I've seen you say that you don't know where it is, now out of the blue, you act like you have it sitting in your basement collecting dust...



I hate to tell you Ross, the days of running steam excursions without diesel locomotive assistance are just about over... Class 1 railroads and even some shortlines just simply will not let any steam locomotives operate on their trackage with out an diesel locomotive added on.

And this comes from some one who knows what Tacoma Hill really looks like, you will and always will need an helper diesel along, for any major operations on that line.

If you still don't believe the 2100 was "working" while going up Tacoma Hill, try downloading this video clip from last night,
http://home.comcast.net/~stampede98371/TrainVid/F40.wmv , yeah the F40 is working also, but it sure doesn't sound like the 2100 is along for the ride, it's doing it's share also, if not more.....

-Switchman

No, Former "AMT" Commuter cars from Canada.

Hey all, take a look a the video mentioned above. Explain to a non-diesel fan, why are there sparks coming out of the diesel? Also, the voice says "shut down". Did the diesel shut down on the hill, so the 2100 was pulling all?

The 418 (The F40, being used as the helper ) has been sitting for awhile, this was it's first major *test*, so just mostly blowing out carbon. Give it a few trips up and down the hill and everytime it will blow less sparks.

No, the 418 did not shut down.

Dan

When I posted in Nov. I wasn't positive of the status of the booster. I recalled that I had saved it from being scrapped when CSX decided to demolish the Hagerstown,Md. roundhouse(1997?), but couldn't remember if we had resold it or otherwise disposed of it. I subsequently ascertained that we still had it in inventory and have since inspected it and offerred it to Mr. Payne with a strong recomendation that he reinstall it on the 2100 as it makes a TREMENDOUS difference in performance at speeds under 15mph(the slower the more so!!).
I did listen to that short tape and it sounded to me like the 2100 was not pulling very well as when the dismal crapped out the speed immediatley dropped drastically indicating(in addition to the sound) that 2100 was not providing much power. I've since learned that right after that segment the move stalled and didn't resume until the dismal was back on line. I'm told that 2100 was down to under 150 psi at that point which if true would explain both her muted sound and the quick stall.
I disagree with your analysis of no more mailine trips without dismals in the consist. A far better solution is the one we employed on the Port Jervis trips over NJTransit-NS wherein we used a 750 kva HEP generator car to supply HEP for the 24 car train and ran "ghost " engines (2 GP40's) several blocks ahead of the steam special as protect power and as pre-sanders on the tough hills. It worked just fine and gave the railroads the comfort of knowing that help was near-by if needed(we did get rescued on one of the 24 trips when a set of piston rings broke) yet allowed us to run a "steam" excursion as it should be run-with steam!! That's the way I'd like to see all mainline trips operate.
As to the Tacoma hill situation there's no doubt in my mind that once they get to know how to run the 2100 she'll take that small 6 coach train up that hill unassisted without a problem. She's got to have full pressure, good sanders and an experienced hogger to do it-but trust me the engine is more than capable of doing it every day. For heavier trains she'll need her booster. I'm sure they'll come to learn how to get her to show her stuff sooner or later.
Ross Rowland

If the F40PH "dismal" is operating properly it is fully capable of taking the six coaches up the hill alone, even with full HEP load. If the coaches are around 100,000 lbs. each, the total grade resistance for the six coaches and the diesel by themselves should be about 25,800 lbs. total on a 3% grade, or 30,100 on 3.5%. As Ross pointed out on another discussion string, if the F40PH was in notch 6 or 7, the 2100 wasn't contributing very much to the effort.

Are diesel-only operations the next step?

Pardon my ignorance but why are protection diesels referred to as "dismals"?

Please see the co614 posts. I am adopting Ross's terminology, for the F40PH, which is fine because if you call an F40PH a "screamer" (a politically incorrect term) in many railroad offices nowadays you could be reprimanded or possibly forced to attend "sensitivity" classes until it can be clinically proven that your brain has turned to mush.

I am looking forward to seeing the F40PH disguised as a canteen.

Webster's definition of "Dismal" -- "causing gloom or misery." ;-)

My definition of dismal are: 1) Chances of big steam operating in any fashion on a Class 1 "mainline" railroad east of the Mississippi anytime in the near future. 2) Chances of many railfans not bitching about the lack
of a perfect world. Too many are of the "All or Nothing" mentality. Yes
steam without diesels is what I prefer also but if it takes an F 40 in the
consist then well... 3) Me voting for Hillary Clinton (ooops its big steam
not big mouths... I keep forgetting that. Theres that "perfect" world thing
again...darn.

Hey, so just install an electric heating element run off the HEP in 2100’s boiler to make fifty pounds to toot the whistle now and then and be done with it. Better yet, drain the boiler so it doesn’t weigh so much and play a synthesized whistle. The appeal of a steam train is that it is pulled by STEAM, not fake steam.

Many who post to this forum are interested in preservation more than railfaning. We like to see the artifact preserved. If the artifact must be changed for continued service, we like to see the technology preserved. If, as in this instance, the type of fuel had to be changed, we would have liked to see a railroad design oil burner installed, not something cobbled up from stationary boiler parts. We’d also like to see it work correctly, so the general public doesn’t get the impression that the reason the railroads had to dieselize (or is it dismalize?) is that the steamers couldn’t make the grade.