Okay, back onto the restoration versus preservation question again. This time let's discuss one certain locomotive: USATC S-160 #611.

This locomotive (well, what is left of it) was acquired by TVRM from the Texas State RR by trade a few years ago. This locomotive is in a serious state of disrepair. Not much of the original fabric is left. Basically, it is a boiler shell on a frame. It still has all of its drivers but no lead truck. Some of the rods are missing as is all of the jewelry, including bell and headlight.

So, what should be done with this locomotive? Put it on display as is? To do that would not be representative of how it looked in service. To either restore to operation or display will require the installation of a lot of replacement parts. If it is restored for display, how would you classify it? Replica? Original with lots of replicated parts?

We'd really like to make this locomotive operational. It would then be an operating example of a locomotive with rotary cam poppet valve gear. But it will take lots of time and money.

I don't want to start another war, I just thought this might make for some interesting discussion.

aw90h@cs.com

> Okay, back onto the restoration versus
> preservation question again. This time let's
> discuss one certain locomotive: USATC S-160
> #611.

> This locomotive (well, what is left of it)
> was acquired by TVRM from the Texas State RR
> by trade a few years ago. This locomotive is
> in a serious state of disrepair. Not much of
> the original fabric is left. Basically, it
> is a boiler shell on a frame. It still has
> all of its drivers but no lead truck. Some
> of the rods are missing as is all of the
> jewelry, including bell and headlight.

> So, what should be done with this
> locomotive? Put it on display as is? To do
> that would not be representative of how it
> looked in service. To either restore to
> operation or display will require the
> installation of a lot of replacement parts.
> If it is restored for display, how would you
> classify it? Replica? Original with lots of
> replicated parts?

> We'd really like to make this locomotive
> operational. It would then be an operating
> example of a locomotive with rotary cam
> poppet valve gear. But it will take lots of
> time and money.

> I don't want to start another war, I just
> thought this might make for some interesting
> discussion.
Restore it for operation ? A nice idea but expensive. Would the money be better used elsewhere? If restored for display locomotives with major parts missing should be titled as restored to an appearance similar to what they were like. The term restoration is used to loosely. Anybody want to start a new thread about that!


2rivers@upstel.net

On the basis of what you've said, sounds like a prime candidate for operation, IF it can be affordably restored to operation. Basically, it's modern, relatively low-mileage, atypical of American steam, and can be "used up" without guilt, if you catch my drift.

Is it worth restoring? Only you can evaluate how important having operating steam is to your operation. This is one of those cases where you make a decision based on economic return on investment, not emotions.

BTW, I think there's a sister poppet USATC in the dead line at Cass Scenic. #614?

lner4472@bcpl.net

While the Army engine 611 would be an interesting example of a unique engine, it doesn't relate that much to your area, so I would spend the money and efforts getting more regional engines up and running like the 630 and 4501, before plowing any good cash into the USA 611. Also you have that CN pacific, and the K&T 10 I believe. Even that K&T 10 is more homegrown for your historical types in the area. I guess my point is considering the amount of steam operating at one time, you list of other candidates seems longer to get through before considering what appears to be a basket-case.

Maybe you could comsmetically restore it until there is a reason to operate it, if you need a display engine!!!
Just some thoughts, but I would personally rather see 630 and 4501 run first. You already have one Army engine (610 running).
By the way I saw these at Fort Eustis,VA in 1960 but they were not running. I think 611 was the last one they ever used wasn't it?

Videos and such
sales@gregschollvideo.com

TVRM is not currently contemplating doing anything with the #611. It just happened that several of us were out looking at the remains yesterday and we began discussing the restoration vs. preservation question for this locomotive. I offered this post to gather other opinions.

USATC #612 is indeed at Cass but it is not a poppet valve locomotive.

aw90h@cs.com

How did it get into such rotten condition to begin with? It should have been retired in fairly good condition.

glueck@saturn.caps.maine.edu

Mark:

I think this would be a great engine to restore at some point. At least as far as its steam distribution system (rotary cam poppet valves), it represents the pinacle of U.S. steam development. I don't think there are any other Franklin R-C valve engines left, and only one Franklin O-C (oscillating cam) poppet valve engine left, the C&O 490.

As far as the engine being "original" after restoration- I remember Bill Purdie pointing out that one of his engines (#630 I think) might still contain one original boiler course and one driver center. Odds are that practically everything on an engine would have been replaced over ~70 years of service. The 611s not quite that old, but the principle's the same. Just for comparison, the International Association of Transportation Museums requires that a restored aircraft contain at least 75% of the original parts to be qualified as "original" (this comes from the webpage for a group in Reading, Pennsylvania who's restoring a WWII P-61 "Black Widow"). If you take it on the basis of weight, I'll bet you've got at least 75% of the 611 already sitting there.

Based on what I've read about poppet valve engines, I'd sure love to hear the 611 with the throttle out to the peg and the valves hooked up just once!

Good Steaming,
Hugh Odom

> Okay, back onto the restoration versus
> preservation question again. This time let's
> discuss one certain locomotive: USATC S-160
> #611.

> This locomotive (well, what is left of it)
> was acquired by TVRM from the Texas State RR
> by trade a few years ago. This locomotive is
> in a serious state of disrepair. Not much of
> the original fabric is left. Basically, it
> is a boiler shell on a frame. It still has
> all of its drivers but no lead truck. Some
> of the rods are missing as is all of the
> jewelry, including bell and headlight.

> So, what should be done with this
> locomotive? Put it on display as is? To do
> that would not be representative of how it
> looked in service. To either restore to
> operation or display will require the
> installation of a lot of replacement parts.
> If it is restored for display, how would you
> classify it? Replica? Original with lots of
> replicated parts?

> We'd really like to make this locomotive
> operational. It would then be an operating
> example of a locomotive with rotary cam
> poppet valve gear. But it will take lots of
> time and money.

> I don't want to start another war, I just
> thought this might make for some interesting
> discussion.


the Ultimate Steam Page
whodom@awod.com

It's worth noting that the 611 is the last extant steam locomotive that saw revenue service on the Maryland & Pennsylvania RR. The Army sent it(then numbered 2628)up there in the early 1950s for testing the rotary valve gear, and it made a number of revenue trips in freight and mixed train service before returning to Ft. Eustis. If the missing parts have actually been destroyed and aren't just lying around somewhere in Texas or elsewhere, replacements can likely be found in Eastern Europe or Greece, which still have some S160s in scrap yards (Poland was blowing them up with unused Cold War munitions a few years ago, rather than using expensive acetylene).

The Ma & Pa group has concentrated mainly on improving their track and restoring the historic buildings at Muddy Creek Forks and have done well at repressing the urge to play with trains first and repair things later. Eventually, though, it would be nice to see steam running there, and the 611 is historically proper for the job.

bobyar2001@yahoo.com

The Texas State RR bought it with the intention of restoring it to operational condition themselves. Upon receiving the engine, they realized to their disappointment that it was just a hulk, and it sat in their yard for quite some time before the trade.

Another thought about this particular engine is that as an S-160, it would one of those that is well represented in preservation; hence there should be not regret in using other parts to restore it. The unique thing about is the poppet valve gear; and it could not be appreciated just sitting there, even with a sign explaining it. Far better would be to either restore to the entire engine to operating condition; or remove just the chassis, and have the wheels and valve gear turned by an electric motor in an indoor display, where the method whereby it works can be fully understood.

I have 43 S-160s listed to date worldwide, so there are indeed lots of parts sources around. Furthermore, the British have once again showed us how it should be done by importing seven S-160s from around the world, including an S-160 from China. (It was one of the few remaining KD6 class engines in that country.) All but three of the seven S-160s in the UK are operational, and former KD6 463 (US Army 8856) is currently under restoration.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

Surviving World Steam Locomotives
james1@pernet.net

> ... Furthermore, the British have once
> again showed us how it should be done by
> importing seven S-160s from around the
> world, including an S-160 from China. (It
> was one of the few remaining KD6 class
> engines in that country.) All but three of
> the seven S-160s in the UK are operational,
> and former KD6 463 (US Army 8856) is
> currently under restoration.

How about this:

When the Chinese acquired the S-160s, they made major modifications to them (as with other engines they imported.) These included an all-weather cab, and moving the accessories to other locations on the boiler.

Should the Llangollen Railway (who acquired the engine) remove all of the changes made by the Chinese, and restore it back to USATC condition, or restore it as a Chinese KD6? As a US Army S-160, it would connect better with visitors, since the S-160 was widely used on the islands during WWII. But, I have only one other KD6 engine in the database that may still exist (at an open pit mine, Pingyuan (near Chifeng), Liaoning Province, China), so perhaps it would be more appropiate to restore it as a Chinese engine, complete with Chinese markings. But could you here the remarks about "what is a Chinese locomotive doing here in museum in the UK?"

Furthermore, as an American-built Chinese-operated engine, shouldn't it then be purged from their collection of mostly British-built engines since it does not fit their guidelines? Perhaps they should then send it here instead, or export it back to China?!?!

My guess is rather than blow about so much hot air arguing about all of this, they will restore it and operate it as working S-160 #8 without a care in the world; while we waste electrons discussing all of this.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

Surviving World Steam Locomotives
james1@pernet.net

Hugh's comments about the poppet-valve engine is reason enough to consider this a candidate for restoration....since it is unique.
The engine should represent what it was....an engine for the army personel to train on!
Greg Scholl

Videos and such
sales@gregschollvideo.com

You raise several good points here. Recently retired steam locomotives in eastern Europe and China will not have deteriorated as much due to scale and acidic corrosion. A USATC 2-8-0 imported strictly for parts is likely to be the best and most economical way of restoring a rarity. My guess is that in such countries, there are still strings of steam locomotives lined up to await fate, as they were in this country 40 years ago.
Question: I is the importation of retired Chinese or Eastern European steam prohibitively expensive? If the boilers and pressure systems are up to US standards, it would seem like an effective way to restore steam operations to branch line rails. We all grouse about the expense of restoring historically accurate locomotives to service, yet many money making operations are presenting summertime steam to the general public using German dock locomotives! An ex-USA Consolidation will be easy to "Americanize", and let's face it, an all-weather cab isn't such a bad thing either!
I tend to think of myself as a "steam-purist", but in places where the historically accurate locomotives are extinct, I can live with a retrofit.


glueck@saturn.caps.maine.edu

> You raise several good points here. Recently
> retired steam locomotives in eastern Europe
> and China will not have deteriorated as much
> due to scale and acidic corrosion. A USATC
> 2-8-0 imported strictly for parts is likely
> to be the best and most economical way of
> restoring a rarity. My guess is that in such
> countries, there are still strings of steam
> locomotives lined up to await fate, as they
> were in this country 40 years ago.
> Question: I is the importation of retired
> Chinese or Eastern European steam
> prohibitively expensive? If the boilers and
> pressure systems are up to US standards, it
> would seem like an effective way to restore
> steam operations to branch line rails. We
> all grouse about the expense of restoring
> historically accurate locomotives to
> service, yet many money making operations
> are presenting summertime steam to the
> general public using German dock
> locomotives! An ex-USA Consolidation will be
> easy to "Americanize", and let's
> face it, an all-weather cab isn't such a bad
> thing either!
> I tend to think of myself as a
> "steam-purist", but in places
> where the historically accurate locomotives
> are extinct, I can live with a retrofit.

I am afraid I can't answer your question. But what I can tell you is that there is a lot of US-built steam overseas, many of them sole examples, much of it also in danger of scrapping.

Best example are the "Skyliner" 2-10-0s built by Vulcan Iron Works for export to Turkey. According to the latest information I have, there are 8 remaining in Turkey. Two are in museums, one was in use for pulling tourists specials until recently, the others were listed as "stored awaiting scrap". While other members of the class were built by European builders, there are no other engines like them in the USA or elsewhere.

There were two Dickson-built 0-4-2Ts that were photographed derelict on the island of Java in Indonesia by Colin Garratt. According to those who visit the island every year they are gone now, along with a standard guage English-built 0-4-2 engine. (Realize that the Japanese re-guaged the entire PJKA to 3ft 6in in World War II, meaning that engine had been derelict for decades!)

Of course, if the Age of Steam Museum in Dallas or the Transportation Museum in Galveston should have an opportunity to obtain such an engine, such they turn it down because it does not fit their collection plans? My final point is that while we call for databases, argue over what is "preservation", and should this museum or that museum should have "Ole 952", there is plenty of endangered steam out there needing preservation. Why are we fighting over all of these, and not reaching beyond our borders to save examples overseas?

Here, the UK's track record is not any better than ours. The entire Ghana railway network looked like a typical Victorian railway, down to the stations and rolling stock; yet no attempt was made to save it, and it was all scrapped. Nearly the entire class of B50 2-4-0 engines built by Sharp Stewart in 1884 survived in Indonesia until the 1980s; yet not one example was exported to the UK, and only one example remains now.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

Surviving World Steam Locomotives
james1@pernet.net

Here's an iidea you might consider - since a lot of 611 isn't anymore, why not use her as a test bed for modernizing a steam locomotive for tourist railroad use and see how the use of such improvements as lightweight rods, Lempor exhaust, roller bearings, etc. can decrease the cost of keeping steam running?

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> How about this:

> When the Chinese acquired the S-160s, they
> made major modifications to them (as with
> other engines they imported.) These included
> an all-weather cab, and moving the
> accessories to other locations on the
> boiler.

> Should the Llangollen Railway (who acquired
> the engine) remove all of the changes made
> by the Chinese, and restore it back to USATC
> condition, or restore it as a Chinese KD6?
> As a US Army S-160, it would connect better
> with visitors, since the S-160 was widely
> used on the islands during WWII. But, I have
> only one other KD6 engine in the database
> that may still exist (at an open pit mine,
> Pingyuan (near Chifeng), Liaoning Province,
> China), so perhaps it would be more
> appropiate to restore it as a Chinese
> engine, complete with Chinese markings. But
> could you here the remarks about "what
> is a Chinese locomotive doing here in museum
> in the UK?"

> Furthermore, as an American-built
> Chinese-operated engine, shouldn't it then
> be purged from their collection of mostly
> British-built engines since it does not fit
> their guidelines? Perhaps they should then
> send it here instead, or export it back to
> China?!?!

> My guess is rather than blow about so much
> hot air arguing about all of this, they will
> restore it and operate it as working S-160
> #8 without a care in the world; while we
> waste electrons discussing all of this.

> -James Hefner
> Hebrews 10:20a

Gents:

Waste electrons indeed! For all the wrangling this board has had on the operate/preserve/(and God forbid-scrap)issue there are some straightforward observations to be made.

First: Every locomotive bears some historic value, if not now, then in 10, 20 or 50 years. Even the Chinese built 2-8-2's have historic value. If I build an engine tommorrow, it will have historic value.

Second: Nobody is building new engines (leastwise nothing really applicable to American practice. Hence everything out there, no matter how deplorable a hulk (even the poor engine in Lynchburg), has immense value. It takes an immense industrial infrastructure to cast new frames, roll new boiler shells, and forge new rods etc, etc. Except for boiler shells over 100 years old and components that must be condemmed, all of those engines have the potential to run again. This will take money, but everything takes money.

Third: To explain the function of industrial machinery without being able to operate it is very difficult. I am a fan of letterpress printing and the machinery out there is fast disappearing, along with the knowledge base to operate it. I know I can wow a visitor by running my (okay, my employer's)1923 built American Type Foundry Kelly #2 than standing by and telling him what it does. If I expect the machine to continue, I know it will eventually need to be overhauled, with new bushings, parts and so on. If the press is laid up in inoperative condition, it will be nearly impossible for somebody with limited knowledge to put it back into operation.

Could you explain vintage computers (such as any 8086 chip machine) without turning it on and letting people see what it does? How could they know how arcane DOS was (and in 50 years Windows might be) without seeing it? Operation must be considered part of interpreting an object. If it happens that we find ourselves with the last of everything then maybe we missed that boat in not building other examples that are not laden with so much historical baggage.

Which raises the final question. What happened that more engines were not imported (or imported even now) for China, or anywhere else? If this won't happen, then perhaps people need to settle down and devise a good solid design for a 4-6-0 or 2-8-0 for modern operation. If five or ten of these engines are built, the cost of production would be far less than for a one off design. This is a project where the buyers would be financing with a ten or fifteen year equipment trust, nothing to terribly exotic for buying a million dollar (or so)machine. If nothing else, the sales of appliances (injector and air compressors)would make such an effort worthwhile.

Comments?

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT


mikefrommontana@juno.com