If u stored locomotives like doyle mcormack what would be the first 2 engines u would restore.

[Anonymous]

The restoration question raised is a good one. Museum purists say that their exhibits are restored to "original" shape so that people can appreciate and study the technology behind them. (That's why it takes forever to restore exhibits at the National Air and Space museum... the curators try to recreate the exhibited air/space craft from original parts. Or rebuild the original parts.)

I think Doyle McCormack has the right idea- it seems his aim is to restore locomotives to running condition, using original technology where possible, but adding modern equipment so that his locomotives can run on main lines to Class I standards. That makes the locomotives "walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and act like a duck". Rebuilding the shell of a GG-1 out of fiberglass and mounting the shell on a more modern electric motor might make it look like a duck, but it's still not a duck... it's a decoy.

If I had Doyle's organizational and technical ability I would be happy to own a 6900 class Southern A+B unit set... plus train (I kin dream, cain't I) as well as a Southern Mike for steaming.

Erik

[Anonymous]

The U25B prototype that was at erie was scraped about a year ago. GE needed the room and didnt feel that donating the unit was an option. The locomotive was nothing more than a shell on shop trucks. Long live the rock

[Anonymous]

Oh, yeah, an RS-18u would be good too...

LC

[guilfordrr]

Anything Pennsy would be great! My first two choices would be a GG1 and the T-1.

[Allen Jenkins]

It don't be ugly, if it ran!
The Seaboard Coast Line Motorcar #4900, built by St. Louis Car Co., ne: Seaboard Air Line #2028, of two, with #2027.
Originally built with a Winton engine, eventually rebuild with an EMD Series 567V12.
This locomotive operated in the southeast, and eventually operated Lakeland, Florida to Venice, Florida, on "The Champion," until the National Railroad Passenger Corp. took over. Sent immediatly to J-ville, and scrapped.
Low windscreen (windshield) height, made it a health hazard, as the Seaboard engineers, wished to run wide open. Scared 'em to death!
This is featuerd in the Carstens Pub. re-release of the "SCL in Florida" book, cover pic.
I'd be happy, now, with a model.

[edbenton]

I would restote a 4-6-4 Hudson of the old Santa Fe they used to run all the way across the nation on mail trains from LA to Chicago without being changed second would be a U25B demostrator one of them still exsists at the Erie locomotive plant would be nice to have one of the first Second generation deisels back on the road

[cpbloom]

If I could pick any 2 locos that were made ever, it would be....

UP 4-8-8-4 Big Boy

and ...

Class TE-1, aka as "Jawn Henry"

[Randy Stahl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

jruppert, surely you mean a Winton 201, not 501?

There is one at the Museum of Transportation in St. Louis (in a NC)

Surely the Flying Yankee is enough of a "Pioneer Zephyr" for you!

Perfectly easy to arrange to restore the Model 40 at Travel Town in the Los Angeles area.

Ask Sam Berliner about getting support to restore B&O #1 -- he likes boxcabs, and probably can gin up the necessary financial support to start the effort.

Ask Randy Stahl if you can see the engine in his S6 run. It does run, Randy, right???

Yes it runs !!!!!!!
Randy

[Anonymous]

The Model 40 might be a good first project for me!

I believe the Pioneer Zephir is cosmetically O.K. but mechanically and the interior are a long shot. It would probably take the organization of a lot of poeple to do it. The Winton 201 (sorry) by itself might be more doable and could then be a "first stage" of a greater restoration done by other groups.

[ericsp]

I would restore a SD40T-2 and a SD45T-2 (both in SP paint).

[Overmod]

jruppert, surely you mean a Winton 201, not 501?

There is one at the Museum of Transportation in St. Louis (in a NC)

Surely the Flying Yankee is enough of a "Pioneer Zephyr" for you!

Perfectly easy to arrange to restore the Model 40 at Travel Town in the Los Angeles area.

Ask Sam Berliner about getting support to restore B&O #1 -- he likes boxcabs, and probably can gin up the necessary financial support to start the effort.

Ask Randy Stahl if you can see the engine in his S6 run. It does run, Randy, right???

[Anonymous]

I think it would be cool to restore a Winton 501 engine, or the Pioneer Zephir to running condition.

It would also be cool to restore a GE/Ingersoll Rand boxcab like B&O #1 to running condition.

An EMD Model 40 four wheeled switcher would be cool to see running.

It would also be cool to see an original inline six version of the 251 engine running.

[choochin3]

1. B&O 4-4-4 Lady Baltimore
2. B&O 4-6-4 Lord Baltimore
3. PRR 4-4-4-4 T1

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

The Pair of Baldwin sharks that are stored in Escanaba, Mi.
Randy

Good call Randy. D&H colors?

LC

Yes, their still in the original D&H colors. They are not in bad shape!!
Randy

Amazing. I remember seeing them in Sayre, PA back in the 70s...

LC

[Overmod]

Don't be sorry; I don't think a historical restoration society would take offense, either ... as long, I suppose, as you weren't proposing actually converting "their" GG1 into a prototype for one of those Tyco locomotives ;-}

Personally, I'd like to see anything of the approximate size and style running, and an actual GG1 (remotored or not, but with 'original' chassis) still more.

[Anonymous]

Thats a tough question. I'll probably have to pick an ALCo RSD-15 ( gotta love those gators ) and an ugly ALCo C-855.

[Randy Stahl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

The Pair of Baldwin sharks that are stored in Escanaba, Mi.
Randy

Good call Randy. D&H colors?

LC

Yes, their still in the original D&H colors. They are not in bad shape!!
Randy

[lonewoof]

Southern Ps4...

[Anonymous]

Overmod - sorry. I did not mean to offend any historical restoration society. I actually praise the patience and efforts they put forth. I was just looking at it from a high level point of view.

[Overmod]

It's a wee bit more complicated than that, talbanese: the articulated underframes are a primary part of the locomotive's appearance.

Of course, that didn't stop Lionel et al. from making a "GG1" that had six-wheel trucks under it, kinda like the offspring of a GG1 that mated with an EP5 ;-}

I suppose it wouldn't be difficult to measure and then gin up a pair of nose shells (fiberglass layup like boat-building, or vacuum-formed plastic sheet with underframing?) which could be put on an existing locomotive chassis -- the actual GG1 cab is certainly something that could be shoehorned into such an arrangement! -- but that wouldn't be at all the same thing to all of us that love GG1s.

"Putting the new V8 in the old Mustang" isn't quite the metaphor you want -- although I'm not denigrating it -- it's closer to what a modern rodder would do if he wanted a 'stock' body. New running gear, new motive power, completely different chassis mechanics (and modern conveniences like independent suspension!) -- but the 'classic' body style proportions preserved the same. (Or duplicated in modern panels...)

This vs. a historical restoration, where the original technologies -- or the 'look and feel' of the original technologies -- are kept, and even obsessed over. I do note that a fairly large number of otherwise-strict restorers have no qualms about converting older 6V electrical systems to 12V to make their cars more drivable, and this (I think) is a reasonable approach to a mechanical restoration of a G -- change out the electrical conversion, communications, etc., but leave the chassis design more or less as it is.

We looked fairly carefully at the methods that would be appropriate to a 'new' welded underframe for one of these locomotives. This was back in the chevron-spring era of stiff primary compliance, and most of our designs did not faithfully copy the cast-underframe configuration or dimensions, particularly as exposed to the outside. (Pony trucks would have been very different from originals, too; we were actually considering air-bolstered Pioneer IV variants) It would be possible, of course, to make 'fake' outside plates to mimic a cast underframe, truck sideframes, etc. ... to go with the made-up nose structures ... but I sort of wonder whether the effort would be morally worth it.

BTW: I thought then, and still do, that there is adequate industrial capacity to redissolve the crystallization in these underframes and restore them to at least a safe percentage of their original as-cast integrity. I never conducted careful metallurgical investigation to determine if there was sufficient cracking to allow contaminants into the frame structure on all the preserved locomotives, or whether such contaminants could be cost-effectively removed with OTS methods and materials -- but this wouldn't be hard to do, just somewhat expen$ive.

[espeefoamer]

Steam:SP cab in rear articulated AC9,PRR T1.
Diesel:Kraus Maffei cowl unit, GE U30CG wearbonnet.
Electric:GN W1,NH EP5.
I have chosen units that no longer exsist, rather than ones that are already preserved.

[wcfan4ever]

It would be two SDL39's, one in MILW colors and one in WC colors!

[wcfan4ever]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

The Pair of Baldwin sharks that are stored in Escanaba, Mi.
Randy

Good call Randy. D&H colors?

LC

Actually they are already in D&H colors. They sit in storage away from public viewing heres the picture from 5/83:

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

There's been some discussion about whether a "G" rebuilt to modern standards would still be a "G".

My own initial historic-preservation 'foam' is that as long as the exterior resembles the classic locomotive (and, to an extent, the sounds are familiar) the 'insides' could be rebuilt as needed. After all, the 'real' locomotives would have received routine upgrading (and, if rebuilt in the '70s, would have had dramatically different systems -- anyone remember those lovely blue fluorescent digital speedometers fitted to some of the Reading steel MUs?)

To a more 'sane' extent, you would retain the 22-notch controller, the paired 'legacy' traction motors, etc., and provide cosmetic 'shells' for the modern electrics -- you may confidently assume, I think, that the existing systems are not worth restoring to operable condition 'in kind.' (Personally, I see little difficulty in arranging multifrequency/multivoltage operation in such a 'restoration', as cost is the only real object...)

For sheer fun, it's not difficult to make a G capable of 1.5x the horsepower of an AEM-7 with little technical difficulty, or construct different underframing systems with the same 'look' that feature more modern suspension (while the G had extremely good running gear, it suffered (imho) dramatically from a lack of effective main-axle damping -- at least some versions originally had 'snubbers' but these were of somewhat outmoded technology and were removed in the '50s) Now, such a locomotive would almost certainly have welded underframes, and you have to start asking whether it's the experience of the locomotive at speed, not the technical precision or 'concours' accuracy of the restoration, that's important... and, I suppose, whether that is important enough to "people who will pay to see it" to cover the cost of rebuilding and operation...

Randy, I'm with you on the Sharks -- but I'm happy they've been preserved so far, and wouldn't want to even think about moving them until 100% sure they'd be preserved again in case of operational 'surprises' -- look what happened to the PAs!

However, I'd paint them in the D&H lightning-stripe scheme that *would* have been selected if the revised model had been ready in time...

I'm just a RR fan. I have no real knowledge except what I learn from this very forum and Trains Magazine. For my sake, can you just take the GG1 shell and place it on a modern electric loco? Move the cab to the middle. I do know the the GG1 had a cancer causing fluid to cool the "engine" so lets just take a modern loco and have some fun, as if I was placing a new V8 in my old mustang.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by UPTRAIN

Southern Pacific Rotary Snowplow 205. For locos: SD40-2 (ex-MP with nonm-dynamic brakes), and some ALCO, maybe a C424...some of those are still in service, but it would be neat to see some in service after their gone!

Definatly 205!
steam- Cab Forward at CRRM, last one remaning and a Lima Rotary, or a NYC Streamlined hudson ( to bad there all gone )
Deisel- To many to list..lol
electric- I would like to see a GG1 in PRR green

[Overmod]

There's been some discussion about whether a "G" rebuilt to modern standards would still be a "G".

My own initial historic-preservation 'foam' is that as long as the exterior resembles the classic locomotive (and, to an extent, the sounds are familiar) the 'insides' could be rebuilt as needed. After all, the 'real' locomotives would have received routine upgrading (and, if rebuilt in the '70s, would have had dramatically different systems -- anyone remember those lovely blue fluorescent digital speedometers fitted to some of the Reading steel MUs?)

To a more 'sane' extent, you would retain the 22-notch controller, the paired 'legacy' traction motors, etc., and provide cosmetic 'shells' for the modern electrics -- you may confidently assume, I think, that the existing systems are not worth restoring to operable condition 'in kind.' (Personally, I see little difficulty in arranging multifrequency/multivoltage operation in such a 'restoration', as cost is the only real object...)

For sheer fun, it's not difficult to make a G capable of 1.5x the horsepower of an AEM-7 with little technical difficulty, or construct different underframing systems with the same 'look' that feature more modern suspension (while the G had extremely good running gear, it suffered (imho) dramatically from a lack of effective main-axle damping -- at least some versions originally had 'snubbers' but these were of somewhat outmoded technology and were removed in the '50s) Now, such a locomotive would almost certainly have welded underframes, and you have to start asking whether it's the experience of the locomotive at speed, not the technical precision or 'concours' accuracy of the restoration, that's important... and, I suppose, whether that is important enough to "people who will pay to see it" to cover the cost of rebuilding and operation...

Randy, I'm with you on the Sharks -- but I'm happy they've been preserved so far, and wouldn't want to even think about moving them until 100% sure they'd be preserved again in case of operational 'surprises' -- look what happened to the PAs!

However, I'd paint them in the D&H lightning-stripe scheme that *would* have been selected if the revised model had been ready in time...

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by talbanese

I would love to see a GG1 ride again.

[#ditto][#ditto][#ditto][8D]... and it could be done. I'd use a fully modern control set, able to operate off any catenary... and I'd pick the 5 stripe Brunswick Green and Gold colour scheme.

I can dream, can't I?

If not that, how about an FL9? That would be pretty easy!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

The Pair of Baldwin sharks that are stored in Escanaba, Mi.
Randy

Good call Randy. D&H colors?

LC

[Randy Stahl]

The Pair of Baldwin sharks that are stored in Escanaba, Mi.
Randy