Yes, 999 is pretty well known. Also two NYC 0-6-0's, one in a park in Dayton, Ohio, and one on the Whitewater Valley RR in Indiana. Also a Boston & Albany "Eddy Clock" 4-4-0 at the National Museum of Transport in St. Louis, and a 4-4-2 at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn MI. Maybe others.
But the two Mohawks are the only surviving representatives of NYC Big Steam.
(Correction: The 0-6-0 from Dayton is now in Utica, New York)
The Supreme Pickers of Nit have failed !!!
There is yet another NYC locomotive saved. It was donated by the NYC in 1962 to Chgicao's own Museum of Science & Industry ... Number 999. Preserved & displayed in the great hall, under the Stuka and the Spitfire.
54light15It seems to me that with lines made redundant and so the equipment that ran on them is now redundant, which would be junked first?
Yeah, but the vast majority of the steam fleet was already gone. Check out rosters for some of the postwar classes of steam at Wikipedia for an example (Many of the entries there for various BR steam classes include roster data showing retirement dates). Even with a lot of the newer postwar steam power, a lot left the roster in the several years leading up to the Beeching program.
For its effects on British Rail motive power, I'd say that these large scale abandonments had much more of an effect on non-standard diesels in the fleet and purchases during the later 1960's, as the reduced need for locomotives allowed retirements of diesels to be accelerated and it also allowed them to defer purchases as existing diesel power was reassigned.
I'm sure it was the final nail in the coffin for steam, but it only killed off the last few stragglers like the well received 9F class (Which I think survived intact until the Beeching cuts were in-progress). I bet even without the the Beeching cuts, 1968 would've perhaps at best ended up being 1970 instead.
Steam's fate was sealed in the mid 1950's and most of the fleet was already scrapped or waiting to be scrapped by the time these cuts arrived, with the survivors (Which still counted in the hundreds) when mass abandonments began representing just a fraction of the fleet as it existed in the late 1950's.
It seems to me that with lines made redundant and so the equipment that ran on them is now redundant, which would be junked first?
I'm just glad that routes are now being reinstated such as the Waverly route in Scotland, designed to serve a suburban area of Glasgow. I think that will cause other lines to be rebuilt. 50 years after Beeching, people are finally starting to undo the damage that caused. People in Britain don't want to drive either, it seems.
As that article also says, steam was almost gone by 1964. So I really don't see how the Beeching cuts played a huge role in the phase out of steam, which was well into the mopping up phases by the time large scale abandonments began.
If it accelerated anything to a great degree, it was the retirement of much of the early diesel fleet during the late 1960's. More than a few of which ended up dying in this very scrapyard, including at least one example that was the last of her kind but cut up just on the eve of today's diesel preservation movement since all the attention was on steam.
Friends of the Flange is a great site, very informational.
Ms. Enoch just released a new article on the Barry Scrap Yard.
http://www.friendsoftheflange.com/2015/02/the-luckiest-scrapyard-in-world.html#more
Dr D Ok let me get this straight - there is in Merry old England an individual called a "Transport Minister." Who has the power to decide that steam locomotives are to be scrapped, and said minister Ernest Marples had a professional conflict of interest - being an owner of a highway paving company! Thereby causing said railroads and steam locomotives (privately funded I assume) to diminish while govenment paid for an alternate form of transportation subsidized by the taxpayer? In the meantime enriching said Transportation minister's pockets. Doc
Ok let me get this straight - there is in Merry old England an individual called a "Transport Minister." Who has the power to decide that steam locomotives are to be scrapped, and said minister Ernest Marples had a professional conflict of interest - being an owner of a highway paving company! Thereby causing said railroads and steam locomotives (privately funded I assume) to diminish while govenment paid for an alternate form of transportation subsidized by the taxpayer? In the meantime enriching said Transportation minister's pockets.
Doc
British Railways was formed by the nationalization of the variously privately-owner railways (primarily the Big Four) in 1948.
This is the sort of thing of which Winston would say, "This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put." That's the sort of thing Winston would say.
I wish Winston was still around. He'd know what to do!
This is unacceptable in Canada! If the Queen can't straighten these things out and give moral guidance to her subjects - Well! what good is she? Sittin on her ass all the time eating tea and crumpets!
Here in the great frozen North about 20 years ago we had a new Provincial premier named Mike Harris, a former golf pro. His transport minister named Al Palladini, owned Pine Tree Ford Lincoln Mercury. A new subway was being built along Eglinton avenue in Toronto. The hole was being dug, then it was filled in. With concrete!
Such things are not done in England! Only in the United States where it is assumed every individual, corporation, and the US government, is out for himself! And there are no pinciples, values or moral compunction - and no queen to worry about! What would HER MAGESTY THINK!
Fair enough but I get a different impression from the interview Woodham gave on the DVD. When I say that steam went away all at once, I did mean 1968. There were mass redundancies as a result of the Beeching report which led to mass withdrawals of steam locomotives and freight and passenger cars. I was in Britain in 2013 on the 50th anniversary of the Beeching report and the newspapers were all discussing it, few pro, most con. Another thing being a factor was that the transport minister at the time was Ernest Marples who owned a paving company. Gotta love politics!
Everything I've read about Barry Scrapyard says otherwise.
The bulk of their steam locomotives survived out of practicality. They went for the low hanging fruit first in order to maximize storage space, saving the harder to scrap steamers for when there were lulls in rolling stock scrappings. It had nothing to do with sentimentality (Which I believe he stated more than once), although he graciously cooperated with the preservation movement as much as possible.
And steam didn't go away all at once. The decision was made in 1955 to dieselize and electrify, with that project well underway by the end of the 1950's with mass withdrawals underway. The last steam locomotive arrived in 1960 and steam was dead by 1968. A timeline not too unlike what went on in North America, if not even longer. Over here, outside of a handful of exceptions, steam died on the bulk of the network in the US and slightly later, Canada, in a span of 10 years or less from the time that the decision had been made by most of the system to dieselize.
By the time that the Beeching axe arrived in 1964 or so, the end of steam was set in stone and had been well underway for years. So I'm sure it played a role, but only a small one in the date that steam utilization came to its final end on British Rail.
Another thing to consider is that while steam gradually went away on this side of the Atlantic starting in the 1930s, main line steam went away all at once by 1968 in Britain. Also, the closing of lines after the Beeching report of 1963 made a lot of locomotives redundant. Dai Woodham, the owner of the yard had a sentimental attachment to steam and kept them to be scrapped last after cutting up hundreds of frieight cars. He was a business man, after all and preservationists paid him more for the locos than he would have got for them as scrap.
And I thought THOMAS THE TANK ENGINE was all out of someone's vivid imagination! I see he was born in the British scrap yard!
I did some lookin', here it is.
http://lostengines.railfan.net/barry.htm
I don't have to be haunted anymore.
The Good Lord really IS a steam fan!
You want to know about the Barry Scrapyard? Have a look at this:
http://railwayvideo.com/shop/product-category/barry-scrapyard/
I have one of the DVDs and a book about it. The reason there are so many preserved loomotives in Britain is because of the yard. Most are of the Great Western Railway as the Barry yard had the contract to scrap the locos when steam started to be withdrawn. Over 300 locos were sent to the yard and over 213 of them were saved.
Dr D RUN little locomotive RUN! - them greedy scrappers is after you! Doc
RUN little locomotive RUN! - them greedy scrappers is after you!
Reminds me of an article I read in "Locomotive and Railway Preservation" magazine back in the '90s about the Barry scrapyard in England where a LOT of steam locomotives ended up.
There was a photo of a steamer where someone had chalked a weeping face on the smokebox door with the words "Please don't let me die!"
Damn picture haunted me for a month afterward. I hope the engine was saved. I never got around to writing "Eleanor P." to ask.
And an AEM7 will be saved!!
NdeM6400 In a lot of cases they were also unable to legally scrap the locomotives until their trust certificates expired or were paid off. The modern day equivalent would be buying a new car on credit and running it to junk before you made the last payments. You would be unable to legally sell it to a scrapyard until you paid off the loan. Clinchfield's challenger-types survived until 1963 for this reason alone.
In a lot of cases they were also unable to legally scrap the locomotives until their trust certificates expired or were paid off. The modern day equivalent would be buying a new car on credit and running it to junk before you made the last payments. You would be unable to legally sell it to a scrapyard until you paid off the loan. Clinchfield's challenger-types survived until 1963 for this reason alone.
Norfolk & Western went through this legal fol-de-rol with its Train Masters in the early 1970's. The ex-Wabash TM's were in the 3590 series and at least two of them (3592 & 3599, IIRC) were scrapped before the equipment trusts were paid off. Ex-VGN TM's were renumbered to replace the scrapped locomotives.
[quote user="S. Connor"]
I was recently reading about the New York Central's "Mohawk" #2933, now on display in St. Louis.
According to museum reports, after the locomotive was retired, it was saved from the torch by a group of employees who somehow "Hid" the locomotive in a switching yard for 3(?) years, until the museum acquired it.
My question is how did they manage to keep such a large locomotive hidden from railroad officials? Obviously, it would have dwarfed surrounding rolling stock. What could have been done to disguise
According to the Morning Sun book, "New York Central Steam, In Color", the following may help explain the survival of the Mohawk at the Museum of Transportation at St Louis: "The 2933 now located at the Museum of Tranport, St Louis, MO was used as a temporary heating boiler at Selkirk. After serving this duty, it was hidden from view by local supervision by piling boxes around it. there you have it!
S. Connor I was recently reading about the New York Central's "Mohawk" #2933, now on display in St. Louis. According to museum reports, after the locomotive was retired, it was saved from the torch by a group of employees who somehow "Hid" the locomotive in a switching yard for 3(?) years, until the museum acquired it. My question is how did they manage to keep such a large locomotive hidden from railroad officials? Obviously, it would have dwarfed surrounding rolling stock. What could have been done to disguise it?
My question is how did they manage to keep such a large locomotive hidden from railroad officials? Obviously, it would have dwarfed surrounding rolling stock. What could have been done to disguise it?
S. ConnorMy question is how did they manage to keep such a large locomotive hidden from railroad officials? Obviously, it would have dwarfed surrounding rolling stock. What could have been done to disguise it?
My Merriam-Wedster Pocket Dictionary defines "hide" as: 1) put or remain out of sight; 2) conceal; 3) keep secret. This discussion offers an adequate sufficiency of these.
That dictionary offers a fourth definition: to turn away.
There is an old adage: "None is so blind as they who will not see". I shall now resort to the legal "tactic" of "hypothetical". After that group of employees has done their thing, the "Hypothetical Railroad Officials" silently join the effort to save. You gotta understand that they don't lie -- but, as a good Yankee is want to say: "They is a mite frugal with the truth". It helps if "hypothetically" somehow "the save" is removed from inventory. All this accomplished, both the bean counters and the board (or anyone else) has no record of "the save" and no reason to ask. All this accomplished, "the save" is as effectively hidden as if garbed in a Harry Potter cloak of invisibility.
Back to the world of reality -- anything like this might get someone fired, might get someone sued. (Think LaSalle & Bureau County boxcars). Hence, the "Official Story" of the save might seem "a mite frugal with the truth" if not outright inaccurate.
It is here that the men get seperated from the boys. The serious (and honest) railway enthusiasts (to borrow a term from the Brits) is most thankful that "the save" was accomplished, yet another piece of vital railway history being preserved for future generations. The means of the save are totally secondary and the details of those means are none of his business.
I worked at the now closed and mostly torn down Bethlehem Steel plant in Lackawanna NY from 1967 to 1983. The old-timers had many stories and photos of the mostly NYC locomotives that were scrapped at the mill. Some of these men were horrified that not one Hudson or Niagara was spared. But, my boss told me, "if it makes you feel any better, not one bell went into the furnace." I suspect this was more acting on railfan nostalgia than keeping undesirable tramp elements out of the steel.
Wizlish,
I have come to love the OX-ACETYLENE torch over the years, mostly for automotive use in burning exhaust pipes and or heating rusted bolts so they will unscrew easily.
Industrial uses of "the torch" are really quite dramatic. You talk about the oxygen lance which I personally have never seen but its industrial use is outstanding. Take the large cast steel frame of a locomotive. The OX-ACETYLENE torch cutting tip has a large pre-heat nozzle which in this case would be used to heat a small edge of a large steel casting. When the edge gets red hot and goes to orange and white the cutting lever is pressed. This jets pure oxygen into the steel and starts the burn. Cutting proceeds quickly as the oxygen reduces the steel to molton drops of metal.
At this point an OXYGEN LANCE basically a tube with jet of pure OXYGEN is blowen into the cutting steel the process accelerates and the OX-ACETYLENE torch itself can be removed or turned off. The OXYGEN LANCE will cut apart the locomotive frame by itself with no heat other than the burning steel.
I have seen pictures in industry where steel foundry workers will trim fresh cast steel castings with this tool. Cuts in steel that are 12 inches thick are easily severed.
Actually this type of process was used in war where Armor Piercing amunition creates this type of burn with a cone shaped charge and will burn right through thick tank armor. This was the WWII Bazooka rocket and the German Panzerfaust. It is the principle behind modern Tank destroyer weapons today and is defeated by ceramic armor or explosive balistic armor that explodes sending the anti tank rocket into pieces before it can burn into the tank armor.
Interesting chemical reaction of steel is the result of the steel burning process the chemical formula of which I am not immediately familiar.
Glad you identified the location of the NYC 2808 demise am wondering if the Hudson pic was the same location?
Dr. D
Dr DThere is a tool unlike any other tool called - the OX-ACETYLENE WELDING TORCH. This was developed in the early part of the 20th Century.
Just to add a bit: The oxyacetylene welding torch uses acetylene (C2H2 with a high-energy triple bond between the carbons) and oxygen to obtain a HOTTER flame, with only the amount of oxygen feed to give complete combustion of the acetylene fuel gas. You can use reducing and oxidizing portions of the torch flame, but the flame cone itself is comparatively short. The cutting torch has a different architecture - like the oxygen lance, it uses a separate high-pressure jet of oxygen that does essentially ALL THE CUTTING. No added hydrocarbon fuel is required; you could shut off the acetylene completely once the critical heating temperature (technically autoignition temperature) is reached, and the cutting will be self-sustaining via the (highly exothermic) reaction of iron/steel with oxygen. Cut depth can be greater than 8", especially if (as in scrapping) you don't care how straight the edges of the cut are. I'm sure there are pro welders here who can contribute further insights.
I believe the pictures were taken at the Stelco steel mill in Hamilton, Ontario. It had not occurred to me that NYC or perhaps other US railroads sold locomotives to foreign scrappers -- so this was useful information.
David S I occasionally hear that the reason UP still has two engines lettered CNW is because the Chicago motive power guy is a fan who tries to keep them in the area so they won't wander down to North Little Rock and get repainted. Don't know if it's true.
I occasionally hear that the reason UP still has two engines lettered CNW is because the Chicago motive power guy is a fan who tries to keep them in the area so they won't wander down to North Little Rock and get repainted. Don't know if it's true.
May well be. It would be the same guy that designed the paint scheme they carry.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.