I've never heard of any engines in Richmond, but I wonder if you are referring to 'the lost engines of Roanoke'?
In the 1950's, Norfolk & Western sold equipment to a scrapyard in Roanoke for scrapping. 4 steam locos got shoved into a corner and were never cut up. They were re-discovered in the 1990's. When the junkyard owner died his estate gave the equipment to the Virginia Museum of Transportation; the same place that owns N&W 611. In all there were 4 steam locos, 2 Chesapeake Western Baldwin diesel switchers, 4 hopper cars, a flat car, 2 N&W auxilliary tenders, and an entire machine shop full of machine tools. They were moved by VMT; I dont know what has become of them since.
The article by Jeff Terry in the May 2007 Railfan & Railroad magazine was the best summary of the C & O 4-4-0 buried in Church Hill Tunnel in Richmond in 1925. I have not seen anything on the results of that hydrology report that was going to help dictate whether or not excavations could proceed.
Having lived in Roanoke, VA for the 30 years prior to last October, the locomotives in the scrap yard there along South Jefferson Street would not be classified as "lost", as the railfan and preservation communities were always well aware of their presence. Even in the early spring, before everything turned green, the overgrowth made it difficult to photograph the 4-8-0 that was there.
Bill
There was no fresh update at the Virginia Historical Society, but here is their overview of the project:
http://www.vahistorical.org/news/richmondtunnel.htm
information on this is also at:
http://www.midnightsocietyrva.com/lore/church_hill_tunnel.html
Beach Bill wrote: The article by Jeff Terry in the May 2007 Railfan & Railroad magazine was the best summary of the C & O 4-4-0 buried in Church Hill Tunnel in Richmond in 1925. I have not seen anything on the results of that hydrology report that was going to help dictate whether or not excavations could proceed.Having lived in Roanoke, VA for the 30 years prior to last October, the locomotives in the scrap yard there along South Jefferson Street would not be classified as "lost", as the railfan and preservation communities were always well aware of their presence. Even in the early spring, before everything turned green, the overgrowth made it difficult to photograph the 4-8-0 that was there. Bill
Was that article by Jeff Terry about lost locomotives in general? I had heard he was going to write such an article. I have done some research on lost locomotives, and am very interested in the subject. Compared to some of them, there is a lot of historical information on the Church Hill Tunnel disaster. It seems that a recovery attempt was ready to go foreward when city authorities put it on hold until several questions could be resolved concerning the hydrological consequences of opening the tunnel. In addition to the need for assurance that the tunnel will not cave in and damage roads and buildings from ground subsidence, I understand there is also some opposition from residents for various reasons. Except for these complications, I think this would be a relatively easy recovery project. Most lost locomotives are underwater or buried in mud.
However, I think they ought to leave the engine where it is, stabilize the tunnel around it, and make it accessible so people could go down into the tunnel and see it in its context. The engine's value is its relationship to the Church Hill Tunnel disaster as an historical artifact in that context. Preserve the whole picture. I'll bet it would be quite the experience to go into that haunted tunnel and see the engine standing there where it has stood since the roof fell in so long ago.
Was that article by Jeff Terry about lost locomotives in general?
This year, Jeff Terry has provided a series of columns in Railfan & Railroad on lost locomotives. The column is entitled "Lineside Legacy", and I believe that this series of articles started with the March, 2007 issue. His coverage has been nationwide, and also has included discussion of several locomotives that were lost at sea and have now been located. He had a sizeable summary of the situation in Richmond, and has covered a number of obscure (but verified) locomotives, most of which are in completly derelict condition.
As to Richmond, the key issue is the stability of this hill that is actually quite close to downtown. The cost and liability risk of excavating enough area for visitor viewing of the locomotive "in context" would be prohibitive. Railroad-themed attractions that are financially successful are few and getting fewer, as our society's connection to railroads and railroaders decreases. It isn't likely that any financial consultant or expert would suggest such a tunnel as economically viable. Richmond has so many needs as a City, and most of those needs relate to human needs, so competition for dollars is intense.
Thanks for the information Bill. I found the May and June issues of R&R at a hobby shop, and will see if I can order March and April from Carstens. I see that the May issue contains an extensive write-up about the Church Hill engine. I agree that what I mentioned about creating a display in context would be costly, and the funding may not be available. But my suggestion only represents my preference in contrast to recovering the engine. And I should say that I do not know the details of what objective is intended after the recovery.
From what I understand, the objective would be to cosmetically restore the engine and put it on static display. If the cosmetic restoration were perfect for the engine's era during the tunnel disaster, and if the display were also perfect- protected, well lit, well interpreted, etc., I think that would be a worthy objective. But that would be a large, costly project that would pose a strong temptation to compromise. Such compromise might result in a failure to communicate the significance of the historical role the engine played. Or that failure could also result if the restoration simply upstages it by trumpeting the significance of the only surviving C&O 4-4-0. I guess the last thing I would want to see is a recovery where the main objective was the challenge of the recovery, where the engine was taken out of the tunnel as a kind of trophy of conquest with no deeply thought out objective or passion for display. I have seen that happen.
I would suggest that the cost of a well conceived recovery/display objective might be as high or higher than displaying the engine as I prefer, that is within the context of the historic disaster tale of which the engine is an inextricable part. With this objective, I would not restore the engine. Instead, I would merely stabilize it in its deteriorated condition to reflect the ambience of its long-standing entombment. What I would seek to convey in the display would be the experience of finding the lost engine still standing there after all these years, silently playing out its role in the historic tunnel disaster tale.
That particular experience will be had by the workers recovering the engine if it is recovered. I would submit that they might not be prepared for its power. It might be similar to the emotional experience had by Robert Ballard when they finally found and saw the titanic. In the case of the Titanic and the Richmond engine, that experience, I think, is the most valuable experience to share with the public. In the case of the Titanic, this kind of public interpretation is practically impossible. In the case of the Richmond engine, it would be practical and doable.
Bucyrus,
I'm not familiar with the story of the Church Hill engine. Could you tell the story of the incident or point me to a book or article about it?
Thanks
dekemd wrote: Bucyrus, I'm not familiar with the story of the Church Hill engine. Could you tell the story of the incident or point me to a book or article about it? Thanks
There is a lot of recorded history on this incident. Here are some links:
http://fdelaitre.club.fr/Richmond.htm
http://www.vtunderground.com/other/churchhill.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Hill_Tunnel
http://media.gatewayva.com/photos/rtd/06272006/train/gallery_content.html
http://www.odcnrhs.org/docs/history-tunnelcollapse-1925.asp
http://www.richmondpubliclibrary.org/info/libsources/nwsprclptunnel.htm
fifedog wrote:Why mess with local folklore? Plus, it's a gravesite to boot.
I tend to agree. As I mentioned in post #7, I prefer leaving the engine alone versus recovering it for some other purpose. As an alternative to leaving it alone, I would prefer to see it displayed where it is, in the context of its colorful saga. But this would require the utmost in creative sensitivity to pull off successfully. Whatever is done in the way of recovery or access, will probably heavily involve the city officials. I am not confident that a committee would see the point of an on-site display, let alone do it right.
I seems to me that there are a number of risks and potential problems associated with tampering with the tunnel, its water content, the unstable soil, etc. Frankly, I would be surprised in the city would take any risk associated with plans to recover the engine if they don't have to.
It's just a guess, but I suspect that sometime in the future, the city will make a commitment to a large engineering project to de-water the tunnel, fill it, and stabilize the surrounding ground by proper drainage, possible soil correction, etc. At this time, the engine will be removed in the course of the work, and given to a group of volunteers with some kind of display objective. This might be be fifty years from now.
about 1890...so the story goes... a Toledo Ann Arbor & Northern train derailed in Howell Mi near the depot...the engine rolled down small embankment and ended up in the swamp and its still there....during the drought of 1988 the stack and dome was visible for about 4 months...of course i cant find the picture i took then (pre digital era)
J. Edgar wrote: about 1890...so the story goes... a Toledo Ann Arbor & Northern train derailed in Howell Mi near the depot...the engine rolled down small embankment and ended up in the swamp and its still there....during the drought of 1988 the stack and dome was visible for about 4 months...of course i cant find the picture i took then (pre digital era)
Were you there and saw it? How much water would be over it when it was not in a dry period? What does the site look like today? Who owns the land? I would like to hear as much as you can tell me about it.
J. Edgar wrote: i saw and photographed the dome and balloon stack in '88...the land is always underwater and always has been ....except during the drought we/the USA suffered in 1988... and as far as i know the land/swamp is owned by the city of howell.....granted the dome shape and stack i pictured LOOKED like a 19th century locomotive steamdome and stack....to this day during a dry spell there are pipes sprouting out of the water......the depot is now a museum and the former currator (in '88) is the person that gave me the oridginal info.....he had no other info as far as engine number/type...injuries...why the railroad never pulled it out......in a simular but different story my grandfather lost a 75' Ohio-Bucryus dragline crane in a swamp in 1966... he was draglining a peatbog when the machine started to sink the only thing showing was the top 20 of jib-boom...in 1975 a contractor tried to pull it out and the jib broke off
That really sounds interesting. What is the name and location of that museum in Howell?
i answered your email buc...........if you didnt get it try it again and ill resend it.....
its called the Depot Museum and its i downtown Howell
Bucyrus wrote: J. Edgar wrote: i saw and photographed the dome and balloon stack in '88...the land is always underwater and always has been ....except during the drought we/the USA suffered in 1988... and as far as i know the land/swamp is owned by the city of howell.....granted the dome shape and stack i pictured LOOKED like a 19th century locomotive steamdome and stack....to this day during a dry spell there are pipes sprouting out of the water......the depot is now a museum and the former currator (in '88) is the person that gave me the oridginal info.....he had no other info as far as engine number/type...injuries...why the railroad never pulled it out......in a simular but different story my grandfather lost a 75' Ohio-Bucryus dragline crane in a swamp in 1966... he was draglining a peatbog when the machine started to sink the only thing showing was the top 20 of jib-boom...in 1975 a contractor tried to pull it out and the jib broke offThat really sounds interesting. What is the name and location of that museum in Howell?
That sounds like a far easier salvage job than the Church Hill site, guess theres just not enough local interest in digging it up. Just sink a cofferdam around the site pump out the water and haul away the mud. They do it all the time for maritime historical sites, even in shallow open ocean.
Have fun with your trains
dekemd wrote:Bucyrus, I'm not familiar with the story of the Church Hill engine. Could you tell the story of the incident or point me to a book or article about it? Thanks
simply a train was going thru the tunnel and it collapsed killing the crew. There have been thoughts to recover the train, but nothing solid yet.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.