After 59 years in retirement, ATSF 5000 will be returning to service in the near future!
http://www.railroadartifactpreservation.org/Steam-Restoration.html
Volunteers and donations are desperatley needed for the restoration to be a success!
It will be a sight to see the 2-10-4 on the mainline again.
The Lehigh Valley Railroad, the Route of the Black Diamond Express, John Wilkes and Maple Leaf.
-Jake, modeling the Barclay, Towanda & Susquehanna.
Ahhh Gzzz....Another pipe dream.....
I looked at his "to do" list. No mention of replacing the flues or staybolts in the firebox. So he must think all he needs to do is washout the boiler and he is "good to go". He needs to get a relaity check. If he wants to see a 2-10-4 run again. Why don't he put the money into T&P 610. It is prob. in better condition.
nwo4rf Ahhh Gzzz....Another pipe dream..... I looked at his "to do" list. No mention of replacing the flues or staybolts in the firebox. So he must think all he needs to do is washout the boiler and he is "good to go". He needs to get a relaity check. If he wants to see a 2-10-4 run again. Why don't he put the money into T&P 610. It is prob. in better condition.
There is obviously a reason as to why they are restoring 5000 and not 610. And if you are working on a boiler, you would have to work on the staybolts and crownsheet anyway seeing how they are major pieces of equipment. Same with flues. No offense to you or anyone of the like, but there are a lot of RAILFANS who need a reality check. Steamtown working on 3713 for more than 10 years, there is a reason why it is taking that long. There is a reason why 5000 is getting restored and not 610. There is a reason why 630 is being used for NS's steam program and not 611 or 1218. There is a reason why a Big Boy isn't running while 3985 had a chance to become a Clinchfield locomotive for a period of time. There is a reason why 4449 was used for the AFT. There is a reason behind all of the choices made, and with the right crews and money, this could very well become a reality, so I don't need you to run your mouth with me about how they should put money into 610 and not 5000. Again, there's a reason 5000 is recieving the work, and not 610.....
All right, now that that's out of my system, time for my .
I agree as well. Seriously who gives a hoot what the reason is? Anyone that wants to restore a steam locomotive has my support. It's their money, time, and effort. The least we can do is support their cause not criticize it.
On a side note they made this announcement some time ago about the restoration. Sounds like a pretty solid organization to me with deep pockets. I am confident they will restore this locomotive to running condition again..
Thomas 9011 I agree as well. Seriously who gives a hoot what the reason is? Anyone that wants to restore a steam locomotive has my support. It's their money, time, and effort. The least we can do is support their cause not criticize it. On a side note they made this announcement some time ago about the restoration. Sounds like a pretty solid organization to me with deep pockets. I am confident they will restore this locomotive to running condition again..
They have already started work on the locomotive by polishing the bell and ultrasounding the boiler and firebox. If bigger repairs are needed, they will perform them.
It sounds well planned to me, but as my dad says, the more you plan, the more that is going to go wrong.
Just my two cents worth here: The reason, well two reasons the T&P 610 was dropped from the Southern steam program were firebox problems, severe erosion, cracks, what have you that precluded easy repair. It was going to take a major, major teardown to fix it. Secondly, and probably just as important, 610 couldn't give the speed Southern wanted for the excursions at the time. Remember in those days they wanted 45mph running or more, preferably more, and 610 couldn't do it. 610 was a freight hog after all and not a passenger speedster.
Certainly 610 could be brought back but someone's got to come up with the "dust" and the organization. The low speed can't be corrected however, the engine is what it is.
I am forgetting my ATSF history. Was 5000 called the Madam Queen? Remember reading that name was give as a place of honor to one ATSF steamer, but can't recall which one.
Any Texas type up and running in the 21th Century is a bonus in my lifetime!
Firelock76Secondly, and probably just as important, 610 couldn't give the speed Southern wanted for the excursions at the time. Remember in those days they wanted 45mph running or more, preferably more, and 610 couldn't do it. 610 was a freight hog after all and not a passenger speedster. ...The low speed can't be corrected however, the engine is what it is.
...The low speed can't be corrected however, the engine is what it is.
I thought the 610, although technically a freight wheel arrangement, was a super power example that was capable of fast freight speeds, and not what I would think of as a freight hog such as a 2-8-0, 2-10-0, or other dedicated freight engines.
I rode an excursion on the Rat Hole one time behind #610, and it must have been running 40-55 mph most of the time.
The 5000 has 69" drivers. The later texas class from them had 74" drivers. The 610 had only 63" drivers.
seppburgh2 I am forgetting my ATSF history. Was 5000 called the Madam Queen? Remember reading that name was give as a place of honor to one ATSF steamer, but can't recall which one. Any Texas type up and running in the 21th Century is a bonus in my lifetime!
You are correct, the 5000 was also known as the Madam Queen, and it would be really cool to see this engine up and running.
Bucyrus Firelock76: Secondly, and probably just as important, 610 couldn't give the speed Southern wanted for the excursions at the time. Remember in those days they wanted 45mph running or more, preferably more, and 610 couldn't do it. 610 was a freight hog after all and not a passenger speedster. ...The low speed can't be corrected however, the engine is what it is. I thought the 610, although technically a freight wheel arrangement, was a super power example that was capable of fast freight speeds, and not what I would think of as a freight hog such as a 2-8-0, 2-10-0, or other dedicated freight engines. I rode an excursion on the Rat Hole one time behind #610, and it must have been running 40-55 mph most of the time.
Firelock76: Secondly, and probably just as important, 610 couldn't give the speed Southern wanted for the excursions at the time. Remember in those days they wanted 45mph running or more, preferably more, and 610 couldn't do it. 610 was a freight hog after all and not a passenger speedster. ...The low speed can't be corrected however, the engine is what it is.
Your supposition of 40-55 mph is correct. I checked the books on 610, specifically Jim Boyds book "The Steam Locomotive" and Jim Wrinns "Steams's Camelot", and 52mph is about the best they could get out of 610. Bear in mind this was in the '70s before the Southern steam program became the Norfolk-Southern steam program. The Southern wanted to run the excursions as fast as track conditions permitted. Mind you, all that changed after the Great Dismal Swamp excursion wreck of 1986 when a speed restriction of 40 mph was placed on NS excursion trains. Speed wouldn't be a problem now for 610 except for one more thing:
610 was a "buggy" engine with chronic running gear problems, such as overheating journals that just wouldn't stay fixed. Finally the Southern just had enough and looked for another engine. But that's another story.
Engines with smaller drivers tend to have the running gear balanced for slower speeds. The rods and related bearings are closer to the wheel centers than the counterweights, and the dynamics of circular motion mean that they can only be in complete balance at one specific speed. Drag freight engines, which presumably the 610 with 63" drivers is, are usually balnced for drag speeds. They can indeed go much faster, but the result is increased pounding of the track structure and also the bearings. That dynamic augment means much heavier maintenance on the engine's running gear. The track forces will not be happy either. Quite possibly this explains why the 610 had the "chronic running gear problems" referred to by Firelock.
For running on a main line today, you need to have an engine designed for the typical speeds of the fast freights.
John
Lehigh Valley 2089 They have already started work on the locomotive by polishing the bell and ultrasounding the boiler and firebox. If bigger repairs are needed, they will perform them. It sounds well planned to me, but as my dad says, the more you plan, the more that is going to go wrong.
Well that sure is good they polished the Bell! However, if they have not yet removed the tubes/flues & superheaters, I wonder how the already ultrasound tested/inspected the INSIDE & OUTSIDE of the boiler, according to FRA requirements.
Also, as an aside, where do they plan to run this locomotive, if and when she is completely overhauled? A five coupled axle steam locomotive, WITH PLAIN BEARINGS on the axles, sure isn't going to be welcomed on either BNSF nor UP.
Jack - Welcome to trains.com!
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
Jack Wheelihan Lehigh Valley 2089: They have already started work on the locomotive by polishing the bell and ultrasounding the boiler and firebox. If bigger repairs are needed, they will perform them. It sounds well planned to me, but as my dad says, the more you plan, the more that is going to go wrong. Well that sure is good they polished the Bell! However, if they have not yet removed the tubes/flues & superheaters, I wonder how the already ultrasound tested/inspected the INSIDE & OUTSIDE of the boiler, according to FRA requirements. Also, as an aside, where do they plan to run this locomotive, if and when she is completely overhauled? A five coupled axle steam locomotive, WITH PLAIN BEARINGS on the axles, sure isn't going to be welcomed on either BNSF nor UP.
Lehigh Valley 2089: They have already started work on the locomotive by polishing the bell and ultrasounding the boiler and firebox. If bigger repairs are needed, they will perform them. It sounds well planned to me, but as my dad says, the more you plan, the more that is going to go wrong.
I think they only started the bell so that if the engine becomes too costly to restore to operating condition, they at least have an engine that has been cosmetically restored. They are also restoring the bell's ringer motor to operating condition.
Ultrasounding the boiler? That was a mistake on my part. They have done the firebox, but not the boiler, at least not yet. The results from the tests done on the firebox are being processed.
This will never happen. Costs and limited places to run to name a few. The City of Amarilo is currently trying to sell the engine. Which I question the legality of. Some railroads and ATSF was one of them that provided the engines in a permanent loan status so long as those on the receiving end agreed to keep up, at least, the cosmetic maintenance/appearance.
STEVE GENTRY This will never happen.
This will never happen.
But who is to say they shouldn't try?
S. Connor STEVE GENTRY This will never happen. But who is to say they shouldn't try?
Considering that this thread was started 4 years ago and they are no closer to operating the locomotive today than they were 4 years ago - I have to que$tion how hard they are trying - especially with the city trying to $ell the engine out from under them.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
johnbill Shouldn't there be an EPS, similar to CPS, to look into cases like this and render assistance where needed.
Shouldn't there be an EPS, similar to CPS, to look into cases like this and render assistance where needed.
?? That's not much of a responce!
The steam Locomotive made this country. When it is put out to pasture, it should be shown a little respect.
Amarillo Texas doesn't want it anymore. I doubt they ever wanted it. It was a low cost, high maintence obilgation.
They put a FOR SALE sign on it and a bunch of conditions that the local preservationists can't and shouldn't be expected to meet..
Value? The raidroads of yore donated many engines to cities across this land. They also sold many many more to the scrap furnaces. Has anyone considered why which went where?
Johnbill
I think it is a bit hard to see what is going on in this case. The group that has been caring for the locomotive has offered to purchase it in the past, and has also made plans for the project known as Queens Crossing which will feature #5000 as well as other railroad displays. In order to evaluate the prospect of selling the engine to the caretaker group, and to be fair to the public, the City publically offered the engine for sale. I believe the City had the caretake group in mind as being the most qualified to take over ownership, but they had to be fair to any other interested parties.
But the caretaker group seems to have been offended by the City's public offering, and thus refused to respond to the City's Request For Proposals. I believe the City was intending to give the caretaker group everything they wanted, but went through the proper formality of a public offer to sell. There were many factors that were necessary for a group to qualify as a buyer, so it was not just a matter of a buyer offering an acceptable price.
Maybe they have worked this out over the last few weeks, but where I last looked at it, it seemed like there had been an unfortunate misundersanding that ruffled some feathers on both sides.
I think it would be incorrect to interpret this matter as the City wanting to get rid of the locomotive as it was first widely assumed when the RFP was put out.
Unlike 3463 in Kansas the "Madam Queen" ATSF 5000 has no ownership issues. Well maybe one, but it's a big one. Her owners don't want her!
They wanted to transfer ownership to the group that has been caring for it for the last several years, but in my opinion, this intent was misunderstood. I explained this in the thread below on this topic. The City's basic intention seems to be to keep the locomotive in Amarlio and give it the best home possible.
The group (Santa Fe Artifact Preservation Society, as I recall) did not respond to the last Request for Proposals that the City published. The City officials were puuzzled by that. The City is asking for an offer to purchase, but considering the other conditions they impose on the sale, I would not be surprised if they are willing to accept a very low price. I suspect they would be willing to sell for what the group is able to pay.
If there is any Santa Fe locomotive that is in jeopardy because it is not wanted by the City to which it was donated, it is #3463 in Topeka. That one is in danger of not only being removed from its home in Topeka, but also of being used as a steam science experiment and never returned to its original condition.
Steam science experiment?
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
Why the city of Amarillo wanted to sell the Santa Fe 2-10-4 5000. is it because they hated the locomotive or they wanted to focus on other things
Penny TrainsSteam science experiment?
Look up the history of the Sustainable Rail International/Coalition for Sustainable Rail "Project 130". There have been a number of technical discussions on the proposed modifications of the locomotive here, on RyPN, and in some interesting technical notes produced by CSR for the Web.
When I read that “But the way the RFP (request for proposals) is written, there’s no way we can even submit a bid for it.” phrase on http://amarillo.com/news/2016-07-22/amarillo-officials-plan-sell-historic-madam-queen I knew immediately that Madam Queen will never run again. The conditions to bring her back to operation are simply too unfortunate. It would be a big surprise for me if SF 5000 would have been restored to operational condition rather than T&P 610, because T&P 610 certainly is in better condition as it is stored inside a shed and therefore being protected from weather and also being regularily moved out of the shed and back inside, which all isn´t the case with SF 5000 which is rusting away outside being steadily exposed to the weather and having no movement at all. It would be so nice to see a Texas type back in excursion service again, and SF 5000 certainly is an impressive engine. But in my opinion T&P 610 deserves to be reactivated as it already was used in excursion service before and therefore deserves to be again the only Texas type in excursion service in the USA. And since we´re talking about Texas, T&P 610 should be the right choice anyway as it was built for the road that first used this wheel arrangement and christened it with the states name.
This pro and con chatter is interesting but is probably moot: I just tried to follow the link at the beginning of this thread and got a message that the page couldn't be found. Had a neat ATSF herald on it though.
ChuckAllen, TX
I don't know anything about the earlier plans at the start of this thread, but I did look into the plans anounced in the link to the article posted above from a month or two ago. I was told by a representive from the City that they feel that the City's request for proposals was very misrepresented by the article. They were not trying to sell the engine out from under the Santa Fe 5000 Artifact Preservation Society, as has been portrayed.
On the contrary, they were trying to clear the way for the Society to legally acquire the locomotive. But something apparently was lost in the translation of the intent. What would be interesting to learn is excactly where this stands today.
Here is one thing I do not understand: The Society seems to claim an interest in the locomotive due to all the volunteer work they have done on the locomotive, plus a considerable amount of money spent on it. How could any of this gone forward without some type of written agreement with the City that actually owns the locomotive?
Without knowing this, it is impossible to understand the context of the City's request for propsal and the Society's feeling that they were left out somehow.
Another thing that I wonder about is the project proposed by the Society called, Queens Crossing. It seems incredibly ambitious, and I wonder where the funding is expected to come from. From what I understand the ATSF #5000 will be the centerpiece of Queens Crossing. Can anybody offer some details?
cefinkjrI just tried to follow the link at the beginning of this thread and got a message that the page couldn't be found.
I think the Railroad Artifact Preservation Society (or WordPress) has changed the site organization. The basic page there for the "fifty-hundred" is
https://railroadartifactpreservation.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/santa-fe-steam-locomotive-number-5000/
and it may be possible to navigate from there to any current discussion of the city's bids to outsource the preservation. (And I think it has been firmly established that it is the preservation of the artifact, not its scrapping, that is the point of what the city is doing.)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.