First Off Let Me Say Steam Rules...Period!
Now I wonder if anyone even cares for the two survivors of steam like the Alleghenies. I For One Would Love To See CSX start up a steam Program and have their goodwill ambassador be #1601 which from what i can tell in the Best shape of her life. Any Ideas or Thoughts of how to make that happen and who would have the time to spend or put in to get her up and running for future generations. Just remember your kids and grandkids who would be cheated out of a fine piece of Machinery like the 2-6-6-6. To me Every steamer should have the right to run freely. Those of us who cherish steam should know exactly what i am implying.
Keith Bunner
I dunno about a steamer having a 'right' to run freely, but it would be nice to see an H-8 back in circulation. A cold steamer doesn't hold as much appeal as one dripping, hissing, steaming, and even underway.
The 8's had a lot of weight on their axles. It might be a problem in that it would be restricted to running only on limited stretches of track...maybe too limited to make it worth the cost of rebuilding, which is likely to exceed $3M.*
*FPOOMB.
DRGW5371Forever First Off Let Me Say Steam Rules...Period! Now I wonder if anyone even cares for the two survivors of steam like the Alleghenies. I For One Would Love To See CSX start up a steam Program and have their goodwill ambassador be #1601 which from what i can tell in the Best shape of her life. Any Ideas or Thoughts of how to make that happen and who would have the time to spend or put in to get her up and running for future generations. Just remember your kids and grandkids who would be cheated out of a fine piece of Machinery like the 2-6-6-6. To me Every steamer should have the right to run freely. Those of us who cherish steam should know exactly what i am implying.
I suspect if CSX were to initiate a Steam program they would work with Ross Rowland to get C&O 614 back into full operation (like predecessor Chessie System did).
However , I would never-say-never about C&O 1604 being put back in steam. I mean, I never thought we'd see a Big boy restored to operation and look what's happening now...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Keith,
Since 1601 is owned by the Ford Museum, it would have to be purchased and I suspect it is not for sale. The other H-8 is in the B&O museum and may be a better bet for release to running service. As has been mentioned, 614 may be a better excursion locomotive.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
CSX returning an Allegheny to operation as a showpiece and excursion engine? Ain't- Gonna- Happen. At least not now, and not in the forseeable future.
Not picking on CSX mind you, but their "heads" just aren't there right now.
What we, as railfans and enthusiasts, want, and what investors and railroad management want are two different, diametrically opposed things. Putting a 2-6-6-6 into any kind of service would involve losing money (unless you can charge Virgin Spaceways rates for tickets.) The managers and stockholders want to MAKE money - by using track slots for freight movements.
As for 'rights,' I don't recall seeing any mention of running antique machines in the Constitution of the United States. Our WANTS are not rights. And NO ONE has the right to force a private organization to do anything contrary to its own best interests.
Isn't it awful when reality rains all over your dream parade?
Chuck
When the Big Boy news was announced, there was someone around here that thought it was inevitable that CSX would do such a thing in an attempt to compete in a steam excursion style arms race to show up Union Pacific.
Sadly, while certainly possible, I sure wouldn't hold my breath for such a thing. Not only do corporate attitudes have to change and money be made for it on the grounds of promoting the heritage of railroading to assist in public relations and employee pride in what they do, but then you're faced with the daunting task of actually running her when she's ready.
She's just too big and too inflexible especially out here in the East. If they were to do a steam program in the future and I don't think anyone could rule it out, it surely would be something like the 614 as someone else said. Modern, powerful, reliable, and capable of mainline running without hindering freight traffic but without most of the limitations that the Allegheny's size presents.
And the one at the B&O museum hasn't exactly been kept in pristine shape. Stored in a dead line for years, displayed outside for many more years afterwards, suffered a flood while also having her display track undermined leaving her leaning against a bridge abutment or something of the like, etc.
She's had a rough post retirement life that very well has left a lot of hidden surprises to any would be restorers to operation. The best bet if we're dreaming would be a horse trade between the two since the 1601 is a valued exhibit at the Henry Ford Museum and has had an easier time of it in retirement. Spruce up the 1604 then trade her for the 1601 along with perhaps some cash as an inducement. And the B&O museum still to this day has a close relationship with CSX and would probably not be a major hurdle.
Too bad the last EM-1 got scrapped despite being promised to Baltimore (The museum was closed for a few years and she was a victim of the closure). They were giants and impressive machines in their own right but weren't quite as huge so one would be less restricted than an Allegheny in our dream. They were more in line with the size of N&W's famous class of 2-6-6-4's if I'm not mistaken and the 1218's size didn't seem to pose a huge problem for Norfolk Southern in the 80's and 90's..
Leo:
Amen to everything you've said about the B&O's EM-1's. If CSX were to run a steam program with a big engine or two, the EM-1 would have been a great candidate. Actually, the B&O's KB-1 2-6-6-4's would be great candidates too, since they had been previously owned by Seaboard. But it's all just talk and dreams since neither loco exists any more and CSX management is decidedly anti-steam.
If they did start a program, other possible candidates would be the first USRA Mikado, the first President Pacific, C&O's 4-6-4 490, 4-8-4 614, about a dozen C&O K-4 2-8-4's, and/or the ACL 4-6-2 in Jacksonville. But don't line up to buy tickets any time soon.
Tom
Leo_Ames Too bad the last EM-1 got scrapped despite being promised to Baltimore (The museum was closed for a few years and she was a victim of the closure).
Too bad the last EM-1 got scrapped despite being promised to Baltimore (The museum was closed for a few years and she was a victim of the closure).
do you have a link with details , i would love to learn more
I don't know any links, and I don't know any truly reliable sources of information. The whole thing was pretty embarrassing to the B&O, so they never said much about it. That left a big open space for rumors to fill. The essence of the story is that the Museum was temporarily closed as an austerity measure and Curator Lawrence Sagle was afraid that the scrappers would get three locos that had been promised to the Museum: B&O P-7 Pacific 5300 (renumbered 100); B&O Q-3 USRA Mikado 4500 (renumbered 300); and an unidentified EM-1. At the time, there were hundreds of B&O steamers stored at many locations awaiting scrappers. Sagle feared that the three engines would be scrapped so he pulled strings with certain railroaders to get the engines moved to some unspecified remote terminal where they might be forgotten.
At the time, layoffs were looming and at least one fairly low level supervisor was avoiding layoffs by keeping his men busy scrapping steamers. They got to the EM-1 before it could be moved to safety, or in spite of a move to supposed safety, and probably had no idea they were cutting up the last one. The Pacific and the Mikado were successfully hidden away and eventually made it to the B&O Museum, where they remain today.
There are other versions of the story, and they could have more truth in them than my version, which is just a compilation of random bits of info gleaned over the years. In any case, all 30 EM-1's are gone. I saw them in service and got into the cab of 675 (originally 7625) less than a year before she was scrapped. Describe one? Nope. Words fail me.
Dixon & Withers wrote Baltimore & Ohio's Magnificent 2-8-8-4 EM-1 Articulated Locomotive, and the book was published by TLC in 2007, but it's still available. It has a very brief mention of the tragedy, but not many details.
jrbernier Since 1601 is owned by the Ford Museum, it would have to be purchased ...
Since 1601 is owned by the Ford Museum, it would have to be purchased ...
Why? If I owned 1601 or any similar historic machine and someone offered to restore it with me retaining ownership, I'd certainly entertain the possibility.
ChuckAllen, TX
I hadn't heard of them trying to spirit away one to keep it in safe keeping but it sounds believable and that pretty much otherwise mirrors what I've heard. [Edit: According to January 2001 Trains, it sounds like they may of successfully hid her for at least a time. But the "auditors" found out. And apparently they actually sold the 4500 and the 5300 for scrap to a former B&O man that formed a locomotive recycling outfit but he wanted them saved and hung on to them until he was able to sell them back to the railroad a few years later with a promise of their preservation.]
Among the last seem to have been the 7601 and the 7609 that lasted at least until May 1961. They were at Benwood Yard in WV, the 7609 was heavily stripped, and they were being prepared for their last trip on steel rails to the scrap dealer. There's a sad photo of them taken there that was published later that year in Trains.
The museum didn't reopen until 1963...
cefinkjr jrbernier Since 1601 is owned by the Ford Museum, it would have to be purchased ... Why? If I owned 1601 or any similar historic machine and someone offered to restore it with me retaining ownership, I'd certainly entertain the possibility.
Since this is all fiction, let's talk in generalities. What good would it do you, the owner of the equipment in question, to have a prize display out there running for someone else? While you certainly would entertain the possibility, you'd still want compensation for what her loss on display would do for your museum.
So if not an outright sale or horse trade to mitigate its loss, you'd at least want some other financial arrangement. Otherwise your museum gains nothing since you have no interest in operating your exhibit when it's returned and it's already in pristine cosmetic shape which is all that matters where the display is concerned. You'd only be losing where the financial side is concerned since some visit specifically because of this display and others would find their visit less impressive than they otherwise would've due to her loss and be less likely to return again in the future, bring friends and family, or speak positively about it.
Neat only goes so far. You'd also have to give the business side of it attention. Look at the Big Boy dealings for an illustration. As much as that excited everyone including the folks at Pomona, they thought long and hard about it and negotiated an agreement that helped mitigate the loss of a prized display.
OK. The owner needs to be compensated. That could be done in a number of ways. The intended operator could purchase the engine outright for a pretty hefty sum, or perhaps lease it. There could be a trade. One or two or three different locomotives in exchange for the desired one. This could work if the Museum has an item that is not geographically connected to the Museum's actual location. Hypothetically, the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn might want more locos with a connection to Michigan. If so, a transaction that involves Michigan-related equipment (and/or the cash to obtain it) might be attractive to the Ford Museum.
But as I said, it's all hypothetical. It would involve extraordinarily deep pockets. Unlikely to ever happen.
Alleghenies are beasts. They require some heavy duty rail to run on. I would love to see one operating, but I don't see CSX going through with it any time soon. To run one on CSX's tracks would require them to do better track maintenance and improve their safety record first. Maybe NS will come to an agreement?
Blue Alert! We're at Blue Alert! Aw crap, it's a nondescript GEVO... Cancel Blue Alert!
cefinkjrjrbernier Since 1601 is owned by the Ford Museum, it would have to be purchased ... Why? If I owned 1601 or any similar historic machine and someone offered to restore it with me retaining ownership, I'd certainly entertain the possibility.
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
Obviously to ride behind it, photograph it, pace it.
The EM-1 you are talking about was being used to heat building, with it steam, so it wasn't taken anywhere to be hidden, and after it wasn't needed anymore it was moved to be scraped, remember back then no computer to keep track of a engine
If there were computers locomotives would be squirrelled away and never seen again, since a system crash or hacker would take away all the info!
pajrr If there were computers locomotives would be squirrelled away and never seen again, since a system crash or hacker would take away all the info!
Regular system back-ups minimize and/or prevent data loss.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Henry Ford Museum and the auto company are also still under the supervision of the Ford family. There are some really deep pockets here.
The museum has oddly often been labeled "Henry's assorted collection of junk." Anyone who has visited the museum will testify that Henry did collect quite a bit of nostalgic industrial age equipment. It is most famous, and rightly so, for its automobile collection as Henry Ford was the right man at the right time, and at the right place to collect a wide array of automobiles that would have been lost to the world.
Over the years, however, the museum focus has changed its goals, FOR THE BETTER! I believe - I have watched the railroad collection begin to dwindle and disapear in the Main Hall - down to a couple of tracks of equipment and expand into Greenfield Village as an operating steam railroad museum which now includes a turntable and roundhouse!
The Henry Ford once recieved a great deal of ridcule over one of its celebrated fake exhibits debunked in Trains Magazine back in the 1970's. The infamous William Mason 4-4-0 steam locomotive. Henry Ford himself wanted one of these locomotives in the collection, but his scouts were unable to find one. They could not because the Masons were all gone. Undaunted by this fact officials slipped a Detroit Edison industrial steamer into the shop one day and transformed it to the desired William Mason. After display for maybe 20 years this was exposed and locomotive now appears to have been reconstructed back into its original Edison configuration - in occasional operation on the museum railroad.
WE FORGIVE YOU THE MISTAKE! AND DON'T FEEL YOU HAVE TO BE APOLOGETIC FOR Michigan Central 254 because of this! You need to get that one going too!
Yes, the mighty C&O 1601 Allegheny is in excellent condition and the cold "last fire" is still on its grates - never dumped. I check this at least every year! as I have been a student of the locomotive my entire life, yearning to see its mighty wheels turn again. It is in surpurlative condition! kept in heated indoor storage with limited public access.
I Believe the museum had to deconstruct part of the Main Hall building for C&O 1601 enter - like Southern 1401 in the Smithsonian in Washington D.C., - and this probably the primary objection to its removal.
The Henry Ford has always been focused around automobiles, however, there seems no reason why they might not consider operation of C&O 1601 like is happening Roanoke with N&W 611 if it occured to them to do so. Possibly we should suggest something like this as railfans, as the museum already operates several small steam locomotives and I am sure could persuade some major railroad to sponsor trips if they desired to enter the steam excursion business.
The former Michigan Central/New York Central/Conrail main line runs right past the museum. That's right, the hurried beat of Hudsons and Niagras echoed off the walls of the HFF museum and the wailing sound of famous Central whistles regularly broke up the concentration of museum visitors! Possibly disturbing Thomas Edison and Henry Ford as they signed their name in the pavement there at the museum dedication in the 1920's.
Actually, The Henry Ford would be a great candidate to opperate NYC 3001 Mohawk, the last surviving NYC passenger engine and I am sure they could pry it loose from the sticky fingers of the mayor of Elkhart, Indiana. I know we all would come and volunteer to help restore it just as we are all doing with N&W 611 in Virginia these days.
The Henry Ford has another priceless piece of equipment that has been lost to the world and I don't think they quite realize it. Its Michigan Central 254 the atlantic 4-4-2 high speed passenger engine exactly similar to those of the New York Central of "Twentith Century Limited" fame built also in 1902.
This locomotive was on display in the museum for years lettered for the Detroit Toledo and Ironton but the grace and beauty of its construction belied this pedegree - and it also was one of my favorite exhibits. In absolutely mint condition the 1902 Michigan Central express passenger engine was - all the time right here under our noses.
Henry acquired it from the Michigan Central and used on his Detroit Toledo and Ironton RR basically as a toy. Running it at high speed up and down the track until he got the thrill and desire of being a railroad passenger engineer out of his system. The kind of thing the truely wealthy industrialist can do!
I think Henry had a lot of fun with this engine. He had the firebox rebuilt added superheat to the boiler - had a custom aluminum chair made for the locomotive engineer - himself - and then gold and nickel plated the cab appliances! Wow! the front engine truck was entirely rebuilt to make sure she ran true.
This locomotive MC 254 is now in display unlettered and without its tender in the roundhouse at Greenfield Village - unlettered unknown! Unthinkable! I feel the museum has discounted its leginimate display because of the way Ford changed and modified it. Come on!
I believe this is a mistake because the uniqueness of the locomotive! The changes are not that significant. A LOCOMOTIVE IS EQUIVALANT TO THE NYC 999 "EMPIRE STATE EXPRESS!"
And Chicago is certainly not going to run the NYC 999, but Michgian Central 254 would make a perfect candiate for operation - because of its upgrades and its historisity. Wow! Another great one here! Come on Henry Ford some of these things speak for themselves! Where are we going to get another engine like this? Lets see it run around your village if not down the old Michigan Central mainline which runs right next to your roundhouse.
AND FOR CRYING OUT LOUD PUT UP A SIGN - AND SAY THE - THIS ENGINE - MC 254 - RAN RIGHT PAST THIS ROUNDHOUSE - IN 1902 IN REGULAR PASSENGER SERVICE FROM CHICAGO TO DETROIT! Its one of the last GREAT surviving passenger engines of the turn of the previous century!
Whats more HFF - you once had tracks and a rail yard along the Michigan Central main line! Are they still there under that chain link fence? Or have you pulled them up? What a great place to begin running a steam excursion business from! - Lets ride C&O Allegheny 1601 to Chicago and back from your museum rail yard - this would be a world class museum event - equaled only if you negotiated with Elkart, Indiana and got hold of that NYC 3001 Mohawk that used to also run right past your museum going from Detroit to Chicago!
Behold the opportunity at your very door! - lets get that C&O 1601 out and run it - its in perfect condition and here is the track to handle it! C&O1601 went into that museum hall and it can come out again too! You folks have got to do something new in the 21st Century, you changed the last century so lets get going on this one! Henry himself would have wanted it so!
Dr. D
Right on Dr. D I never seen the 1601, put tthey were some machines, rivalry the big boys.
Keith
Juniatha
Regardless of the locomotive running steam just isn't as embedded in CSX culture as it is in up. Yes CSX and the former chessie system did run steam in the past. But with up, it never dropped thier fires. It has become part of up culture, and a public relation tool. It just and may never work for CSX. It doesnt make csx bad or good, just tskes a different approach to public realtions.Only time will tell. For now let's appreciate up and ns for what they do.
Juniatha As to me , loads in excess of 30 t [metric] , 66.097 lb are just a thing dragged on from the past , today presenting a nuisance and avoidable cause of extra track wear and degradation .
As to me , loads in excess of 30 t [metric] , 66.097 lb are just a thing dragged on from the past , today presenting a nuisance and avoidable cause of extra track wear and degradation .
With caveat that I am not an M.E. or C.E., it would seem to me that rail wear would be a function of peak pressure rather than just axle loading. The large diameter of a steam locomotive driving wheel should distribute the load over a longer section of rail than what would be expected with a freight car wheel or diesel locomotive wheel. Damage to the rest of the track structure would be less dependent on the wheel diameter.
A former poster on these forums, "Railway Man", wrote about the steps that one Australian mining railraod went through to keep track wear done while running 130 ton capacity ore cars. With proper attention to wheel profile and rail head profile, the railroad was able to exceed 1 billion gross tons before the rails needed replacing.
Axle loading does become more of an issue as sppeds go above what is typical for ore trains, though unsprung mass may be more of a problem.
- Erik
ROBERT WILLISON Right on Dr. D I never seen the 1601, put tthey were some machines, rivalry the big boys.
If you ever do get to see an Allegheny let me assure you the size of the thing will take your breath away, trust me. I saw the one on the B&O Museum in Baltimore and "iron mountain" is the best way I can describe it. "Iron mountain" applies just as well to a Big Boy, photos just don't do justice to any of them.
Assuming, just for a moment, CSX would want an Allegheny as a corporate good-will ambassador I'm not sure exactly where they'd run it. MAYBE the old RF&P from Alexandria to Richmond. A nice straight 'road, well maintained, and close enough to enough population to put on a great show. Where they'd turn it around is another matter.
Still, you never know.
erikem ... it would seem to me that rail wear would be a function of peak pressure rather than just axle loading. The large diameter of a steam locomotive driving wheel should distribute the load over a longer section of rail than what would be expected with a freight car wheel or diesel locomotive wheel. Damage to the rest of the track structure would be less dependent on the wheel diameter ... Axle loading does become more of an issue as speeds go above what is typical for ore trains, though unsprung mass may be more of a problem.
In my opinion, a more important issue is the dynamic augment adding to the high axle load, both in terms of the peak pressure and the rate of change of loading. There are also potential problems if the tread is worn non-circular or has damage from slipping or flats from skidding. Propensity to cause railhead damage goes up dramatically and in a nonlinear fashion above a certain loading (e.g. the work-hardened martensite layer breaks up as the softer metal underneath deforms). Potential 'host' railroads are likely to be aware of this.
None of this detracts from Juniatha's original point here, that 'excess' axle load (to produce a higher FA) is a wise thing to avoid.
I believe CSX is a heavy user of self-guiding frogs. Wouldn't they present an issue?
Overmod In my opinion, a more important issue is the dynamic augment adding to the high axle load, both in terms of the peak pressure and the rate of change of loading. There are also potential problems if the tread is worn non-circular or has damage from slipping or flats from skidding. Propensity to cause railhead damage goes up dramatically and in a nonlinear fashion above a certain loading (e.g. the work-hardened martensite layer breaks up as the softer metal underneath deforms). Potential 'host' railroads are likely to be aware of this. None of this detracts from Juniatha's original point here, that 'excess' axle load (to produce a higher FA) is a wise thing to avoid.
Actually martensite is a major no no in rail. It is very brittle and cracks easily. Rail is pearlite, which can be work hardened. There have been some attempts at using banitic steels but not very successfu. Most of the mainline rail in place today (some as high as 400BHN compared to around 250 ish in the 50s) would be way more than adequate to handle the weight (and contact stress).
BTW to a discussion on another thread the industry looked at axle load economics some years ago and found 36 tons to be the optimum, balancing increased track maintenance costs vs. reduced operating costs. With the improvements in track materials since that study I wouldn't doubt that the optimum is now higher. When I was a schoolboy good rail life was around 400MGT. There are now reports of some rails getting close to 2000MGT. Thank you clean steel practice, lubrication and maintenance rail grinding.
BuslistActually martensite is a major no no in rail. It is very brittle and cracks easily. Rail is pearlite, which can be work hardened. There have been some attempts at using banitic steels but not very successfu.
The martensite is a very thin layer formed at the railhead by the work-hardening of traffic, not a constituent of the rail steel as rolled and treated. It (and the small cracks/stress raisers that form if it breaks into segments) is some of what the 'magic wear rate' is designed to remove.
I, too, would be very interested in seeing what optimal axle loadings are with modern technology -- and what the emergent issues with higher loadings turn out to be.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.