Flintlock76And isn't the "Ward Kimball" a stunner?
This is the way I remember her:
The story from: https://www.steamlocomotive.info/F22004.cfm
"The Cedar Point & Lake Erie Railroad, circling the grounds at Sandusky, Ohio's Cedar Point Amusement Park, was inspired by the Disneyland Railroad." "Beginning in 1960,Roose( George L., real estate magnate who bought and revitalized Cedar Point) crossed the country looking for small steam engines for the CP&LE. His first purchase in 1961 was the Maud L. (now at Disneyland) that he acquired from Arthur LaSalle's American Railway Equipment Association of Billiard, Florida. It was rebuilt by LaSalle and ready for service in time for the CP&LE's opening day in 1963."
Concerning the original Ward Kimball:
"The latest addition to the CP&LE is the only locomotive yet to be named. This 2-4-4T No.55, a 1927 Davenport, is a converted tank engine that was formerly Walt Disney World's Ward Kimball. It began life as a homely 0-4-OT working for the N&S Coal Company of Mulberry, Kansas, and later was sold (along with the company) to the Mackie Clements Fuel Company which gave it the number 55. After retirement it was stored for years and deteriorated badly.
In the early 1970s No.55 was one of several historic steam engines acquired by the Marriott Corporation that they intended to repair for use in their Great America theme parks. They subsequently contracted with the Keystone Light Railway Company of Hermoinie, Pennsylvania, to overhaul the engines. No.55, the worst of the lot, was the first selected for renovation. It was heavily modified by Keystone to resemble a 2-4-4RT like those that had worked on the Chicago Elevated. Unfortunately, Marriott balked at the high cost of the restoration, and contracted with another company to convert some other (possibly Davenport) tank engines to diesel power, leaving No.55 as the oddball steamer of the bunch. Although it was delivered to the Great America park north of Chicago in 1980, it never ran at any of the Great America parks, and years of storage caused significant deterioration to its cab and plumbing. (Three of the unrestored engines owned by Marriott were eventually donated to the Illinois Railway Museum, which sold them to raise funds. They have since been cosmetically restored and placed on display in museums in Oxnard, California; Denver, Colorado; and Worthington, Minnesota.)
A reprieve for No.55 came in the early 1990s when it was sold to an individual who had it returned to running condition by Shop Services. Later the 2-4-4RT was traded to Disney in exchange for the Retlaw-1 narrow gauge coaches, and No.55 was subsequently shipped to Walt Disney World, where it was christened the (first) Ward Kimball and put into service in 1997. Unfortunately, the locomotive did not work as planned, and in 1999 Disney arranged to trade No.55 to Cedar Point for the much smaller Maud L. (which is scheduled to become the "second" Ward Kimball). For now, the former N&S Coal No.55 is in storage, but it may join the five other CP&LE steam era in the operating fleet. It is the only oilfired locomotive owned by the railroad" Carstens Publications 2004
This is what loco 55 looks like today as C.P.& L.E. #1, the G.A. Boeckling:
http://www.trainweb.org/amtrakpix/roadtrips/062113A/rosterphotos/CPLE1A.html
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
Convicted One xboxtravis7992 .. I have been wondering do we need more mainline steam programs/restorations than what we currently have going on right now? I would hate to see so many that the novelty wears off, and public interest wanes to the point that excursions no longer draw sufficient revenue to be self sustaining. I'm not sure where that point is, but I'm sure that it exists. Hopefully we will never find it. The experience needs to be novel enough that demand for ridership is maintained, which supports ticket price levels that make the excursions worth all the work to organize and operate. Personally I don't see myself paying for 10 steam excursions over the next 10 years...and suspect that a great many people feel similarly. I've even seen talk by some of the well-known restoration operators to delve into narrowguage "amusement park" type operations for the bulk of their tourist operation. Somehow riding the captive two foot guage tour past the standard guage stationary display "big duke" just doesn't capture my imagination.
xboxtravis7992 .. I have been wondering do we need more mainline steam programs/restorations than what we currently have going on right now?
I would hate to see so many that the novelty wears off, and public interest wanes to the point that excursions no longer draw sufficient revenue to be self sustaining.
I'm not sure where that point is, but I'm sure that it exists. Hopefully we will never find it.
The experience needs to be novel enough that demand for ridership is maintained, which supports ticket price levels that make the excursions worth all the work to organize and operate.
Personally I don't see myself paying for 10 steam excursions over the next 10 years...and suspect that a great many people feel similarly.
I've even seen talk by some of the well-known restoration operators to delve into narrowguage "amusement park" type operations for the bulk of their tourist operation.
Somehow riding the captive two foot guage tour past the standard guage stationary display "big duke" just doesn't capture my imagination.
The question would need be answered this way...look over at the U.K. and see how they do it. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of people willing to ride mainline steam trips over there and they have several that are run annually along the same routes to the same destinations. I could see that happening here going to places like the Grand Canyon from Los Angeles, Ca or even from L.A. to Las Vegas, NV, Oakland - Reno...doing those trips behind steam 3 or 4 times a year would be practical and I doubt if you'd run out of people willing to take them, but then it's possible, you aren't selling it as a steam trip though but a journey to a destination that happens to be pulled by steam.
xboxtravis7992.. I have been wondering do we need more mainline steam programs/restorations than what we currently have going on right now?
Ward Kimball owned two steam engines at one time, the "Emma Nevada," a 2-6-0, and the "Chloe," an 0-4-2T. Both were eventually donated to the Orange Empire Railroad Museum.
Ward's railroad was called the "Grizzly Flats," and here's the story...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_Flats_Railroad
That woodie wagon appears to be a 1949-50-51 Ford, but it's possibly a Mercury. But without a doubt, made by Ford. The car with the split windshield could be a Studebaker, I'm guessing. Didn't the Ward Kimball actually belong to Ward in his backyard railroad?
Oh yeah man, that woody's a classic in it's own right! I wonder what happened to it?
Probably chopped up for Toyotas a long time ago.
How ‘bout that woodside station wagon parked out on the street behind the Ripley!
Interesting, I didn't know "C.K. Holliday" was a new build, I assumed it was a "rescue" like the Disney World engines.
And isn't the "Ward Kimball" a stunner? I wouldn't mind owning it myself! Most engines back-dated to an earlier appearance don't look "right," but the "Kimball's" an exception. It looks like it always looked that way.
Flintlock76 "C.K. Holliday" under restoration at Disneyland.
Actually, it was a completely new build. Both engines were built at the Disney Studios backshop:
The Wilmington Iron Works and the Dixon Boiler Works, both of Los Angeles, fabricated the boilers. Granted, that was 1954/55 and locomotive shops and their employees still existed who had been building steam locomotives.
A look at the Ripley's cab:
After the original 2 were built, Disney started acquiring locomotives for rebuilding, mostly from south of the border sugar plantations.
For example, this locomotive:
is dear to my heart as I rode on and behind her many times while she worked the Cedar Point and Lake Erie Railroad as the "Maud L."
Actually, ’76, if the 4-6-6T is slide-ruled down to run on 80 lb rail, it is going to be very close to CNR 47. Keeping the 3-axle bunker will just give a little more range for those Polar Express weekends! C’mon Powerball!
I read you kgb', but if I hit the Powerball that 4-6-4T at Steamtown's gonna get a resurrection, and it's gonna get a make-over into an erzatz Jersey Central 4-6-4T! Hey, my money, my rules. And besides, it'll go well with all that Jersey Central rolling stock they've got up there.
And then I'll go looking for a USRA Pacific somewhere I can turn into an Erie engine!
Okay, so when I hit the Powerball, we’ll work on slide-ruling down the B&A 4-6-6t down to something that will only need 80 lb rail for the Mid-Continent Railway Museums and Abilene and Smoky Valleys out there, and then we’ll work on the J1 Hudson for the more ambitious groups who need to pull 10 cars on heavier rail.
I think I've been misunderstood.
Let me back up a bit. I'm not suggesting Steamtown go with a new build. That doesn't make sense, given the material on hand.
If and when Steamtown goes back to being Steamtown, and not "Steam N' Dieselville," I'd say a good set-up for them would be like this...
Short rides, for those who want the taste of steam, but not the "full meal." A three-mile in-and-out, pulled by a six-coupled, the 0-6-0 or the restored 4-6-4T. The 4-6-4T wouldn't be used on the longer excursion runs. Remember the Jersey Central "Scoot?" That's the type of run the tanker was made for, and it could run at a better speed than the switcher. An 0-6-0 can get "wobbly" if you push it too fast.
For the cross-county excursions, say Scranton to Carbondale, that's what you want big power for, and when Boston & Maine 3713 is done they'll have their power for those runs.
Now bear with me just a bit longer...
Keep in mind Steamtown's a big place, it's got the museum and the nearby Scranton attractions. If people take the long ride, they may not have the time for anything else. If they take the short ride they will have time for everything else. Both options, short and long rides, have to be available.
I can speak from personal experience having been to the Durango and Silverton twice. If you ride the train, you can't see the museum, the train ride takes all day. If you visit the museum (which is superb!) you can't take the train. It's either-or. Which is why I advise people if they go to the D&S allow two days, or at least a day-and-a-half. Steamtown should be able to avoid that situation.
I may have downplayed the public interest in steam a little too much, if I did it was a poor choice of words on my part. I'll be the first to say steam brings 'em out like nothing else does. Still, there are rail museums and excursion lines around the country that don't have steam engines on the roster and don't seem to miss them. I should should have said that. And I'm certainly aware of the crowds Big Boy drew, but I'd imagine there were a LOT of UP PSA's letting everyone in the area know about it. The railfan grapevine's not THAT big.
I'm well aware of the 4-8-4 at NH&I. What they do with it is up to them, they've had it long enough.
That's enough of that now.
The next question is, what should Steamtown do with the junkyard they're in posession of?
Flintlock76 ... as far as Steamtown is concerned the "out-and-back" runs I mentioned are exactly what they're using the 0-6-0 for.
And you're suggesting what? that we spend multiple millions on a strange prototype to take over the job an 0-6-0 already does cheaper?
The long-distance, for lack of a better term, aren't being done with steam at this time, the 2-8-2 and 4-6-2 they were using for the same are out of service.
Doesn't matter; they'll be run with the premier small-excursion engine in the world, 3713, for which the funding is already appropriated and, in large part, already spent/utilized. And when they run it I shall be there.
The only thing comparable to that (aside from 576, another done deal ultimately) would be the aforementioned 4-8-4 now at NH&I, with which something should be done before another penny is spent on new small 'spec' builds.
Maybe steam for excursion runs isn't as important as it used to be since mainline steam has been gone for over 60 years and the nostalgia factor isn't there anymore, at least as far as the general public is concerned.
You must not have chased any of the UP steam expeditions. The 'general public' comes out of the woodwork, and many of them prove to have continued interest in restored steam.
How you monetize that is another issue, discussion of which I temporarily reserve to those who have lacking souls.
... concerning "Plandampf," I heard the demise of the same was a corporate decision on Deutsche Bahn's part [please, please note the two words], ecological concerns and NIMBYism didn't have much to do with it.
I was referring to the United States version of the idea. Yes, they lost the combination of political will and interest to promote the idea, in part because any carbon has become bad carbon in recent years. Perhaps the saddest thing is that all the old heads who know how to run Plandampf operations in their sleep will have passed on by the time Europe goes to take up the idea again.
I'll bet Juniatha raised hell over it, wherever she is! I'll bet Sir Madog (Remember him? "People in Hamburg don't tan, they rust!) raised hell over it too!
Long, and effectively, may they rage. Juniatha in particular has the combination of training, experience, and attitude that will be necessary to make the trick work when it becomes time.
Good points Mod-man.
However, as far as Steamtown is concerned the "out-and-back" runs I mentioned are exactly what they're using the 0-6-0 for. The long-distance, for lack of a better term, aren't being done with steam at this time, the 2-8-2 and 4-6-2 they were using for the same are out of service. For the long distance runs they're doing now, when they do them, they're using borrowed diesels, either from the Delaware-Lackawanna (who run vintage ALCOs, interesting in their own right) or from other sources. So lack of pulling power on a long consist isn't an issue at the moment.
I don't know. Maybe steam for excursion runs isn't as important as it used to be since mainline steam has been gone for over 60 years and the nostalgia factor isn't there anymore, at least as far as the general public is concerned.
And again concerning "Plandampf," I heard the demise of the same was a corporate decision on Deutschebahn's part, ecological concerns and NIMBYism didn't have much to do with it. I also heard it wasn't a very popular decision with the Germans, they love their vintage steamers!
Flintlock76a small six-coupled steamer is a fairly economical machine to run... a small six-coupled engine like a 2-6-0, 2-6-2, 0-6-0, or a 4-6-4T is more practical for most purposes.
That's very right, EXCEPT that the NYC/B&A 4-6-6 is no more a 'small' engine than a PRR G5 is. The ex-CN tank engine at Steamtown (or the Jubilee) are contenders, but all the argument so far has foundered on their inadequacy to pull the length of consist that Steamtown operations would require even for marginal operating-cost break-even over the routes that would pay out of Scranton. Other operations would love them ... once very expen$ively fixed to run, on light oil, with all the mod cons for inexpensive maintenance and easy safe operation...
A new or restored 4-4-0 would be adequate as well.
The only one even remotely qualifying for what's necessary was Repton. Which aside from looking a bit weird to American railfan eyes was repatriated to a land that cares properly for her, long ago.
The last I heard "Plandampf" is moribund over in Germany, Deutsche Bahn is cold on the idea.[/quote]
As is the Swiss community that was considering steam operations, according to Andreas Schwander. Alas. Gives you some idea of how practical the idea would be over here, where there's less ecological but much more stringent financial concern... and much more legislation and NIMBYism.
The C&O 614 would be a great "best of both worlds". It's a Hudson, it already exisits so no need to try to build a new boiler, it's unique, and close enough to the Western MD to be used there, or any other railroad friendly to steam. As for Amtrack rules, those can be changed at the stroke of a pen from Congress, or the Smithsonian Institute (what's wrong with a moving museum.. could reach a lot more people!).[quote user="xboxtravis7992"]
To clarify what I am trying to ask in the title... I have been wondering do we need more mainline steam programs/restorations than what we currently have going on right now? With the success of Big Boy this week I have been starting to wonder, "what's next?" and I began to sort of tally in my mind some of the 'big steam' that has ran mainline runs in the last ten years or so, or is currently under restoration/replication. To sort of show what I mean a list of ongoing programs I can think of include:UP Steam (UP 844, UP 4014 both under steam; with UP 3985 sidelined for possible rebuild down the line)Oregon Rail Heritage Foundation (SP 4449 operational, SPS 700 and ORN 197 under restoration/rebuild)ATSF 3751 (rebuild)
ATSF 2926 (restoration)
Milwaukee Road 261 (operational last I heard)
Iowa Interstate (two operational QJ locomotives)
Ft. Wayne Railroad Historical Society Nickel Plate 765 (operational)
NW 611 (operational)
Altoona Memorial Museum PRR 1361 (restoration)
T1 Locomotive Trust (recreation project)
Western Maryland Scenic 1309 (restoration... I don't know if this will ever see 'mainline' service but I think its worth mentioning due to its sheer size)
Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum Southern 630 (operational, last used on mainline under former 21st Century Steam program)
Nashville Steam Preservation Society 576 (restoration)
Looking at this current list, I really am struggling to think of 'that many' more steam engines to pick for restoration that I think could make strong candidates for such a program. If we go the replica route I think a NYC Hudson would be a strong candidate but I wouldn't dare suggest it take priority until the PRR T1 is finished and has proven its worth. As for mainline steam that is currently preserved the candidates seem really small... CP 2860, Reading 2101, TP 610, NW 1218, CO 614, etc. come to mind but only because they were used in mainline steam programs in the past.
This leads back to my opening question... Do we need more programs? Or is it best to focus on maintaining existing programs than chasing down the next mainline steam candidate? Sort of my opinion on the matter, with the current restrictions due to Amtrak's current policy; and UP being the only Class 1 currently supporting a steam program I really think we have hit about the max amount of mainline steam projects that can be supported in the US. Really the only thing I want to see outside of what is ongoing right now is a possible replica of a NYC Hudson someday. But, I am really curious to hear if any of you think there is still more untapped potential out there. This is definately an idea I would be happy to be proven wrong on so to speak.
A couple of things...
First, a thank-you to "Penny Trains" for the posting of the "C.K. Holliday" under restoration at Disneyland. As a life-long railfan and steam freak Walt Disney insisted on a live-steam railroad for Disneyland, and then Walt Disney World in Orlando. There's been rumors of both steam 'roads being converted to "steam profile" locomotives, probably unfounded. Walt would come roaring back from the dead "...kickin' ass and takin' names..." as we used to say in the Marines if anyone tried. Don't think it wouldn't happen! I wouldn't take the risk!
Second, kgb's idea of a steam tank engine isn't such a bad one, a short run "Out-and-back, taste-of-steam" is a fairly practical option for some organizations, and a small six-coupled steamer is a fairly economical machine to run. I'm surprised Steamtown didn't resurrect CN 47, a 4-6-4 tank engine instead of the 0-6-0 they did restore just for that "...taste of..." purpose, but what do I know, I wasn't part of the process. What it would cost to build a new tank engine I don't profess to know.
Third, Overmod's comments. David Kloke crossed my mind earlier but I really don't know just how active he is in producing new 4-4-0's. He's built three so far, whether he's planning any more I couldn't say, so I didn't bring him up.
If I remember right "low-cost operating steam" to save wear and tear on originals was brought up as far back as the '90s in "Locomotive and Railway Preservation" magazine, and with parts standardization as well. No-one's picked up on the concept of course, at least not yet.
As much as I'd love to see a new Hudson myself, we get back to the problem of where to run it. Without a sympathetic host 'road with lots of trackage to let it run free on why bother? You don't use a racehorse to pull a milk wagon, if you get my drift. A small six-coupled engine like a 2-6-0, 2-6-2, 0-6-0, or a 4-6-4T is more practical for most purposes. A new or restored 4-4-0 would be adequate as well.
The last I heard "Plandampf" is moribund over in Germany, Deutschebahn is cold on the idea. Hope I'm wrong on that, though.
Anyway, good discussion, all!
kgbw49Taking up the premise of money being no object, if I were a billionaire and wanted to build new-build steam as a hobby, for the US I would probably develope an oil-fired version of the Boston & Albany D1A 4-6-6t that could be useful for "out and back" tourist operations
This is laudable ... but did you read down far enough to get the weight on drivers and truck axles? A great many of the out-and-back operations will NOT like the size and weight of that thing.
Meanwhile, for nearly the same amount of money (and, in fact, probably far less, considering the tender sits at Steamtown available for a pittance) you could have a full J1e modified for effective excursion service, a far better use of the money (and not that much longer, or difficult to run bidirectionally with modern and very cheap camera technology. And there would be some market for multiple production. Just resist the temptation to build a J3 rather than an advanced J1 for this historical purpose, even though the former is 'technically' a more advanced and efficient design... don't give me the 'streamlined-to-compete-with-5550' argument as there is historical precedent for the Dreyfuss streamlining on a J1e.
Don't make me grind my teeth over an 'optimized' J2 with its lower and nominally more "practical" driver diameter. Just -- if you do it -- fix whatever made the cabs sag.
Flintlock76There was an outfit building new steam engines.
There's a long, rich history of outfits either setting up to build 'new' steam engines or proposing them, with the premier outfit (no one seems to have mentioned it yet) being SLM/DLM with Roger Waller. One thing developed in Europe that we haven't tried (enough) here is the use of 'Plandampf' both for freight and for things like commuter passenger, for which very careful economic and capital feasibility plans have been worked out. Here the use of reasonably high horsepower (or to put it a different way, relatively low factor of adhesion) makes sense even in fairly small designs, as there is some value in 'pulling any train you can start' at what might be high peak speed to clear passenger-oriented traffic.
In this country, we have David Kloke as a promising source of new engines of a particular style (which could of course be modified to suit what many operations think they'd most benefit from). I think there has been some resistance to 'foreign-looking' engines -- in part this argument hinges on whether a given operator has most of their income stream from 'railfans' or from families who love steam of even the most ridiculous kind for "passenger" service -- and some of Kloke's designs are resonant with romantic conceptions of what steam 'should look like' if you are running, say, a Western-style thing complete with daily newspaper butchered on the train and the obligatory feigned outlaw stick-up, etc.
There is a long and tattered history of people who wanted to set up companies to sell 'new steam' to the tourist market (vast and growing in England, for example) -- the whole of the 5AT project was geared toward that as practical use of their product 'most of the time', I think very intelligently. Of course the lion's share of the work both to produce that engine and to design other modern steam 'the old way' has been done, and the successors to the 5AT project have it available to vastly shorten the learning curve for anyone who wants to step up to the plate next and take a swing at it.
The practical capital and maintenance costs of anything 'new' may be out of range for most currently-running outfits here, but there is a very large potential market (this is occasionally brought up on RyPN) for low-cost operating steam in place of aging or 'historic fabric' locomotives being cobbled up or butchered to keep running, or diesel or other locomotives that are of less proven interest. Naturally a USRA-style limitation to a small range of basic designs, and manufacture of standardized parts to the greatest extent practical, and the promulgation of effective and lowest-net-cost operating manuals, all factor into breaking this market open (there is relatively little chance, in my pessimistic but practical opinion, of it doing so otherwise). Much, if not all, of the actual design and initial DFM costs of any such design had better be considered 'a labor of love' as far as capital planning would be concerned -- or had better be tax-deductible for someone or some company involved in the effort somehow.
It would be difficult to produce a locomotive for mass production in the US and hope to make a profit.
There is a group in England that is working on a new-build 2-6-2T with the idea of building more copies over time for the numerous small operating tourist railroads in England.
http://www.82045.org.uk/
Of course, over in the UK steam locomotives are much smaller units than most US steam locomotives. Consider that the P2 three-cylindered 2-8-2 with 43,462 lbs of tractive effort were the most powerful locomotives in the UK and the Class 9F 2-10-0 had the most tractive effort of any UK locomotive at 53,328 lbs of tractive effort.
Consider that the E-3 4-6-2 Pacifics of the Omaha Road had 51,567 lbs of tractive effort for comparison.
Taking up the premise of money being no object, if I were a billionaire and wanted to build new-build steam as a hobby, for the US I would probably develope an oil-fired version of the Boston & Albany D1A 4-6-6t that could be useful for "out and back" tourist operations such as the New Hope & Ivyland, Mid-Continent Railway Museum, North Shore Scenic Railroad, Boone Valley Scenic Railroad, etc.
41,651 lbs of tractive effort
63 inch drivers
215 lbs boiler pressure
1,585 gallons of oil
6,000 gallons of water
The sooner the better and cheaper.
Costs just go up with time.
C.K. Holliday of the S.F. & D.L.
There was an outfit building new steam engines. Ever hear of Crown Metal Products? They're not around anymore, but here's the story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Metal_Products
They have a fansite, but most of it's under construction, here's the link...
www.trainweb.org/crownmetalproducts/
As to whether there's a market for standard guage steamers that's anyone's guess. Changing tastes, for lack of a better term, in amusement parks are one of the things I believe led to the fall of Crown Metal that the Wiki article doesn't mention. For example, about 25 miles up the road there's an amusement park called "Kings Dominion." They had a steam railroad there, but when Paramount bought the park 30 or so years ago they altered the park with a "sci-fi" vibe that a steam railroad didn't fit with, so they sold it off. Paramount doesn't own the park anymore but the steam railroad never came back.
Realistically, the market would probably come to two or less locomotives in a given year. Lining up subcontractors to manufacture the necessary parts might be possible but their prices would be high for what is basically a custom job.
Has anyone done a serious study to examine the size of the steam locomotive market?
Suppose money were no object I started a company for new build steam?
How many locomotives (standard gauge) could I sell in a year, or two?
Kevin
Well said Joe!
The only thing I could add is back in the old days backshops had bins of replacement parts ready to hand. That situation doesn't exist anymore either. Many have to be fabricated from old drawings or using the old parts as patterns.
Any good machine shop can do it, but that takes time and costs probably more money than it did years back when there was a steady market for said parts.
There are many steam locomotives that I personally would like to see brought back from the dead. Who wouldn't want see an AC-12 locomotive running?
As other posters have stated, are there enough resources and competent leaders? We're lucky that the UP program still exists.
I have heard some people ask why the UP took six years to get the 4014 running. They say in the old days, steam locomotives were rebuilt in a matter weeks.
Of course, in the 1940s a typical class 1 railroad had thousands of people working 3 shifts rebuilding steamers. Because of the advent of the diesel locomotive, the number of steam locomotive rebuilders drastically declined.
It is easy to say lets do something. The fund raising, problem solving and managing different people who know how rebuild a steam locomotive, some of whom might not get along, is the tough part.
Oh, I'm sure you didn't Sam. The thing is, as the time has gone by since Steve's retirement I'm struck, if not amused, by the change in attitudes toward him, as I said, from some quarters.
Back in 2008 with his retirement from UP imminent the concern in the railfan world was the UP steam program was going to fall apart without him, he'd been such a driving force and the "face" of the program for so long. He assured his followers and fans that wasn't going to happen, and it didn't.
Seems in some people's minds the attitude's gone from "Steve Lee can do no wrong" to "Steve did a good job, BUT..."
I suppose getting a concensus from railfans is like herding cats.
Anyway, I rmember Ed Dickens getting grief from some people when he took over the program, but now post-Big Boy restoration he's a hero! Oh well.
General Patton said it best, "This is the craziest country in the world! We love to put people up on pedestals, and then we love to knock 'em off!"
Reading back in this Thread.. Let me state that my comment re:a conversation with Steve Lee. I absolutely, meant no disrespect to either the UPRR Steam Crew[Program!] or to Steve Lee.
His statement was made in the context of #3985 which had lost its' smokebox 'draft nozzle', and was laid-over in Memphis,Tn,; while in-transit to run as Clinchfield RR#676, for the CRR's 50th Anniversary{1992] Christmas Santa Special in the Kingsport, Tn area.
Steve Lee was 'on the ground' with the puiblic, and Steam Crew for close to 48 hours, while #3985 was cooled down, and her smokebox opened for the repair to be made. He was a real ambassador for the UP and the Steam Crew, and he fielded a barrage of all sorts of questions from the by-standing crowd there, at the site of the L&N's old Lenox Station { at the junction at the Eastern end of former MoPac and then CSX track }. Not only did they accomplish the repair, but the engine was refuled by tanker trucks, and the Fire Dept provided water for the locomotive as well. It was a really interesting couple of days!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.