.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Wick Moorman and Bennett Levin are the main drivers here. They have six P70 coaches and at least one B60 baggage car that will be used as a "rolling museum" of sorts. Privately funded and they are converting to roller bearings. Awesome news.
Well it made trains news wire so there’s something to it
I managed to watch the stream on Facebook before it was deleted, along with typed summary - also deleted because of Trains picking up the story; and I will admit I chuckled when the presenter said "Amtrak can kiss it!" because apparently the group will either find a legislative route for insurance (It is the state locomotive after all), or that they will work directly with NS since they wont be carrying passengers.
I read that there is talk of the engine getting a welded boiler and roller bearings on the axles. What happened to the desire to keep the engine "100% authentic?"
Stuart
Stuart posted:I read that there is talk of the engine getting a welded boiler and roller bearings on the axles. What happened to the desire to keep the engine "100% authentic?"
Stuart
That was the goal of the current management of the Altoona RR Museum. Obviously, clearer heads prevailed when the big spenders are now willing to make the locomotive FRA compliant, as well as main line operational.
Stuart posted:I read that there is talk of the engine getting a welded boiler and roller bearings on the axles. What happened to the desire to keep the engine "100% authentic?"
Stuart
Here is what I got from the presentation. - The boiler is only a component, and would not pass FRA safety standards. The roller bearing will be designed using original Timken/PRR blueprints from when several K4's were fitted with rollers as an experiment, and the frame will not need to be modified for them to be fitted.
From the Fans of PRR K4 1361 facebook page.
To those who were able to see today's announcement, you have a glimpse into the future of 1361. Bennett Levin and Wick Moorman, cooperatively with the Railroaders Memorial Museum, have a plan in the works to facilitate the return of 1361 to the high iron. An official announcement will be made when a finalized agreement has been reached. As always, thank you all for your support! Your enthusiasm and refusal to give up on us speaks volumes.
@Hot Water Do you envision that PTC will be installed on this locomotive alongside the other upgrades?
Maxrailroad posted:@Hot Water Do you envision that PTC will be installed on this locomotive alongside the other upgrades?
Yes, of course it will have to have PTC in order to operate on main line railroad systems that are equipped with PTC.
Hot Water posted:Maxrailroad posted:@Hot Water Do you envision that PTC will be installed on this locomotive alongside the other upgrades?
Yes, of course it will have to have PTC in order to operate on main line railroad systems that are equipped with PTC.
Thanks for the incite! I look forward to seeing this engine in the future, even though it’s probably going to be finished in another 10 years
Maxrailroad posted:Hot Water posted:Maxrailroad posted:@Hot Water Do you envision that PTC will be installed on this locomotive alongside the other upgrades?
Yes, of course it will have to have PTC in order to operate on main line railroad systems that are equipped with PTC.
Thanks for the incite! I look forward to seeing this engine in the future, even though it’s probably going to be finished in another 10 years
With those two high level individuals involved, and the Altoona Railroader's Museum management out of the control of 1361, it shouldn't really take that long. Where it will operate, might be a whole different story.
Hot Water posted:Maxrailroad posted:Hot Water posted:Maxrailroad posted:@Hot Water Do you envision that PTC will be installed on this locomotive alongside the other upgrades?
Yes, of course it will have to have PTC in order to operate on main line railroad systems that are equipped with PTC.
Thanks for the incite! I look forward to seeing this engine in the future, even though it’s probably going to be finished in another 10 years
With those two high level individuals involved, and the Altoona Railroader's Museum management out of the control of 1361, it shouldn't really take that long. Where it will operate, might be a whole different story.
I hope so! This would be a must see!
Maxrailroad posted:Thanks for the incite! I look forward to seeing this engine in the future, even though it’s probably going to be finished in another 10 years
By all reports, although she is in pieces, most of the big work was completed before she was mothballed. The only real hurdle that I know of would be the boiler. I think with proper funding, having her operational in 3-4 years is very realistic.
Always questions. The drivers were complete, to install roller bearings, I would assume, all this work has to be re-done. A new boiler/fire box is an interesting approach, you would hope, a retro-fit boiler, the same shape, is acceptable to the FRA, if not it's another dream, IMO. May be pre-approved engineered drawings of the new fire box/boiler, but there is a degree of responsibility associated with anything like this, again IMO. Always questions.
Hot Water posted:With those two high level individuals involved, and the Altoona Railroader's Museum management out of the control of 1361, it shouldn't really take that long. Where it will operate, might be a whole different story.
With Moorman on board, she will probably be granted the same rights as 765 - travel over NS rail but not allowed to carry passengers. The actual excursions will be held on the shortlines. In the eastern half of the state, I expect (hope) to see a lot of action on the R&N and the Pocono Main.
This is great news, a great surprise!
I am very excited, and cant wait to see an operational 1361, hear it, smell it, and get a ride!
Hot Water posted:Maxrailroad posted:@Hot Water Do you envision that PTC will be installed on this locomotive alongside the other upgrades?
Yes, of course it will have to have PTC in order to operate on main line railroad systems that are equipped with PTC.
Well If Lionel decides to issue this loco, they will be correct after all with the crew chatter.... and possibly Roller Bearing tender wheels.
645 posted:Just saw this on another forum and looks like there may be hope for PRR 1361 to operate again yet!
PRR 1361 to be restored for service?
New thread with a little more information that was just posted:
I thought the loco was going to "New Hope" Pa. as in New Hope and Ivyland RR after reading that title.
Hope they run it on the NS Lurgan branch, half mile from where I live.
Love the title of this thread. Episode IV for 1361 ... A New Hope.
After reading yesterday who the new players were, I got excited about this project for the first time in a long time.
How about running the display train with the two E units to see if the display concept would work. With two cab units there would be less concerns about turning the train. Some costs for PTC , but the E's are ready to run NOW!
If they're adding roller bearings, they may want to consider talking to Timken. Timken is trying out roller bearings meant specifically for steam locomotives on Tornado. The A1 Trust gets free bearings so long as Timken is allowed to road test their bearings on Tornado. In the interest of saving money that might be a good idea.
GenesisFan99 posted:If they're adding roller bearings, they may want to consider talking to Timken. Timken is trying out roller bearings meant specifically for steam locomotives on Tornado. The A1 Trust gets free bearings so long as Timken is allowed to road test their bearings on Tornado. In the interest of saving money that might be a good idea.
The price of the roller bearings themselves is peanuts, compared the manufacture of the cannon housings that retain/enclose each roller bearing assembly on each wheel/axle assembly. Then there is the extensive machining costs involved with modifying the main locomotive frame required to accept the complete roller bearing wheel/axle assembly.
I, along with two of my former compadres on the NKP 765 crew, had the opportunity to have lunch with Wick Moorman in Washington over a year ago. He told us about these plans then, with the promise to keep it quiet, of course.
This has been in the works for a long time and has been well planned. With these two men heading up this effort, the 1361 finally has a real chance to run again.
For those of you concerned about the “historical fabric” of this locomotive, you must understand one important thing. You cannot maintain the historical fabric of this early 20th century locomotive and also make it compliant with the current rules. So you have a choice. Maintain the historical fabric and stuff and mount it someplace or make the changes necessary to make it compliant with the rules and run it.
The second option makes the most sense to me.
Running steam locos were constantly being redesigned, modified and improved so why not now ?? Silly. Good news for all of us.
Considering how long the K4 ran in revenue service, updating the locomotive where necessary to improve performance and meet regulations is really in the true spirit of the PRR.
By the mid 50's no two K4's looked alike anyway with all the variations that were added over the years on both an experimental and permanent basis.
I just love these people that are obsessed with "historic fabric" bs. Luckily, we have "destroyed the historic fabric" of SP 4449, by upgrading the engine truck, the trailing truck, and all the tender trucks to roller bearings, plus the addition of circulators inside the firebox. As a result, of those improvements, we have been many, many, many thousands of miles on the former SP main lines (Portland, OR to New Orleans and back in 1984), as well as on the BNSF main lines (Portland, OR to Chicago, IL and back for Train Festival in Michigan in 2009).
Thats because 4449 is now totally unrecognizable due to the upgrades.
Why ruin this authentic piece of American railroad history with roller bearings?
Attachments
Images (1)
RickO posted:Thats because 4449 is now totally unrecognizable due to the upgrades.
Why ruin this authentic piece of American railroad history with roller bearings?
So we can preserve history more by making it operational. I thought we covered this above...
I think RickO is being sarcastic.
smd4 posted:I think RickO is being sarcastic.
Exactly. Since the photo he attached is just the 1361 boiler sitting on a flatcar. How "historic" is THAT????
Hot Water posted:GenesisFan99 posted:If they're adding roller bearings, they may want to consider talking to Timken. Timken is trying out roller bearings meant specifically for steam locomotives on Tornado. The A1 Trust gets free bearings so long as Timken is allowed to road test their bearings on Tornado. In the interest of saving money that might be a good idea.
The price of the roller bearings themselves is peanuts, compared the manufacture of the cannon housings that retain/enclose each roller bearing assembly on each wheel/axle assembly. Then there is the extensive machining costs involved with modifying the main locomotive frame required to accept the complete roller bearing wheel/axle assembly.
I hadn't thought of that, I'm sure it is very expensive. Thanks for the insight Hot Water.
GenesisFan99 posted:Hot Water posted:GenesisFan99 posted:If they're adding roller bearings, they may want to consider talking to Timken. Timken is trying out roller bearings meant specifically for steam locomotives on Tornado. The A1 Trust gets free bearings so long as Timken is allowed to road test their bearings on Tornado. In the interest of saving money that might be a good idea.
The price of the roller bearings themselves is peanuts, compared the manufacture of the cannon housings that retain/enclose each roller bearing assembly on each wheel/axle assembly. Then there is the extensive machining costs involved with modifying the main locomotive frame required to accept the complete roller bearing wheel/axle assembly.
I hadn't thought of that, I'm sure it is very expensive. Thanks for the insight Hot Water.
Yet, you are planning to construct a "new" New York Central 4-8-4, from scratch???????
Also the 4449 was in AFT and BNSF liveries at one time. Plus had emergency repairs with fire department hoses. These are not historic things.
Actually, even if the 1361 gets a new boiler, is it not the "same" locomotive because they are using the same frame?
Supposedly they will not have to modify the frame, at least not extensively.
Dominic Mazoch posted:Also the 4449 was in AFT and BNSF liveries at one time. Plus had emergency repairs with fire department hoses.
What????
These are not historic things.
Actually, even if the 1361 gets a new boiler, is it not the "same" locomotive because they are using the same frame?
Montclaire posted:Supposedly they will not have to modify the frame, at least not extensively.
Yup; from the original facebook summary (it was taken down) and the presentation - apparently they will be using original PRR / Timken designs that were used on a few other K4's to retrofit them with the roller bearings that did not require the modification of the frame in any way.
Hot Water posted:Dominic Mazoch posted:Also the 4449 was in AFT and BNSF liveries at one time. Plus had emergency repairs with fire department hoses.
What????
These are not historic things.
Actually, even if the 1361 gets a new boiler, is it not the "same" locomotive because they are using the same frame?
The 1984 separation near Sanderson TX, and the emergency repain.
The facebook page just posted pictures of the Timken / PRR bearing design sheets which are to be used when fitting 1361 with rollers. This will supposedly be done the same way as K4's 20 & 5731 had done, and will not alter the frame.
Good evening, just seen this information on 1361 and this is great news.
In another post I made the comment that she would be back, maybe slightly different, maybe better, maybe worse but she will be back.
With these gentlemen involved she will be back and will be nothing but pure Pennsy excellence !!!
hullmat991 posted:The facebook page just posted pictures of the Timken / PRR bearing design sheets which are to be used when fitting 1361 with rollers. This will supposedly be done the same way as K4's 20 & 5731 had done, and will not alter the frame.
Although the frame probably will not be "altered", each of the pedestal jaws will have to be properly machined in order to accept the proper pedestal liners for the roller bearing journal boxes to ride "up-and-down" in. Then the engine truck and trailing truck will have to be addressed too.
How about using the system used on the 4449's drivers?
Hot Water posted:GenesisFan99 posted:Hot Water posted:GenesisFan99 posted:If they're adding roller bearings, they may want to consider talking to Timken. Timken is trying out roller bearings meant specifically for steam locomotives on Tornado. The A1 Trust gets free bearings so long as Timken is allowed to road test their bearings on Tornado. In the interest of saving money that might be a good idea.
The price of the roller bearings themselves is peanuts, compared the manufacture of the cannon housings that retain/enclose each roller bearing assembly on each wheel/axle assembly. Then there is the extensive machining costs involved with modifying the main locomotive frame required to accept the complete roller bearing wheel/axle assembly.
I hadn't thought of that, I'm sure it is very expensive. Thanks for the insight Hot Water.
Yet, you are planning to construct a "new" New York Central 4-8-4, from scratch???????
Yes, sure am. You want to tell me how that pertains to the topic here? I know I have a lot to learn, you can spare me the rude remarks.
Even if they had to modify the frame, it would still be 1361.
The T1 is building a completely new loco. There is an exact copy of The Spirit of St Louis in San Diego. While it is neat to look at, it's not the real thing. So I don't look at the T1 as preserving history.
The 1361 will be history preserved. You can build a brand new '57 Chevy today from the ground up. Neat.. But not like having a real one.
2 cents
The "historic fabric" argument makes me laugh.
The 1361 was built in 1918 and was retired in 1956.
After countless shoppings and repairs how much of the original boiler steel do you think remained from 1918 until she was stuffed and mounted at "The Curve" in 1957?
And at what point in time was the "history" in her "historic fabric" fixed.
1918 or 1956 or some arbitrary date in between?
Nick Chillianis posted:The "historic fabric" argument makes me laugh.
The 1361 was built in 1918 and was retired in 1956.
After countless shoppings and repairs how much of the original boiler steel do you think remained from 1918 until she was stuffed and mounted at "The Curve" in 1957?
And at what point in time was the "history" in her "historic fabric" fixed.
1918 or 1956 or some arbitrary date in between?
Agreed.
Steam locomotives are like the legendary axe: It's had it head replaced twice and the handle three times, but it's still the same axe.
And, if one expects to operate a steam locomotive in the 21st century, it's going to have to meet the current operating and safety standards.
Rusty
Anyone know what an "XO" boiler is, and care to discuss how it would apply to the "historic fabric" argument?
what should have been done was build a new boiler to code that is not, repeat not a Belpair. That would keep the feds happy, then fake the Belpair casing when you clad the boiler. It would look correct and at the same time be better set up to keep the feds happy with a new, to code, boiler. Probably would have cost less than has been thrown at the original boiler at this point. I just hope to see her run again as I missed the first go around. Only have the youtube videos to enjoy of her running.
To further Kelly’s point, T1 5550 is going to have a Belpaire boiler. Feds do not care as long as something is up to code and not going to explode.
I think the public response to the original vs new material arguement on any steamer is the famous line from GONE WITH THE WIND:
Frankly dear, I don't give a (cussword)!
Last month, when the tall ships were in Galveston, there were 4 large sailing vessels.
Two were built IN THIS CENTURY FROM THE KEEL UP.
The 1877 ELISSA, based in the Texas Seaport Museum in Galveston, has been reconfigured several times in her life. Even here livery at TSM has changed.
But the people came anyway......
UPP 4014 will run on oil. Many steamers have MU boxes first used on the AFT. (HW's idea?)
One cannot stop time.
Is there a chance that NS will make an exception for operating PRR 1361 on their mains, as Wick is on board and it is also the official PA state Locomotive? We live toward the middle of the state near Enola, and would love to catch her on her home tracks every once and a while.
NS6770Fan posted:Is there a chance that NS will make an exception for operating PRR 1361 on their mains, as Wick is on board and it is also the official PA state Locomotive? We live toward the middle of the state near Enola, and would love to catch her on her home tracks every once and a while.
Shouldn't need an "exception", as the NS has continually stated that non-passenger deadhead/ferry moves with steam is not a problem. The management of NS simply does not want to provide liability for passenger excursions, steam or otherwise.
It was mentioned earlier in the thread that rolling stock is on hand as a "rolling museum of sorts". With 1361 getting roller bearings, is the rolling stock going to receive roller bearings such as APEE bearings, or is it already equipped?
Stuart posted:I read that there is talk of the engine getting a welded boiler and roller bearings on the axles. What happened to the desire to keep the engine "100% authentic?"
Stuart
Some facts: the original boiler is in terrible shape. There is enough thickness reduction on it, that it would only be certified to 180PSI. That means it could only produce enough steam for 40MPH operation. Who wants that? And it's life as an operating steamer would be limited. With a new welded boiler, it can steam at full pressure, run at 80MPH, put a full train. and with management of water, it can run nearly forever. Adding the Timken roller bearing will eliminate another major issue with this engine, reduce maintenance, and improve operational performance. Neither change will be readily obvious when the engine is complete. Millions have been squandered on restoration of this engine over the past 30 plus years, and it is only marginally closer to being back under steam. In my view, this is the right way to bring her back, for now and for future generations. Been watching this project for many years - Bennett is a hero in my mind for pushing this in a positive direction
As much as I'm intrigued by the T1 trust, they have a long long way before they have an operational engine, and their boiler will also be welded. So let's get the K4 back on line and run it wherever it can.
Jim
Jim Waterman posted:There is enough thickness reduction on it, that it would only be certified to 180PSI. That means it could only produce enough steam for 40MPH operation.
So...boiler pressure affects speed?
smd4 posted:Jim Waterman posted:There is enough thickness reduction on it, that it would only be certified to 180PSI. That means it could only produce enough steam for 40MPH operation.
So...boiler pressure affects speed?
I also thought that was pretty funny. Plus, he makes some pretty unusual statements about the condition of the boiler and sheet thickness.
They can run it on the moon and I will be there to watch it. Love the 1361 K4.
JohnB
This "boiler PSI topic" is encroaching on a question have I had about boiler pressure but not for speed, for traction.
I’m at work so I can’t site specific sources, but I have read on several occasions, that an engine with a boiler pressure of say, 230 psi was shopped and returned to service with 300 psi and the traction was increased. Assuming no additional weight was added…
How does the increased boiler pressure affect the tractive effort?
It seems if you could spin the drivers with a heavy train at 230 psi than increasing boiler psi would spin the drivers also… thus, no real increase in tractive effort.
What part of the equation am I missing?
Charlie
"Traction" and "Tractive Effort" (or Force) are two different things. Increased boiler pressure increases tractive effort.
Higher boiler pressure equates to more expansive steam energy at the piston/cylinder providing more horsepower.
More horespower (assuming enough traction) equals heavier trains at higher speed.
Don't forget--a steam locomotive has variable horsepower, depending on speed.
Charlie posted:This "boiler PSI topic" is encroaching on a question have I had about boiler pressure but not for speed, for traction.
I’m at work so I can’t site specific sources, but I have read on several occasions, that an engine with a boiler pressure of say, 230 psi was shopped and returned to service with 300 psi and the traction was increased. Assuming no additional weight was added…
How does the increased boiler pressure affect the tractive effort?
It seems if you could spin the drivers with a heavy train at 230 psi than increasing boiler psi would spin the drivers also… thus, no real increase in tractive effort.
What part of the equation am I missing?
Charlie
Charlie,
One must always remember that a steam engine/locomotive is a heat machine. By that I mean it is the heat of expansion that does the "work", i.e. the horsepower. Thus, by increasing the working boiler pressure, and assuming that the boiler has superheater units for additional heat increase as the steam passes through the superheater units, to the throttle, and then to the valves/cylinders, the end result is hotter steam. I do not have the table in front of me, but suffice it to say that at 230 psi boiler pressure, the steam temperature would be markedly lower than at 300 psi. Thus, the 300 psi working pressure would provide MUCH hotter steam into the superheater units, and subsequently provide steam temperatures of over 600 degrees F, out of the superheaters and into the throttle housing.
Thus, the hotter the steam, the higher the horsepower as the locomotive accelerates. There may not be a great increase in tractive effort, as that is pretty much related to weight on drive wheels, and the corresponding mechanical design of the running gear. So, for you stated example, increasing the boiler pressure would markedly increase the horsepower. Now, also remember that a steam engine/locomotive is basically a constant torque, variable horsepower machine (while a diesel electric locomotive is just the opposite, i.e. a constant horsepower, variable torque machine). The steam locomotive actually increases HP as it accelerates, up to its peak HP curve, based on drive wheel diameter.
The old story was/is that a steam locomotive may not be able to actually start a heavy train, but if it could just get it moving, maybe with the help of a yard switcher on the rear, it could accelerate that train to very great speed. The diesel electric, however is just the opposite, in that it can start and move very great tonnage, but not be able to accelerate the same train.
Excellent explanation Jack. Thank you. I learned a lot just from that post alone.
The old story was/is that a steam locomotive may not be able to actually start a heavy train, but if it could just get it moving, maybe with the help of a yard switcher on the rear, it could accelerate that train to very great speed. The diesel electric, however is just the opposite, in that it can start and move very great tonnage, but not be able to accelerate the same train.
Now an interesting concept is for someone to come up with a revolutionary new hybrid design to incorporate both into one to get the best of both worlds. A practical impossibility I suspect but fun to mess around with on paper
Doyle McCormack is known to have said "Starting a steam locomotive is like starting a car in 5th gear." Sure seems he's right, especially with locomotives that have taller drivers.
GenesisFan99 posted:Doyle McCormack is known to have said "Starting a steam locomotive is like starting a car in 5th gear." Sure seems he's right, especially with locomotives that have taller drivers.
Yes. Doyle and I have both had the same experience. However, SP 4449 is not as "slippery" due to her 80" diameter drives, as may people think. I have personally seen 4449 work right down to a dead stall with the throttle wide open AND the booster on! She never slipped once, just simply stalled/stopped. The result of too steep a grade with too much tonnage.
Ok, well that answers that. Thanks Jack and everyone.
It was my understanding that whenever I read tractive effort it was for starting. It looks like the figures may include more then just starting.
In any case, I will try to find the source for my question and read again.
Charlie
Hot Water posted:GenesisFan99 posted:Doyle McCormack is known to have said "Starting a steam locomotive is like starting a car in 5th gear." Sure seems he's right, especially with locomotives that have taller drivers.
Yes. Doyle and I have both had the same experience. However, SP 4449 is not as "slippery" due to her 80" diameter drives, as may people think. I have personally seen 4449 work right down to a dead stall with the throttle wide open AND the booster on! She never slipped once, just simply stalled/stopped. The result of too steep a grade with too much tonnage.
Dead stall? If you kept puting power to the throttle and buster, whould that create massive damage to 4449. What did you do when that happened?
Dominic Mazoch posted:Hot Water posted:GenesisFan99 posted:Doyle McCormack is known to have said "Starting a steam locomotive is like starting a car in 5th gear." Sure seems he's right, especially with locomotives that have taller drivers.
Yes. Doyle and I have both had the same experience. However, SP 4449 is not as "slippery" due to her 80" diameter drives, as may people think. I have personally seen 4449 work right down to a dead stall with the throttle wide open AND the booster on! She never slipped once, just simply stalled/stopped. The result of too steep a grade with too much tonnage.
Dead stall? If you kept puting power to the throttle and buster, whould that create massive damage to 4449.
Nope, not at all. Unlike a diesel electric locomotive, stalling a steam locomotive does absolutely NOTHING.
What did you do when that happened?
Doyle simply closed the throttle, which also kicked out the booster, while I put the fire to "low idle", and we waited for a helper diesel on the rear of the train. In the other case, 4449 would simply NOT start the train on the grade (full throttle with booster on), as she just sat there. Upon closing the throttle, kicked out the booster, and allowed the train to roll back just a very little bit, she then started the train and accelerated up the grade. Yes, exciting but, no big deal.
Hot Water posted:There may not be a great increase in tractive effort, as that is pretty much related to weight on drive wheels, and the corresponding mechanical design of the running gear.
But Hot, the formula for calculating tractive effort has no variable for weight on drive wheels.
smd4 posted:Hot Water posted:There may not be a great increase in tractive effort, as that is pretty much related to weight on drive wheels, and the corresponding mechanical design of the running gear.
But Hot, the formula for calculating tractive effort has no variable for weight on drive wheels.
Doesn't that involve the factor of adhesion also?
No. Not the formula for tractive effort (force). But it's a pure formula. Perhaps it's designed for ideal conditions.
That's a great explanation, Kelly! Thanks for posting this.
I have had the 765 in situations where she would not move, even with the throttle wide open. With a heavy train on a grade and one side on center (the piston on one side at the end of the stroke and all the rods lined up with one another at 9 o'clock or 3 o'clock) I have had to use a trick or two to get us started. If we were on a grade, just closing the throttle and allowing the engine to roll backward a few inches was enough. Let her roll back a bit, grab a fist full of throttle and the loco will move forward with enough momentum to get past that "on center" point so both sides are working again. Rolling only a few inches is not enough to bunch the slack, so starting out again rapidly doesn't harm the passengers or break knuckles. The trick is knowing how far to let her roll back before opening the throttle again. In this scenario, you don't have to move the reverse gear.
If there is no grade, then it takes a little more work and more care.
- Throttle wide open and she won't move. Stalled.
- Close the throttle and let the steam chest pressure bleed off to zero.
- Set the engine brake.
- Put the engine into reverse.
- Release the engine brake.
- Crack the throttle a little to GENTLY back up a few inches.
- Close the throttle and quickly run the reverse all the way forward.
- Open the throttle again, only this time go about half way.
- The engine will move forward with enough momentum to get past the on center point.
Hopefully we will see the 1361 in this situation some day!
This has turned into a virtual encyclopedia for those of us who are not familiar with steam locomotive operations. Would it be possible to take the relevant posts and make a "sticky" out of it? Everyone in the hobby could benefit from such a wealth of experience and knowledge.
Thank you to all who contributed to furthering my education over the course of this thread.
I was standing in the Bessemer & Lake Erie RR yard in Butler,Pa. one day with yardmaster one day as he gave a NB coal train a roll by inspection. He waved to the crew and to me he said, "anyone can run one of those", comparing the diesel to a steam engine. He qualified on steam towards the end. The B&LE ran those big 2-10-4s. He started with the Bessemer at 18. Great guy.
It’s going to need cab signals as well because the former PRR main through Altoona toward Pittsburgh and Harrisburg is cab signal territory. Lead locomotive must have cab signals. 765 needed them on its trips on the former PRR. Why is NS no longer allowing excursions? Liability reasons? Who insures R&N and Steamtown excursions, though? Or is it the issue that NS is a publicity traded company and the short lines are not and publicity traded companies that have to answer to shareholders have to spend their money wisely and minimize risk? NS no longer wants to be liable for having the general public riding on its tracks? So that means that all NS lines are now closed to excursions especially with the Amtrak special train ban.
Robert K posted:Who insures R&N and Steamtown excursions, though?
Google Railroad Museum Insurance and you'll find several companies that offer coverage.
Rusty
Robert K posted:It’s going to need cab signals as well because the former PRR main through Altoona toward Pittsburgh and Harrisburg is cab signal territory. Lead locomotive must have cab signals. 765 needed them on its trips on the former PRR. Why is NS no longer allowing excursions? Liability reasons? Who insures R&N and Steamtown excursions, though? Or is it the issue that NS is a publicity traded company and the short lines are not and publicity traded companies that have to answer to shareholders have to spend their money wisely and minimize risk? NS no longer wants to be liable for having the general public riding on its tracks? So that means that all NS lines are now closed to excursions especially with the Amtrak special train ban.
We are assuming that NS will extend the same agreement that they have with the 765 - equipment may be moved over NS rail but passenger excursions are not allowed. And yes, it's all about risk. Any trips out of Steamtown (other then Federally operated) are over the 100 miles or so of Delaware-Lackawanna/PNRRA ROW usually insured and operated by a third party.
Montclaire posted:Robert K posted:It’s going to need cab signals as well because the former PRR main through Altoona toward Pittsburgh and Harrisburg is cab signal territory. Lead locomotive must have cab signals. 765 needed them on its trips on the former PRR. Why is NS no longer allowing excursions? Liability reasons? Who insures R&N and Steamtown excursions, though? Or is it the issue that NS is a publicity traded company and the short lines are not and publicity traded companies that have to answer to shareholders have to spend their money wisely and minimize risk? NS no longer wants to be liable for having the general public riding on its tracks? So that means that all NS lines are now closed to excursions especially with the Amtrak special train ban.
We are assuming that NS will extend the same agreement that they have with the 765 - equipment may be moved over NS rail but passenger excursions are not allowed. And yes, it's all about risk. Any trips out of Steamtown (other then Federally operated) are over the 100 miles or so of Delaware-Lackawanna/PNRRA ROW usually insured and operated by a third party.
I don't see NS allowing excursions either. NS told the 611 crew before the Amtrak ban that they could run excursions on NS rails if 611 got Amtrak-certified. That never happened, and then the ban hit. If Amtrak were to reverse its decision (which it won't), then 1361 could run excursions on NS rails once certified. They really just don't want to be liable, which I can completely understand.
GenesisFan99 posted:Montclaire posted:Robert K posted:It’s going to need cab signals as well because the former PRR main through Altoona toward Pittsburgh and Harrisburg is cab signal territory. Lead locomotive must have cab signals. 765 needed them on its trips on the former PRR. Why is NS no longer allowing excursions? Liability reasons? Who insures R&N and Steamtown excursions, though? Or is it the issue that NS is a publicity traded company and the short lines are not and publicity traded companies that have to answer to shareholders have to spend their money wisely and minimize risk? NS no longer wants to be liable for having the general public riding on its tracks? So that means that all NS lines are now closed to excursions especially with the Amtrak special train ban.
We are assuming that NS will extend the same agreement that they have with the 765 - equipment may be moved over NS rail but passenger excursions are not allowed. And yes, it's all about risk. Any trips out of Steamtown (other then Federally operated) are over the 100 miles or so of Delaware-Lackawanna/PNRRA ROW usually insured and operated by a third party.
I don't see NS allowing excursions either. NS told the 611 crew before the Amtrak ban that they could run excursions on NS rails if 611 got Amtrak-certified. That never happened, and then the ban hit. If Amtrak were to reverse its decision (which it won't), then 1361 could run excursions on NS rails once certified. They really just don't want to be liable, which I can completely understand.
To add some clarity to all this discussion about excursions, steam or otherwise, both BNSF and NS are NOT completely opposed to excursions, so long as someone else provides the at least 750 million dollars worth of total liability insurance coverage. Previously, such excursions have operated, by specific contract, under Amtrak and were thus covered by Amtrak's insurance, thus neither BNSF, and NS in the future after their 21st Century Steam Program ended, had and problems operating an excursion, even it it was not on an "Amtrak Route".
Now that the CEO of Amtrak has made a blanket policy decision to no longer operate ANY excursions in the future, the results are: A) no more liability insurance to protect the host railroad, and B) no more passenger cars available for lease/rent for such excursions. Now, if a potential excursion operator could afford the unbelievably expensive premium for 750 million dollars worth of liability insurance coverage, and was able to put together a locomotive and train set (again, steam or diesel), then it is entirely possible that BNSF and/or NS would be open to operating an excursion, for a price.
As an example, the Friends of Milwaukee Road 261 have at their disposal a COMPLETE Milwaukee Road passenger train, with HEP. However, the really big hurdle will be covering the premium cost for 750 million dollars worth of liability insurance coverage, plus the cost of paying a railroad (BNSF?) to operate the excursion, and still offer tickets at a price that the public is able & willing to pay.
Well, here in Houston, the Non-Excursion Capital, I am happy to watch lots of freight trains, and am not at all concerned if I ever see a steam powered train or not. If it comes, OK. But I have bigger fish to fry.
So is that $750 million per year?
The $750 million number referred to here is the insurance policy’s Limit of Liability, not the premium paid.
GenesisFan99 posted:So is that $750 million per year?
Yes, as there are yearly premiums for such coverage.
