Steam & Excursion > 1361 Returning to Altoona

From Trains Magazine's newswire...

Pennsylvania K4s returning to Altoona in pieces
Print | Email | Contact Us
August 6, 2007


ALTOONA, Pa. - It was long hoped that when Pennsylvania K4s 4-6-2 No. 1361 returned to the Railroaders Memorial Museum from Scranton, Pa., it would be under steam. The engine was undergoing an extensive reconstruction at the Steamtown National Historic Site in Scranton, Pa. But instead, when the engine comes back to Altoona next year, it will be in pieces and still require extensive work before it can run again, despite 10 years of work and millions of dollars spent on restoration. What happened that caused the project to go from triumph to despair?

An extensive article in the Altoona's Mirror newspaper provides some background on what happened to the 1361. Despite speculation from railfans, the project isn't dead, museum Chief Executive Officer Scott Cessna told the Mirror. The project's future is uncertain because Cessna cannot say where, when, by whom, or how the job will get done.

This spring, shortly after he started talking about a media event to mark installation of the driving wheels, signaling the project was nearly complete, Cessna received two pieces of damaging news. First, the state budget office said it would not reimburse the museum for work done on the K-4 as part of a 2006 Redevelopment Assistance Capital Grant until the locomotive is finished. The grant was worth $1.6 million. Then a contractor hired to help finish the boiler discovered the boiler roof sheet (the flat outer metal sheet on the roof of the Belpaire boiler) was too thin to allow the required safety factor for a boiler operated at pressure. The roof sheet must be in compliance with FRA regulations in order for the 4-6-2 to operate under its own power. It was also not fastened well enough to meet modern safety standards.

To get the roof sheet right, a crew will need to cut out a section of steel plate, said Bob Yuill of Historic Machinery Services in Springville, Ala., the consultant who discovered the problem. The crew then will need to shape and form a thicker replacement section, weld it in place and add staybolts, either bigger or more numerous than those already in place. The museum needs to do the work according to standards of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Yuill told the Mirror. The engineer on the project should have discovered the roof sheet deficiency, he said. Because modern safety standards are higher than when the locomotive was in regular service, the museum must build the boiler better than the original, Cessna said.

Thanks for the info Greg.

I am a bit confused by this line...
"Because modern safety standards are higher than when the locomotive was in regular service, the museum must build the boiler better than the original, Cessna said."

I'm going to guess he Scott meant to say "rebuild" as I doubt most engines in service today are running with better, or rather more durable boilers then they originally had. For that matter, are there even any engines that have been or will be rebuilt that will actually need "better then original" boilers?

/Mitch

BTW - Part 1 of a long long thread....
Can't parts be swapped out with the other K-4 at the PRR Museum, even large parts, considering the fact that 3750 is strictly display and needs cosmetic work anyway?

This is but the latest chapter in a very long and sad saga. The bottom line is that it is a classic example of the old adage "a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing". The project for many years has suffered from a series of critical management mistakes that have resulted in a huge waste of money and time.
IMHO the best thing that could happen now is to return the "pieces" to Altoona, reassemble the engine as is, complete an exterior restoration and put her on display with proper signage,cab access etc.
To continue down the road of attempting to return her to service is just furthering this already sad and very expensive series of mistakes. She is still a LONG,LONG ways from being mechanically complete and MANY dollars short of that goal.
If, on the other hand a decision is made to complete her return to service then for goodness sake put the management of the task into the hands of proven professionals (those with a successful track record of mainline steam restorations) and keep the others COMPLETELY out of it!!
Ross Rowland

co614 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is but the latest chapter in a very long and
> sad saga. The bottom line is that it is a classic
> example of the old adage "a little knowledge is a
> very dangerous thing". The project for many years
> has suffered from a series of critical management
> mistakes that have resulted in a huge waste of
> money and time.
> IMHO the best thing that could happen now is
> to return the "pieces" to Altoona, reassemble the
> engine as is, complete an exterior restoration and
> put her on display with proper signage,cab access
> etc.
> To continue down the road of attempting to
> return her to service is just furthering this
> already sad and very expensive series of mistakes.
> She is still a LONG,LONG ways from being
> mechanically complete and MANY dollars short of
> that goal.
> If, on the other hand a decision is made to
> complete her return to service then for goodness
> sake put the management of the task into the hands
> of proven professionals (those with a successful
> track record of mainline steam restorations) and
> keep the others COMPLETELY out of it!!
> Ross Rowland

Mr. Rowland has said it correctly; there is nothing else to add period.

Ok- Here are my two cents in the K-4s rebuild. I am most certainly N O T a locomotive mechanical expert. (Although I've gotten my hands skinned and dirty on a certain 4-6-4 rebuild). Here's my question: If the K-4s (which was running as recently as 1988, was NOT successfully rebuilt in over 10 years, with more than a million dollars in funds..... just what chance does the more modern and complex B&M Pacific have, being rebuilt a few stalls away, which hasn't run since 1956? Can someone help me out here, and tell me all is going to be OK, and that I should go ahead and order a new brick of Kodachrome for the first steaming and test runs!

My guess would be that the B&M engine was probably in
much better shape prior to restoration then the 1361
was at it's second, or even restoration.

As for quitting... I admit I do not know just how
bad bad can be but I could not imagine such a write
off of the millions in funds already spent and promised,
both by the government and personal donations.

And again, I ask, aren't there enough good parts
between both official state engines #3750 and
#1361 to yeild one functional engine and one
static engine?

/Mitch

I don't know if it's entirely suitable to compare locomotive rehabilitation projects to others as if they are the same beast.

Even engines of similar type and technology will differ vastly in their characteristics and behaviors both under restoration and in operation, just as they were liable to do when "new."

1361 and 3713 were in different states of disrepair when retired and have had a variety of work performed on them in the interim, making further comparison between the two arduous. The '61 may have been restored to operational status in the 1980s, but it was not a complete rebuild.

The K4 has unfortunately become a closet with many skeletons inside and has also become an undeserved burden on some otherwise good people and good places.

Save some of your Kodachrome finances for ticket sales! ;)

KL

Keystone1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok- Here are my two cents in the K-4s rebuild.
> I am most certainly N O T a locomotive
> mechanical expert. (Although I've gotten my hands
> skinned and dirty on a certain 4-6-4 rebuild).
> Here's my question: If the K-4s (which was
> running as recently as 1988, was NOT successfully
> rebuilt in over 10 years, with more than a million
> dollars in funds..... just what chance does
> the more modern and complex B&M Pacific have,
> being rebuilt a few stalls away, which hasn't run
> since 1956? Can someone help me out here, and
> tell me all is going to be OK, and that I should
> go ahead and order a new brick of Kodachrome for
> the first steaming and test runs!

Keystone1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok- Here are my two cents in the K-4s rebuild.
> I am most certainly N O T a locomotive
> mechanical expert. (Although I've gotten my hands
> skinned and dirty on a certain 4-6-4 rebuild).
> Here's my question: If the K-4s (which was
> running as recently as 1988, was NOT successfully
> rebuilt in over 10 years, with more than a million
> dollars in funds..... just what chance does
> the more modern and complex B&M Pacific have,
> being rebuilt a few stalls away, which hasn't run
> since 1956? Can someone help me out here, and
> tell me all is going to be OK, and that I should
> go ahead and order a new brick of Kodachrome for
> the first steaming and test runs!

You know; there are critics on here who ask honest questions. And others only complain. For those who really don't know about steam restorations keep in mind that times have really changed especially due to the insurance requirements.
With this said, I still have faith in someone like Mr. Ross Rowland CO614. If he had been given that amount of money and asked to get the PRR 1361 in operating condition it would have been done and it would be running. For you doubters; do you remember the ex Reading 2101? This locomotive was rebuilt for the American Freedom Train in a matter of months from the time it came out of the scrap yard in Curtis Bay near Baltimore, Maryland. Even though I was not one of his volunteers, due to my commitments involved with passenger car restorations at the time, I know several key people who served on his crew. These folks worked like H--- to get that engine rebuilt and out on the road in a reasonable amount of time. My point here is that I do believe that restorations should be performed by professional people who know what they are doing.
This is my 3 cents worth, Thank you.

1. Even though I am not a "professional steam restorer", I second or third Ross's comments.

2. As a bonafied tax paying person in these United States, I would ask the local congressman (that Steamtown resides in) to do a full inquiry on where the money went to, and why not a professional, like Ross, or even the UP steam crew, was consulted. The $$ wasted somehow, and if I was the Director of Steamtown, I would be watching my back....

CPRR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2. As a bonafied tax paying person in these United
> States, I would ask the local congressman (that
> Steamtown resides in) to do a full inquiry on
> where the money went to....


That would be another million dollars.....

/Mitch

CPRR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2. As a bonafied tax paying person in these United
> States, I would ask the local congressman (that
> Steamtown resides in) to do a full inquiry on
> where the money went to, and why not a
> professional, like Ross, or even the UP steam
> crew, was consulted. The $$ wasted somehow, and
> if I was the Director of Steamtown, I would be
> watching my back....

What was the source of federal funding? I may be wrong here, but I think it was mostly PA state funding, not federal funding and a legislator from Altoona, not Scranton who was the advocate for restoration of 1361.

Dave

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CPRR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > 2. As a bonafied tax paying person in these
> United
> > States, I would ask the local congressman (that
> > Steamtown resides in) to do a full inquiry on
> > where the money went to, and why not a
> > professional, like Ross, or even the UP steam
> > crew, was consulted. The $$ wasted somehow,
> and
> > if I was the Director of Steamtown, I would be
> > watching my back....
>
> What was the source of federal funding? I may be
> wrong here, but I think it was mostly PA state
> funding, not federal funding and a legislator from
> Altoona, not Scranton who was the advocate for
> restoration of 1361.
>
> Dave

Being that I live on the left coast, I just assumed that the repairs at Steamtown ( a federal operation) came out of my paycheck. If I was a PA resident, again I would want an investigation to find out if and why the money was wasted....

> If I was a PA resident, again I would want an investigation to find out if and why the money was wasted....

Well, that would only be $500,000.00 dollars for a state investigation, much better deal then a federal investigation.

This was mostly a volunteer effort with a few contractors to handle the heavy work - I doubt there was fraud and intentional abuse, rather many unforseen problems and possibly at times a bit of inexperience /underexperience. Food for thought for anyone looking to restore another engine - sometimes it pays to have such a restoration done commercially with bids and penalties. Please correct me if I am wrong regarding how much of the project was commercially paid for versus the volunteer aspect.

/Mitch

As a PA resident and tax payer, my rough estimate on how much of my taxes went to the restoration is about 9 cents. I think I'd give another 9 cents to see 1361 run.

Pete Lerro

LOL - good one.
Some non railfans would not, but I'm with you!

/Mitch

I was sorry as well to see all this take place. I have put in about two months work back in 1999 on 1361, as a Steamtown volunteer, and donated $300 of my own funds to the project, which isn't much on the big picture scope. One question not asked, what about the tender? It was near completed, was it not?

Anyway, a few pix of the restoration as it was.

Ed K. cp Laurel Run

---

---

---

I have been working on-and-off ( mostly off ) for a couple of years now, at turning an old Lionel engine into a 1361 model. Even at my lethargic pace, It looks as tho my K4 will still win the race.

A few years ago, I discussed Pennsy G-5 4-6-0s with Dennis Daugherty, CSRM Chief Mechanical Officer. He noted that Pennsy used thinner steel firebox wrapper sheets than the commercial builders such as Baldwin Locomotive Works. They still met the I.C.C. code requirements, of course, but there was less extra steel to handle future corrosion etc damage. The staybolted firebox is very expensive to replace in whole or in part. If the wrapper sheet is too corroded to buildup with pad welding, than the whole area must be cut out and replaced. So any PRR steam locomotive is especially liable to cost much more than usual for major firebox repairs.

Boston & Maine P-4a 3713 (built 1934), on the other hand, is 16 years younger than PRR K-4s 1361 (built 1918), and Lima had the well-deserved reputation of building the finest possible locomotive. There are a host of unknowns regarding corrosion damage during long-term unprotected outdoor storage - 4-8-4 AT&SF 3751 (boiler shell built 1927) had much more boiler exterior corrosion damage than 4-6-2 S.P. 2472 (built 1921), apparently because of chemical (i.e. acid leaching) differences in the boiler lagging, even though AT&SF 3751 was stored in a much drier and hotter climate than S.P. 2472 - but all other things being roughly equal, B&M 3713 had a good chance of being a better restoration candidate than PRR 1361.

- Doug Debs

There's a thread on the RYPN Interchange right now about the K4. The info there is pretty good; in fact, much of it comes from the project leaders.

Gee- We can send men to the moon and back again, but we have trouble rebuilding a 1918 steam locomotive that hasn't run in 19 years. Well... I'm glad I saw it run, even if it never got much over 25 mph. Keystone1