Steam & Excursion > my top 12 wish list...

Before all you guys jump down my throat at "not supporting" the great efforts put in year after year by the dozens of steam shopmen and crews- I'd like to comment. Back in the late 70's and early 80's, I was a key central figure in part owning and returning to steam a major class I steam locomotive that regularly ran at track speed (79mph), and occasionally a bit better. Just so you people out there know that I HAVE successfully put my money where my mouth is, as well as having skinned knuckles on tools and metal to prove it. So anyway...moving forward, HERE is my top dozen wish list of steam locomotives that exist now, that I would like to see run someday. I'm sure you guys will find this controversial as well. And,...I know... I know, with whose money and on what railroad. But just think about it. Instead of redoing NKP 759 or Reading 2124...how 'bout rebuilding a completely NEW locomotive. Here are my top dozen: 1. Pennsy 4-8-2 M-lb, 2. CB&Q 4-6-4, 3. AT&SF 2-10-4, 4. UP Big Boy, 5. C&O 2-6-6-6, 6. AT&SF 4-6-4, 7. NYC 4--8-2, 8. Pennsy 4-4-2 E-6, 9. B&LE 2-10-4, 10. GTW 4-8-2, 11. B&M 4-6-2, 12. CNJ 4-4-2 Camelback. Anybody out there in T.O. land who would like to get glass on those??? These engines already exist. If the Brits on an island can build ground up, a brand new Pacific, why can't America put together a NYC Hudson from existing blue prints? Ok guys, let me have it ... (but in your heart, you know I'm right).

I would agree with your #2,one of the CB&Q 3000's, simply because I'd like to hear the exhaust and compare the sound to Frisco 1522, the loudest locomotive I have heard in real life...plus they are the best looking of all the Burlington Steam (flametime)...beside the fact that Hudsons' are not represented in the Active Steam Community (that I can think of) and your #6, An ATSF Hudson,just in case someone wants to set a New Steam Powered Speed Record...there is one in a Park in the midwest (3463?) that is in desperate need of attention...But #1 for me? Well, that would be the GN S-2 in Havre Montana...That would be quite something...

Cheers, Dave

The two articulateds mentioned here have not a prayer of ever running again, under even the most favorable imaginary scenario. N&W 1218, however, could have run again, had not the Norfolk Bleeps left her a gutted shell. 611 could come back, with some enlightened NS mgmt. in place. But, given the current earthquake in our smoke-and-mirrors, debt-financed economy, restoring steam engines is not going to be a big priority. I am just grateful that I have finally been able to locate and purchase a New Marx/Ameritrains N&W 611 to pull the "Pocahontas" around the little 3-rail pike upstairs in the train room.

Take off the RR's that have already been represented though not the same class so that leaves Boston & Maine (New England is starved for bonifed big excrusion steam), CNJ, B&LE and NYC.

IMHO the cab on the CB&Q engine is ugly.

Hillcrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would agree with your #2,one of the CB&Q 3000's,
> simply because I'd like to hear the exhaust and
> compare the sound to Frisco 1522, the loudest
> locomotive I have heard in real life...plus they
> are the best looking of all the Burlington Steam
> (flametime)...beside the fact that Hudsons' are
> not represented in the Active Steam Community
> (that I can think of) and your #6, An ATSF
> Hudson,just in case someone wants to set a New
> Steam Powered Speed Record...there is one in a
> Park in the midwest (3463?) that is in desperate
> need of attention...But #1 for me? Well, that
> would be the GN S-2 in Havre Montana...That would
> be quite something...
>
> Cheers, Dave

How about CPR 2816 and the occasional outing for CPR 2860?

Silver Sky

Camelbacks were outlawed as being too damn dangerous to operating crews. A broken main rod would wipe the cab right off the boiler!

You would NEVER get anybody to crew those beasts if by some miracle, one was ever resurrected. NO WAY!

I've tired of looking at those CP engines this side of the border...

SilverSky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillcrest Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I would agree with your #2,one of the CB&Q
> 3000's,
> > simply because I'd like to hear the exhaust and
> > compare the sound to Frisco 1522, the loudest
> > locomotive I have heard in real life...plus
> they
> > are the best looking of all the Burlington
> Steam
> > (flametime)...beside the fact that Hudsons' are
> > not represented in the Active Steam Community
> > (that I can think of) and your #6, An ATSF
> > Hudson,just in case someone wants to set a New
> > Steam Powered Speed Record...there is one in a
> > Park in the midwest (3463?) that is in
> desperate
> > need of attention...But #1 for me? Well, that
> > would be the GN S-2 in Havre Montana...That
> would
> > be quite something...
> >
> > Cheers, Dave
>
> How about CPR 2816 and the occasional outing for
> CPR 2860?
>
> Silver Sky

Yikes, I forgot about our neighbors to the north! Two very beautiful examples of active Hudson-Types, with CP 2816 ranking at or near the top of the list of the cleanest locomotives on earth (does it ever smoke?)thanks for reminding me Silver Sky....What about the cabs on the CB&Q Hudsons? Are they ugly? I know 4960 always looked like the cab sat on top of rather than astride the firebox, but the Hudsons? I guess I don't see it...did they have both standard and/or all- weather cabs? Is that it Wabash?

Cheers, Dave

Well, it kind of is angled on the sides. The whole engine doesn't show the fine lines like a NYC Hudson.

It doesn't look like modern steam to me, i.e, not in the era it was built, but maybe that is indicative of all CB&Q steam locos.

Edit: Here's a photo link:

http://orion.math.iastate.edu/jdhsmith/term/sluscbqS4.jpg

But maybe in due respect, perhaps the loco is like a Playboy centerfold subject. She has some good and bad angles. <G> I just never liked the cabs.

Gosh, its cold today I could use some warming up. Maybe I'll leave my flame retardent suit off for now...


Hillcrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know 4960 always looked
> like the cab sat on top of rather than astride the
> firebox, but the Hudsons? I guess I don't see
> it...did they have both standard and/or all-
> weather cabs? Is that it Wabash?
>
> Cheers, Dave

Don't we have some operating 4-4-0's with the side rods under the cab?


djansson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Camelbacks were outlawed as being too damn
> dangerous to operating crews. A broken main rod
> would wipe the cab right off the boiler!
>
> You would NEVER get anybody to crew those beasts
> if by some miracle, one was ever resurrected. NO
> WAY!

Regarding the safety of Camelbacks...New Jersey and Pennsylvania had plenty of them. The CNJ ran commuter trains with them, all the way up to dieselization. Like everything, you have to maintain it. BTW, W H E N was the last time you heard of a main rod flying off an engine??? Few and far between I'd say. So... bring on the Camelback! You can also add the GN 4-8-4 and the B&O President class Pacific. The best of the best.

Oh, I see what your saying, the slope back cab front, if that makes sense. GN used that cab design on some of their engines also, I think it looks kinda cool...And I do agree with you about Burlington Steam, a lot of it had a rather antiquated look... it's almost not a fair comparison against an NYC Hudson...But never mind that, The GN S-2 still tops my list. Wait a minute, its got a sloped cab front too...Donning the Flame suit, and waiting for Burlington John...

Cheers, Dave

All I'm trying to say guys, is don't necessarily settle for what's around. Select the best, then figure out how to pull it off and make it happen. You did't marry the girl just across the street, did you?

Say what you want about Burlington steam but 5614 in St. Joe is still a very nice looking
piece of equipment and from the outside in pretty good shape.

Steamtown is in the process of restoring an ex-Boston & Maine engine to service thus finally giving us original New England steam.

Strasburg took its ex-Reading Camelback off display and has it in the shop as a long term project to return it to service.

Tim

I wouldn't argue with ya' about the 0-5's, they were very impressive machines. BTW, what happened to #5632, the Fantrip Engine, they didn't scrap it, did they? Wasn't it active into the '60's?

Cheers, Dave

Keystone1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regarding the safety of Camelbacks...New Jersey
> and Pennsylvania had plenty of them. The CNJ ran
> commuter trains with them, all the way up to
> dieselization. Like everything, you have to
> maintain it. BTW, W H E N was the last time you
> heard of a main rod flying off an engine??? Few
> and far between I'd say. So... bring on the
> Camelback! You can also add the GN 4-8-4 and the
> B&O President class Pacific. The best of the best.

Construction of any new camelback was outlawed in 1927 by the ICC due to safety concerns, you can put that new camelback idea away.

OHRY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Construction of any new camelback was outlawed in
> 1927 by the ICC due to safety concerns, you can
> put that new camelback idea away.

But as mentioned, Strasburg may put one back on track.

Chalk another vote for CB&Q anything from 3000 class to
a Northern. Sure wish that rumor was true regarding
the 261 group looking for a second engine. Another rumor
I heard (and it was from a certain magazine editor) stated that
BNSF was looking at a certain GN 4-8-4... ah, back to reality.

If we were talking resurrection from scratch - PRR T-1!

/Mitch

Well...we can all dream can't we..?

IIRC, CB&Q 5632 was scrapped. Another one of those "Oh, NO," scenarios, along with the GTW Pacific, the last B&O EM-1, all the L&N "Big Emmas," etal.