Steam & Excursion > NKP 765 Horseshoe curve!!

Fort Wayne railroad historical society tweeted this today.

 "We think it's safe to speculate that Horseshoe Curve will see steam in the next two years with either 765 or another locomotive"

Exciting times.

BRANDON_COLE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fort Wayne railroad historical society tweeted
> this today.
>
>  "We think it's safe to speculate that Horseshoe
> Curve will see steam in the next two years with
> either 765 or another locomotive"
>
> Exciting times.

Interesting, i.e. "safe to speculate".  Since NS is no longer doing their "21st Century Steam Program", it would seem highly unlikely that NKP 765 would deadhead all that distance for excursions. 

Also noted 765 needs $70,000 for PTC upgrades.

Have any of the other mainline steam groups added PTC at this time?

Posted from iPhone

howeld Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also noted 765 needs $70,000 for PTC upgrades.

Where did you come up with that figure?

> Have any of the other mainline steam groups added
> PTC at this time?

Not yet.
 

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> howeld Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Also noted 765 needs $70,000 for PTC upgrades.
>
> Where did you come up with that figure?
>
> > Have any of the other mainline steam groups
> added
> > PTC at this time?
>
> Not yet.
>  

Funny you should ask that as I'm trying to find the original source of the screen shot that was posted. The screen shot has now been taken down.

Also said that a planned trip had to be postponed due to lack of PTC.

Seemed a very high figure.

Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/17 10:47 by howeld.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BRANDON_COLE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fort Wayne railroad historical society tweeted
> > this today.
> >
> >  "We think it's safe to speculate that
> Horseshoe
> > Curve will see steam in the next two years with
> > either 765 or another locomotive"
> >
> > Exciting times.
>
> Interesting, i.e. "safe to speculate".  Since NS
> is no longer doing their "21st Century Steam
> Program", it would seem highly unlikely that NKP
> 765 would deadhead all that distance for
> excursions. 

Its definitely not in 765's backyard and the steam program is over, but NS still allows 611 to operate on the main. Maybe there giving it a second thought. Nonetheless I wouldn't miss out on this opportunity. 

This was just posted on Twitter. 

Lots of interest in this tweet - it won't be possible unless we raise the funds for PTC on the 765 in 2016/2017. Stay tuned on how to help!

BRANDON_COLE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This was just posted on Twitter. 
>
> Lots of interest in this tweet - it won't be
> possible unless we raise the funds for PTC on the
> 765 in 2016/2017. Stay tuned on how to help!

Very odd, to say the least. Personally, I think someone is playing games. Besides, 765 already has full NS/PRR cab signal equipment, so the minor, in my opinion, of PTC would NOT be a problem. The far bigger issue would be a VERY lengthy & costly deadhead move across NS, at 40 MPH, for just one or two excursions out of Altoona. Also, just because NS management allows N&W 611 to operate some limited excursions, in the Roanoke/Virginia area does NOT automatically mean they would allow excursions out of Altoona. PA.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BRANDON_COLE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This was just posted on Twitter. 
> >
> > Lots of interest in this tweet - it won't be
> > possible unless we raise the funds for PTC on
> the
> > 765 in 2016/2017. Stay tuned on how to help!
>
> Very odd, to say the least. Personally, I think
> someone is playing games. Besides, 765 already has
> full NS/PRR cab signal equipment, so the minor, in
> my opinion, of PTC would NOT be a problem. The far
> bigger issue would be a VERY lengthy & costly
> deadhead move across NS, at 40 MPH, for just one
> or two excursions out of Altoona. Also, just
> because NS management allows N&W 611 to operate
> some limited excursions, in the Roanoke/Virginia
> area does NOT automatically mean they would allow
> excursions out of Altoona. PA.

I agree with you, this is a very odd. Time will tell. 

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally, I think someone is playing games.

Well, bust my buffers.

 

You must be a registered subscriber to watch videos. Join Today!

FRA received a number of commentsregarding the operation of historiclocomotives over rail lines that willneed to be equipped with a PTC system, from commenters such as the Class II or III railroads on Class I PTC lines, FRA continues to believe that thefrom commenters such as the SanBernardino Railway Historical Society,the Pacific Southwest Railway Museum, the Railroad Passenger Car Alliance, and to the direct and indirect costs of equipping locomotives with PTC andthe Railroad Passenger Car Alliance, and J.L. Patterson & Associates. These equipping locomotives with PTC an maintaining those locomotives overJ.L. Patterson & Associates. Thesecommenters requested that FRA provideclarification that a historic locomotive,as defined in 49 CFR 229.125(h), whichis not equipped with PTC may beoperated over rail lines equipped withPTC systems in limited excursionservice, provided an excursionoperating management plan is includedin the PTC railroad’s PTCIP that isconsistent with the provisions of§ 236.1029(b) of this part.These locomotives might includesteam locomotives many decades old.FRA notes that these operations areFRA notes that these operations are relatively infrequent, and they normally systems have been demonstrated to be
reliable and after the market for PTCreceive additional oversight by hostrailroads as a matter of course.Final rule. The final rule providesexceptions for trains operated by ClassII and III railroads, including tourist or, including
excursion railroads. The exceptions are would create significant incentives to shed marginally profitable traffic withp
limited to lines not carrying intercity or
shed marginally profitable traffic with
dictable societal effects. FRA dcommuter passenger service, exceptwhere the host railroad and thepassenger railroad (if different entities)passenger railroad (if different entities)
have requested an exception in the PTC
railroads can begin the process of
joining the PTC community bImplementation Plan, as furtherp
discussed below, and FRA has approved
equipping locomotives used for longer
hauls on PTC lines. FRA will althat element of the plan. Examples ofpotentially acceptable instancespotentially accep
concerning non-equipped operations on
railroads as of that general time period
(end of 2015, beginning of 2016)an intercity/commuter route mighty/commuter route mig
include a weekend excursion operation
evaluate what additional requirements
ight be appropriate and sustainablduring periods scheduled passengerservice is very light or in terminal areasunder circumstances where all trainswill be operated at reduced speed andrisk is otherwise very limited.FRA presumes for purposes of thisfinal rule that there will becircumstances rooted in previouslyexecuted private agreements underwhich the Class I railroad would beentitled to require the small railroad touse a controlling locomotive equippedwith PTC as a condition of operatingonto the property. FRA wishes toemphasize that, in issuing this finalrule, FRA does not intend to influencethe exercise of private rights or tosuggest that public policy woulddisfavor an otherwise legitimaterestriction on the use of unequippedlocomotives on PTC lines. FRA alsonotes that, in the absence of clearguidance on this issue, a substantialnumber of waiver requests could beexpected that would have to be resolved
an interest centered around dwithout the benefit of decisional criteriapreviously examined and refinedthrough the rulemaking process.With respect to limited operations ofClass II or III railroads on Class I PTCrisk in question is very small in relationto the direct and indirect costs oftime (including configurationmanagement). FRA has also consideredthe issues required applicable statutesconcerning the affect of regulations onsmall entities. (See also discussion of deminimis exceptions in the preamble to§ 236.1005.) Although FRA does expectthat over time Class II and III railroadswill participate more fully in the use ofPTC technologies, both as tenants andhosts, the initial costs and logisticalchallenges of PTC system operation willbe significantly greater than the costsand challenges after interoperable PTCreliable and after the market for PTCequipment and services settles.Mandating that every locomotiveleading a Class II or III train be PTCequipped during the initial roll outunpredictable societal effects. FRA doesbelieve that, as the end of the initialimplementation approaches, smallerjoining the PTC community byhauls on PTC lines. FRA will alsoreview the experience of Class I(end of 2015, beginning of 2016) tomight be appropriate and sustainable.FRA has adopted final languagesufficiently flexible to permit occasionaltourist, historic and excursion serviceon PTC lines. Much of the subjectequipment is used very lightly and infact may spend the great majority of itstime on static display. Ending theeducational and recreational role ofoccasional excursion service is no partof what the Congress was addressingthrough the mandate underlying thisrule. Paragraph (b)(3) references the fact that operation of trains with failed-onboard PTC apparatus is governed by the safeguards of § 236.1029, where applicable; and paragraph (c) applies the same principle to non-equipped trains operating on PTC territory.

Well, there FW goes again, going off half-cocked, lol.

Rarely does 765 travel a long, long distance deadhead for one or two trips. But what the heck do I know.

TG

Posted from Android

nsrlink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FRA received a number of commentsregarding the
> operation of historiclocomotives over rail lines
> that willneed to be equipped with a PTC
> system, from commenters such as the Class II or
> III railroads on Class I PTC lines, FRA continues
> to believe that thefrom commenters such as the
> SanBernardino Railway Historical Society,the
> Pacific Southwest Railway Museum, the Railroad
> Passenger Car Alliance, and to the direct and
> indirect costs of equipping locomotives with PTC
> andthe Railroad Passenger Car Alliance, and J.L.
> Patterson & Associates. These equipping
> locomotives with PTC an maintaining those
> locomotives overJ.L. Patterson & Associates.
> Thesecommenters requested that FRA
> provideclarification that a historic locomotive,as
> defined in 49 CFR 229.125(h), whichis not equipped
> with PTC may beoperated over rail lines equipped
> withPTC systems in limited excursionservice,
> provided an excursionoperating management plan is
> includedin the PTC railroad’s PTCIP that
> isconsistent with the provisions of§ 236.1029(b)
> of this part.These locomotives might includesteam
> locomotives many decades old.FRA notes that these
> operations areFRA notes that these operations
> are relatively infrequent, and they
> normally systems have been demonstrated to be
> reliable and after the market for PTCreceive
> additional oversight by hostrailroads as a matter
> of course.Final rule. The final rule
> providesexceptions for trains operated by ClassII
> and III railroads, including tourist or,
> including
> excursion railroads. The exceptions are would
> create significant incentives to shed marginally
> profitable traffic withp
> limited to lines not carrying intercity or
> shed marginally profitable traffic with
> dictable societal effects. FRA dcommuter passenger
> service, exceptwhere the host railroad and
> thepassenger railroad (if different
> entities)passenger railroad (if different
> entities)
> have requested an exception in the PTC
> railroads can begin the process of
> joining the PTC community bImplementation Plan, as
> furtherp
> discussed below, and FRA has approved
> equipping locomotives used for longer
> hauls on PTC lines. FRA will althat element of the
> plan. Examples ofpotentially acceptable
> instancespotentially accep
> concerning non-equipped operations on
> railroads as of that general time period
> (end of 2015, beginning of 2016)an
> intercity/commuter route mighty/commuter route
> mig
> include a weekend excursion operation
> evaluate what additional requirements
> ight be appropriate and sustainablduring periods
> scheduled passengerservice is very light or in
> terminal areasunder circumstances where all
> trainswill be operated at reduced speed andrisk is
> otherwise very limited.FRA presumes for purposes
> of thisfinal rule that there will becircumstances
> rooted in previouslyexecuted private agreements
> underwhich the Class I railroad would beentitled
> to require the small railroad touse a controlling
> locomotive equippedwith PTC as a condition of
> operatingonto the property. FRA wishes toemphasize
> that, in issuing this finalrule, FRA does not
> intend to influencethe exercise of private rights
> or tosuggest that public policy woulddisfavor an
> otherwise legitimaterestriction on the use of
> unequippedlocomotives on PTC lines. FRA alsonotes
> that, in the absence of clearguidance on this
> issue, a substantialnumber of waiver requests
> could beexpected that would have to be resolved
> an interest centered around dwithout the benefit
> of decisional criteriapreviously examined and
> refinedthrough the rulemaking process.With respect
> to limited operations ofClass II or III railroads
> on Class I PTCrisk in question is very small in
> relationto the direct and indirect costs oftime
> (including configurationmanagement). FRA has also
> consideredthe issues required applicable
> statutesconcerning the affect of regulations
> onsmall entities. (See also discussion of
> deminimis exceptions in the preamble to§
> 236.1005.) Although FRA does expectthat over time
> Class II and III railroadswill participate more
> fully in the use ofPTC technologies, both as
> tenants andhosts, the initial costs and
> logisticalchallenges of PTC system operation
> willbe significantly greater than the costsand
> challenges after interoperable PTCreliable and
> after the market for PTCequipment and services
> settles.Mandating that every locomotiveleading a
> Class II or III train be PTCequipped during the
> initial roll outunpredictable societal effects.
> FRA doesbelieve that, as the end of the
> initialimplementation approaches, smallerjoining
> the PTC community byhauls on PTC lines. FRA will
> alsoreview the experience of Class I(end of 2015,
> beginning of 2016) tomight be appropriate and
> sustainable.FRA has adopted final
> languagesufficiently flexible to permit
> occasionaltourist, historic and excursion
> serviceon PTC lines. Much of the subjectequipment
> is used very lightly and infact may spend the
> great majority of itstime on static display.
> Ending theeducational and recreational role
> ofoccasional excursion service is no partof what
> the Congress was addressingthrough the mandate
> underlying thisrule. Paragraph (b)(3) references
> the fact that operation of trains with
> failed-onboard PTC apparatus is governed by the
> safeguards of § 236.1029, where applicable; and
> paragraph (c) applies the same principle to
> non-equipped trains operating on PTC territory.

Thanks for posting this, maybe it would have helped to proof read it first?   VERY hard to read with words allruntogether.

In all seriousness, there are two different conversations being referenced:

The item referring to PTC on the 765 was sent to FWRHS members this morning with their membership update. FWRHS will be working to put PTC on the 765 in the next 12-24 months.

The text copied above (source: https://www.jjkeller.com/wcsstore/CVCatalogAssetStore/references/transport/2010/021510ptc.pdf) pertains to exemptions for historic equipment on Class 2 and 3 railroads only. Moreover, if the host railroad requires your locomotive to have PTC, you should probably have PTC if you want to run (or lead!) on their property.

In reference to Horseshoe Curve, the useage of the word "speculation" was very purposeful. Any Amtrak route with a steam friendly host is going to become very important to mainline steam in the east in the coming years. As it happens, HSC is on an Amtrak route...

KL

I don't think NS has PTC in operation yet anyway.

Posted from Android

mp109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think NS has PTC in operation yet anyway.
>
> Posted from Android

No, but they will, as will certain Amtrak lines. One planned operation for 765 has already been shelved due to PTC implementation. 

TrackGuy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, there FW goes again, going off half-cocked,
> lol.
>
> Rarely does 765 travel a long, long distance
> deadhead for one or two trips. But what the heck
> do I know.
>
> TG
>
> Posted from Android

Rob,

To be honest, 765 does have a track record of successful excursions in the past. Meanwhile RDG 2100, which you are inolved with, sits in roundhouse in Cleveland, partially disassembled and facing an eviction notice. So the question is, what room do you have to be critical?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/17 13:49 by wilkinsdm.

> Rob,
>
> To be honest, 765 does have a track record of
> successful excursions in the past. Meanwhile RDG
> 2100, which you are inolved with, sits in
> roundhouse in Cleveland, partially disassembled
> and facing an eviction notice. So the question is,
> what room do you have to be critical?


Ah....the cold hard hand of reality smacks another would be "steam expert" back into his place. Best not be chucking boulders when living in a crumbling glass house.....

How does PTC even work on something as manually operated as a steam locomotive?

That's part of the engineering that will take need to place place on 765, 4449 and others. PTC demands a way to interrupt the flow of steam to the throttle or close/shut down down the throttle and, like cab signals, apply a penalty application and stop the train. There are a few methods being floated right now and some sort of standardized approach among the few mainline engines that will recieve it seems wisest.