Steam & Excursion > AT&SF 2926... stack extention and blast pipe work.

Looks like they have the front end pretty much back together, with the stack extension installed and working. See the last two groups of photos for 9-9-17 and 9-16-17. http://2926.us/Photos/photos.php

Has the FRA approved or blessed the Form 4 yet?

TG

Posted from Android

They wouldn't be putting it together if they hadn't.

Thanks for the update, especially the videos. Plus, I always like seeing the cats.

Posted from iPhone

Did that stack extension improve draft or for another purpose?

daylightfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did that stack extension improve draft or for
> another purpose?


My understanding is that it was intended to lift smoke higher to keep it above the train crew's line of sight for visibility.

Scott Griggs
Louisville, KY

...and I've heard it was there for draft. Santa Fe added a variety of extensions to locomotive stacks over the years - a few telescoping like on 2926, many more of the flip-up type, and some permanent extensions in the form of a few inches of extra pipe welded onto the rim of the existing stack. These latter ones, at least, must have been for draft, as they couldn't possibly have given much exhaust-raising benefit.

Glad the 2926 folks opted to keep the extension. The 3751 folks opted to remove that engine's curved smokebonnet, designed for use in tunnels to keep the exhaust from hammering the roof. That device might actually have come in handy on a certain occasion in Tunnel 5 on Tehachapi in 1991. ;^)

I'm curious how and when the 2926 folks plan to use the extension - just for show at runbys or in regular use? The trouble with the telescoping extensions is that they tended not to clear overhead structures, and the crews had to remember to lower them for bridges, etc. Back in the old days, the railroad even had a system standard plan for a "Lower Extension Stack" sign. In one of the railfan magazine tributes to Howard Fogg upon his passing in 1996, it was noted that he refused to paint Santa Fe locomotives with the extension raised. Seems he was on a Santa Fe train once and had a tight connection to make. Wouldn't you know it, somewhere along the way the engineer forgot to drop the extension, and some low-hanging obstacle knocked it off the engine. The train was delayed, and Fogg missed his connection.

LocoPilot750 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like they have the front end pretty much
> back together, with the stack extension installed
> and working. See the last two groups of photos for
> 9-9-17 and 9-16-17.
> http://2926.us/Photos/photos.php

Saw some nice photo updates on Facebook the other day, but had to do a serious eye roll over all the comments bemoaning the fact that 2926 has had it's 8ET brake schedule replaced with a 26L. Yes, let's let an otherwise operable locomotive sit, because you can't find the extremely scarce parts to make the brake system work, when you can literally grab 26L components off the shelf ANYWHERE and have the engine run.

The fact that brake systems probably would have been updated had steam remained in service, seems to escape the "purists."

bioyans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LocoPilot750 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Looks like they have the front end pretty much
> > back together, with the stack extension
> installed
> > and working. See the last two groups of photos
> for
> > 9-9-17 and 9-16-17.
> > http://2926.us/Photos/photos.php
>
> Saw some nice photo updates on Facebook the other
> day, but had to do a serious eye roll over all the
> comments bemoaning the fact that 2926 has had it's
> 8ET brake schedule replaced with a 26L. Yes,
> let's let an otherwise operable locomotive sit,
> because you can't find the extremely scarce parts
> to make the brake system work, when you can
> literally grab 26L components off the shelf
> ANYWHERE and have the engine run.

Well, it sure never caused SP 4449, nor UP 844, nor UP 3985, nor Santa Fe 3751 to "sit" because of lack of 8ET air brake components!


> The fact that brake systems probably would have
> been updated had steam remained in service, seems
> to escape the "purists."

I don't believe THAT statement for one damned minute!!!!

I'm with you on this one, Jack. Where does your drinking buddy Dickens source his parts from? I'd be willing to make a bet that he doesn't trash the 8ET in that 4000 he's working in favor of a 26L.

It is pretty well known that UP scooped up every 8ET part they could get ahold of, when NS auctioned off their steam program stuff during the Goode era. I know of someone who owned a steam locomotive with 8ET, who got shut out at said auction trying to buy spare parts. He even asked the UP folks there if he could buy what he needed from them at a price above what they paid, and they laughed at him.

It is a heck of a lot easier to keep such a system, when you have the most resources available.

To think that air brakes would NOT have been included in modernization programs, is downright silly. Air brakes have evolved for the same reasons that roller bearings, new drivers, and other upgrades to steam were introduced, less cost (due to less maintenance), and more reliability. 6 and 24 schedules, along with older braking systems, didn't disappear just because someone decided to do something different without just cause.

Posted from Android

Chico43 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm with you on this one, Jack. Where does your
> drinking buddy Dickens source his parts from? I'd
> be willing to make a bet that he doesn't trash the
> 8ET in that 4000 he's working in favor of a 26L.


I was really hoping he'd see this. That's some funny stuff right there...

Cheers, Dave