Steam & Excursion > Fund Raising in Roanoke and 2156

A post in Faceplant lead me to this:

http://fireup611.org/support/

Good for the folks in Roanoke in wanting to build a suitable structure to preserve 611 and 1218. They are certainly worthy of such an effort just as the engines at RRMPA in Strasburg and the 765 in Fort Wayne. I wish them all luck in their efforts.

Disturbing to me is that Y6a 2156 is mentioned several times (with the proviso that it is on loan from the Museum of Transportation in St Louis). My limited knowledge of the subject is that 2156 was supposed to be on a five year loan to Roanoke and then it was to return home to St Louis. Naturally, a young foamer thinks that since 2156 was built in Roanoke, it belongs in Roanoke. I disagree. 2156 has spent more time in St Louis than she ever did in Roanoke. To use his logic, you could make that argument for just about every steam locomotive out there. 3985, 844, 4014 must go back to Schenectady, 4449 to Lima, 3751 and 4501 to Philadelphia, etc etc etc. The only tie that 2156 has to Roanoke is that it was built there. That is it. Even 2050 has no ties to Roanoke and I would bet that it has a better chance to go there than 2156 does at staying.

When I photographed 2156 for the last time in St Louis prior to her eastward movement, I had a sinking feeling that it would be the last time I would see her there. My opinion only, no inside information, no official announcement, etc. Just a feeling. I hope I am wrong. Any Roanoke folks have any comment?

Regards,
Burlington John

PS - attached photo taken 28 Nov 14 at the Museum of Transportation in St Louis

---

I'd have to disagree with you on her connection to Roanoke. She was built there, and(while I have no knowledge of N&W operating practices), as an N&W engine, probably spent a good deal of her career working in and around Roanoke, not to mention probably being rebuilt there a time or two. At this point, yes, she's been at St. Louis for a longer period of time, but what has she done there besides sit? While it is great to have a diverse collection of American steam in one place in the heart of America, I'm a believer in keeping the rare ones in the areas they called home.

Posted from Android



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/17 18:25 by A-1.

Am I to assume that you agree that all of the other engines I mentioned should be returned to their place of birth for no other reason than they were built there?

Regards,
Burlington John

Not necessarily to their place of birth, but when possible, it makes more sense to me to have them in the area where they worked. I believe #2156 belongs in N&W steam territory, and there is no more fitting place than with #611 and #1218. Nothing against St Louis, but but the N&W didn't even GO there until a half dozen years after the fire were dropped on steam. If there wasn't a good home available, that would be a different story, but not in this case.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/17 18:40 by junctiontower.

burlingtonjohn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Am I to assume that you agree that all of the
> other engines I mentioned should be returned to
> their place of birth for no other reason than they
> were built there?
>
> Regards,
> Burlington John

No, but in my opinion, a key factor would be "The location where they worked, and called 'home'". Thus, examples such as Santa Fe 3751 "called home" on the western portions of the Santa Fe Railway, while SP 4449 "called home" the California divisions of the Southern Pacific RR. Obviously there would be no purpose in having a functionally restored 3751 on display in Philadelphia, PA since the Baldwin Locomotives Works is long gone anyway, while having functionally restored SP 4449 on display in Lima, OH would make no sense either, since the Lima Locomotive Works is also long gone. Additional examples would be NKP765, Milwaukee Road 261, UP 844, and Santa Fe 2926, none of which should be displayed where they were originally built, since they never called that are of the country "home" nor didn't work in that area (except of course the NKP 765).

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, but in my opinion, a key factor would be "The
> location where they worked, and called 'home'".
> Thus, examples such as Santa Fe 3751 "called home"
> on the western portions of the Santa Fe Railway,
> while SP 4449 "called home" the California
> divisions of the Southern Pacific RR. Obviously
> there would be no purpose in having a functionally
> restored 3751 on display in Philadelphia, PA since
> the Baldwin Locomotives Works is long gone anyway,
> while having functionally restored SP 4449 on
> display in Lima, OH would make no sense either,
> since the Lima Locomotive Works is also long gone.
> Additional examples would be NKP765, Milwaukee
> Road 261, UP 844, and Santa Fe 2926, none of which
> should be displayed where they were originally
> built, since they never called that are of the
> country "home" nor didn't work in that area
> (except of course the NKP 765).


Thank you, sir!

Regards,
Burlington John

Dear burlingtonjohn....I respect you, but I totally disagree with you. 2156 should be part of "The Big Three", the legacy of Roanoke Shops. I wish there was an 0-8-0 left. They were wonderful engines,working the yard sounding like barking junk yard dogs. My mom gave me my 16th birthday present there in 1959.. .3-days in Roanoke, to get this steam engine business "out of my system". (How did she do!). Ha! Anyway.....keep the missing legend of the Ig Three in her home town. Roanoke, The Alamo for Steam.

If it weren't for St Louis, there would be no 2156. Should she stay in Roanoke, I would hope that the St Louis Museum could negotiate something to their advantage.

Regards,
Burlington John

I'm only a couple of hours from St. Louis, but I have to agree: #2156 belongs in Roanoke.

It's not that she was just built there. She was designed by the N&W, built by the N&W, operated by the N&W and the N&W's heart was in Roanoke. The A, J, and Y goes with Roanoke like America and apple pie, peanut butter and jelly, ramen noodles and small pay checks... you get the idea.

U.P. steam and Cheyenne. I.C. steam and Paducah. Pennsy steam and Altoona. N&W steam and Roanoke. They are indelibly intertwined.

She should be nowhere else.

Mary McPherson
Dongola, IL
Diverging Clear Productions

burlingtonjohn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Am I to assume that you agree that all of the
> other engines I mentioned should be returned to
> their place of birth for no other reason than they
> were built there?
>
> Regards,
> Burlington John

Nope, not at all. While I do agree that an impressive locomotive specimen(one big and one small locomotive from each builder, maybe?) displayed at Schenectady, Lima, and Philadelphia(and Portland, OR should have a Willamette!) should be a given regardless of where they spent their operational lives, sending them ALL back to where they were built is quite ridiculous.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/17 19:20 by A-1.

burlingtonjohn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Disturbing to me is that Y6a 2156 is mentioned
> several times (with the proviso that it is on loan
> from the Museum of Transportation in St Louis).
> My limited knowledge of the subject is that 2156
> was supposed to be on a five year loan to Roanoke
> and then it was to return home to St Louis.
> Naturally, a young foamer thinks that since 2156
> was built in Roanoke, it belongs in Roanoke. I
> disagree. 2156 has spent more time in St Louis
> than she ever did in Roanoke.

While 2156 may have been locked away in St. Louis for more years than she spent in or around Roanoke, it was not for want of her return to the Star City. Norfolk Southern's first CEO Robert B. Claytor - he who brought 611 and then 1218 back to life - made overtures to the St. Louis museum during the 1980s to also bring 2156 back to Roanoke, but to no avail. Recently retired NS CEO Wick Moorman delivering the keynote address at the 2007 National Railway Historical Society Convention in Chattanooga spoke directly to delegates from St. Louis: "I want my engine back." He assisted in brokering the "deal" or loan to bring the engine back to Roanoke for display at the Virginia Museum of Transportation. Apparently, that deal was made with Norfolk Southern rather than VMT. Now there is a new CEO at NS and the question becomes whether or not the railroad will follow through on the agreement. That remains to be seen. I'm sure many recall a certain Lackawanna locomotive to supposedly was sent to St. Louis for display and safe keeping. When it came time that the group in Pennsylvania asked for return of the engine a protracted court battle lasting several years ensued. That engine is still in St. Louis. It has no logical connection to St. Louis - nor does 2156.

As noted in another post above, not only was 2156 built in Roanoke, it was also designed in the Norfolk and Western Motive Power offices in Roanoke and more than likely underwent at least one rebuild in the Roanoke Shops. Along with 611 and 1218, the 2156 represents the pinnacle of locomotive design and construction on the N&W - and indeed in America. For those reasons the trio - the Big Three of the N&W - SHOULD remain together. Surely some deal can be put together to have them remain together at VMT.

#2156 is owned by the Museum of Transportation in St Louis. As such, they have a right to expect that the Virginia Transportation Museum will return the locomotive upon expiration of the five year loan. No returning #2156 to its legal owner would be an act of theft.
The locomotive belongs with its owner, period.
If the two parties involved can successfully agree upon a transfer of ownership, then that is their right.
ALLEN

Easy. 2156 stays in Roanoke where she belongs and give St. Louis the Wabash E-unit. Wabash never went to Roanoke but it did go to St. Louis. And it would be a lot easier moving an E-unit than a Y-6a.

Posted from Android

Trainboss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Easy. 2156 stays in Roanoke where she belongs and
> give St. Louis the Wabash E-unit. Wabash never
> went to Roanoke but it did go to St. Louis. And it
> would be a lot easier moving an E-unit than a
> Y-6a.
>

Agreed! A win-win for both organizations.

As Al Capone used to say...."so, what's your price'? Surely there. Is something St. Louis needs.... a visitor's building, another roof cover for displays, a delivery of another locomotive. The list should be endless. "So, what's your price?"

Trainboss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Easy. 2156 stays in Roanoke where she belongs and
> give St. Louis the Wabash E-unit. Wabash never
> went to Roanoke but it did go to St. Louis. And it
> would be a lot easier moving an E-unit than a
> Y-6a.
>
> Posted from Android


I agree with the above & that's been my speculation on what VMT would try to trade to St Louis for the 2156. We'll trade you that steam engine in exchange for this beautifully painted Wabash E8 (& maybe something else we have laying around.). There's an NKP GP9 (or GP7) that's been outside at NS's Schaffer's Crossing turntable for a couple of months now. Before, it was sitting in a yard track with other VMT forlorn "junk," so my *guess* is something is being done to it. Two diesels in exchange for one big steam engine? It's plausible.

Since VMT announced their desire to have a "building" for 611 & 1218, (supposedly for display *and work /restoration,) AFAIK most all of their promotional materials have mentioned/shown it as a home for 2156 also. Of course, where to put it /build it on their tiny, landlocked piece of property? My thought is they'd do best to brick up a facade on that shed they already have.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/17 06:58 by nsrlink.

And....let's not forget, just HOW did St. Louis acquire 2156 in the first place? Did they buy her from a local scrap yard? NO. They were given the locomotive by the railroad in the first place. Something can be negotiated. Sooner or later, St. Louis will need something that they can't get by themselves. It would be good to have a friend in the Norfolk Southern.

I guess using this logic, there would be hardly nothing left at the Museum of Transportation. Let us look. C&IM 2-8-2, MILW Bi Polar, PRR Electric and the list goes on and on. I can't speak for Doc Roberts but it seems like he wanted a representation of different power and equipment. A Camelback, Electrics, Mallet...........
I can see another catfight like the one over the Lackawanna engine brewing.

For what it's worth, although I'm sure that the management of the museum in Saint Louis has changed since 1989, when EMD requested to borrow their famous FT 103, for the 50th anniversary celebration at the McCook plant in the falloff 1989. Although everyone knows that the loan of FT 103 was accomplished, and it "stared" at the big EMD open house, along with a former Southern Railway FTB "heater car". After the open house was concluded, EMD kept the FT A-B set indoors, and then eventually worked with the Union Pacific to take the FT pair out to Sacramento for the 1991 10th anniversary Rail Fair at the CSRM.

When it finally came time to return FT 103 to the museum in Saint Louis, negotiations began about "trading" the accompanying FTB unit for something that the museum had, so that the cosmetically FTA & FTB could stay together. The management of the Saint Louis museum would have NONE OF IT, and even requested that EMD repaint FT 103 back to the Southern Railway #6100 styling!!! When THAT request came to EMD management, virtually all the "volunteers" from the Engineering Dept. and Manufacturing, voiced their dismay to the EMD General Manager, and a response letter was sent back to the museum management politely explaining that after all the expense and labor involved in research and the cosmetic restoration of FT 103, she would be returned in her ORIGINAL "GM Demonstrator" paint. Not another word was ever received from the museum in Saint Louis, and no further negotiations between NS, the Roanoke Transportation Museum, and the Saint Louis museum ever happened. Thus, EMD returned the FT 103 to Saint Louis "as is", and the FTB was returned to Roanoke.

Bottom line; the management and culture of/at the Saint Louis museum was difficult to deal with back then, and I wonder if anything has changed?

So, where does St. Louis get their funding?