Steam & Excursion > L&N 1962, It was almost saved

L&N offered M1 1962 to Ky Ry Museum but the deal wasn't completed. Strangely, this excursion in 1956 from Cincinnati to Ravenna, Ky provided start-up funding for KRM. I found these slides by Bill Bauer last night so here they are in celebration of the M1 that was almost preserved.
JH



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/20 05:09 by Panamerican99.

---

---

---

One more...

---

Jim,
Is that an "Emma" or "Stripes"?

Uncle Joe
Seffner,Fl.

How sad! Photo one is my favorite.
Bob

Strange and sad that L&N was apparently quite on-board with the donation of the Emma to the museum. Anyone know why the deal fell through? It would have been great to have one preserved.

I remember David P. Morgan's wonderful article on the L&N M1 engines in Trains magazine, complete with a memorable cover. Not many engine classes got that kind of solo treatment in print, especially if its home road was not of the caliber of one of the big east-west line-haul carriers. Morgan revered the L&N, and it showed in every word and photo in that article. Before that article, how well known were the Emmas outside of L&N circles? I'd guess, not very well.

Thanks for a nice reminder and fine photos of the Emma.

MC
Muskegon, Michigan

I was just thinking of this engine a couple of days ago.  I too was on this trip, and was 5 at the time.  I have a square black and white shot of the engine at the Ravena station I believe.  Some gal in shorts was posing for someone when I took the photo.  I didn't know any better at the time.  The KRM not accepting the engine reminds me that the City of Cincinnati turned down a C&O 2-8-4.  I believe its the one now in Washington Court House, Ohio, that is probably one of the least seen of the group.
Thanks for pics Jim!  Just think if 1962 was in Ravenna in 1988 we could have had a charter from Ravenna to Paris, 152 to Maysville, and go back with 1962 later.
I really liked the looks of these, and we have some of them out of Cincinnati (DeCoursey, KY actually), in one of our videos, but something is better than nothing I guess.
Greg

David P. Morgan grew up in Louisville, and was very familiar with the L&N.

Scott Griggs
Louisville, KY

I had the pleasure of working with Bill Bauer at WAVE-TV, Louisville, in the late 1970s. Fun guy to be around. His expertise on all things steam was amazing, including riverboats. He told me the "almost" story about L&N 1962...without going into details.

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/20 08:47 by Alco251.

According to my conversations years ago (c 1972) with Ernie Gibson, longtime member and then immdeiate past president, the KRM had declined L&N #1962 because they had accepted C&O #2716 and thought two steam engines of 2-8-4 design were not needed at the museum.  While the museum and L&N continued to maintain a cordial relationship, the museum's decision regading #1962 did not endear it to the L&N.
ALLEN 

krm152 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...KRM had declined L&N
> #1962 because they had accepted C&O #2716 and
> thought two steam engines of 2-8-4 design were not
> needed at the museum.

Well THAT makes a hell of a lot of sense....

Mary McPherson
Dongola, IL
Diverging Clear Productions

JIm, Do you know what the other L&N 2-8-4 is in the distance behind the turntable.  It also has white flags, but is likely dead??????
How long after this trip was the last 2-8-4 run on the L&N!
Greg

krm152 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to my conversations years ago (c 1972)
> with Ernie Gibson, longtime member and then
> immdeiate past president, the KRM had declined L&N
> #1962 because they had accepted C&O #2716 and
> thought two steam engines of 2-8-4 design were not
> needed at the museum.  While the museum and L&N
> continued to maintain a cordial relationship, the
> museum's decision regading #1962 did not endear it
> to the L&N.
> ALLEN 

That's disappointing.  I loved climbing on the 2716 as a kid, but it's real shame an L&N M-1 wasn't saved.

Scott Griggs
Louisville, KY

MaryMcPherson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> krm152 Wrote:
> > ...KRM had declined L&N
> > #1962 because they had accepted C&O #2716 and
> > thought two steam engines of 2-8-4 design were
> > not  needed at the museum.
>
> Well THAT makes a hell of a lot of sense....

UNLESS.... of course, one or more C&O locomotives
had already been set aside which would make the
choice between another C&O or the only L&N 2-8-4
perhaps not the best choice.

Pretty wild to think - I'd love to purchase a copy of a
yet unwritten book about all the "almost preserved"
locomotives - including a Reading Camelback that
the Museum of Transportation in St Louis was offered
but turned down.

Another good book, or part of the non-existent book
above could detail some "almost tourist operations"
and "almost used at this operation" locomotives.

Maybe someone can put together a story for one of
the magazines while we wait.

Thanks for the insight!

/Mitch

To further elaborate, several factors bore on Kentucky Railway Museum’s decision not to accept L&N #1962 because they had already accepted another locomotive of the same 2-8-4 wheel arrangement, C&O #2716.
That decision was taken early in the museum's existence. At that time, the museum had limited space and resources. The museum had very limited trackage as it was located on a small site on River Road that was then a part of Eva Bandman Park. The number of members was small, and money was tight. Maintaining equipment takes people and money, the museum was short on both.
So, because of these limitations, the museum took the decision to have only one 2-8-4 locomotive. People may disagree with the decision, but those making it did not do so arbitrarily.
ALLEN

When I asked the question earlier, I had made a quiet guess that reasons like those listed might have been factors affecting the decision. I had visited the museum, and was aware from the visit of their constraints. But I didn't want to speculate, and hoped someone more knowledgeable would speak up. So, thank you for that.

I have had professional curatorial experience, not with machinery, but books, documents and artifacts. Collection focus and management decisions are very important, often complex and difficult, and not to be taken lightly. Many on this board who have had museum experience, even as volunteers, have learned that and commented upon it in one way or another from time to time. As have those of us planning for our own collections after our lifetimes. Space, preservation capability, and not least of all funds, and other factors, all figure into the decision to accept new objects or materials. It sounds like the museum's leadership kept such things in mind when they made their decision.

MC
Muskegon, Michigan