Steam & Excursion > NYC&StL 576

Is there any news on the progress of the restoration of this engine?

Here is information from todays Trains Newswire:

Nashville Steam launches matching campaign to complete restoration of No. 576 - Trains

-Fred-

NC&StL, not NYC&StL

I was confused, too!

NYC&StL was New York, Chicago &
St Louis RR, A very successful freight hauler, back in the day.

NC&StL was the Nashville, Chattanooga & StLouis… a much
different location.

I’m still befuddled by the reason
for taking everything apart on a perfectly good condition locomotive,
and playing with the pieces.

What necessitated such expensive
investment? All that occurred was that the professionally completed
work by experienced craftsmen, decades ago, was replaced by inexperienced
amateurs tinkering with the pieces —- out of curiosity.

Such as, what was the mechanical
necessity of taking apart the
driver axles’ Timken roller bearings?

What was the condemning indication that dictated that investment & necessity?
What “improvement” resulted in
that exercise?

When completed, the reassembled
locomotive will not be in
materially “better condition” than when they started. There was nothing on that engine that was all worn-out from over-usage.

Now, the biggest risk is that they’ve set a lot of mechanical, future traps and road failures for themselves, unnecessarily.

Oh, well. It was a perfectly good engine to start with. Do the required
boiler inspections, get it fired-up,
and making money.

The $millions invested in the tinkering will never be recovered in excursion cash flows. Any positive cash flow will go to the insurance companies’ benefit: thank you, very much!

However, all restored steam locomotives are a welcome outcome..

Welcome back, 576!

W.

Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/23 04:24 by wcamp1472.

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was confused, too!
>
> NYC&StL was New York, Chicago &
> St Louis RR, A very successful freight hauler,
> back in the day.
>
> NC&StL was the Nashville, Chattanooga & StLouis…
> a much
> different location.
>
> I’m still befuddled by the reason
> for taking everything apart on a perfectly good
> condition locomotive,
> and playing with the pieces.
>
> What necessitated such expensive
> investment? All that occurred was that the
> professionally completed
> work by experienced craftsmen, decades ago, was
> replaced by inexperienced
> amateurs tinkering with the pieces —- out of
> curiosity.
>
> Such as, what was the mechanical
> necessity of taking apart the
> driver axles’ Timken roller bearings?
>
> What was the condemning indication that dictated
> that investment & necessity?
> What “improvement” resulted in
> that exercise?
>
> When completed, the reassembled
> locomotive will not be in
> materially “better condition” than when they
> started. There was nothing on that engine that was
> all worn-out from over-usage.
>
> Now, the biggest risk is that they’ve set a lot
> of mechanical, future traps and road failures for
> themselves, unnecessarily.
>
> Oh, well. It was a perfectly good engine to start
> with. Do the required
> boiler inspections, get it fired-up,
> and making money.
>
> The $millions invested in the tinkering will never
> be recovered in excursion cash flows. Any positive
> cash flow will go to the insurance companies’
> benefit: thank you, very much!
>
> However, all restored steam locomotives are a
> welcome outcome..
>
> Welcome back, 576!
>
> W.
>
> Posted from iPhone

Well, the engine was retired in 1953 and has been parked, exposed to the elements for 60 years.  I certainly hope it will be in "materially better condition than when they started."  As far as the driver bearing disassembly, the problem with roller bearing steam locomotives is that the bearings are no longer going to be serviced by the manufacturer and would be extremely difficult and expensive to replace.  The slightest amount of roller wear can be a restoration show stopper.  When NS was running 611 and 1218 one of their shop men stated that they could repair anything but the driver rollers and a speck of wear no larger than the tip of a pencil could spell the permanent retirement of either engine.

Your description about a 'speck' of wear is not 
the 'wear' occurs on driver roller bearings.

The truly threatening 'specks' are more likely to happen during amateurish
tinkering by the curious. 

So, being preserved, sealed, and parked, fir all those years, what was going
to be the source of so-called wear 'specks"?

Uneeded and tinkering-disassembly presents far greater risks to the life of the rollers,
especially in an un-sanitary environment.  It's a totally unnecessary and needlessly
reckless excercise that occurred.

How were they supposed to asses the presence of any 'specks'?

​W.

Wes,

With all due respect…

What park engine have you restored in the last 30 years?

What insurance premiums have you paid for in the last 5 years?

Can you tell me how much one costs for an excursion operator today?

Can you name any of these “amateurs” who are just “tinkering?”

Is this ignorance…intentional?

I know of several excursion engines that have earned their investment back after a few seasons. It’s also a red herring for you to suggest otherwise.

Your comments remain alarmingly off base for someone with so much technical knowledge. Despite previous corrections, you keep repeating them. You do yourself and your experience a great disservice.

Help me understand…or at the very least, stop repeating nonsense.

Question, serious question for real, you really can’t get Timken bearing to make or offer replacement roller bearings if they fail or need replacement?

Posted from iPhone

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your description about a 'speck' of wear is not 
> the 'wear' occurs on driver roller bearings.
>
> The truly threatening 'specks' are more likely to
> happen during amateurish
> tinkering by the curious. 
>
> So, being preserved, sealed, and parked, fir all
> those years, what was going
> to be the source of so-called wear 'specks"?
>
> Uneeded and tinkering-disassembly presents far
> greater risks to the life of the rollers,
> especially in an un-sanitary environment.  It's
> a totally unnecessary and needlessly
> reckless excercise that occurred.
>
> How were they supposed to asses the presence of
> any 'specks'?
>
> ​W.

So you have evidence that NC&StL or Timken inspected and certified the bearings at the time of retirement?  You are certain there has been no water intrusion over the past 60 years leading to corrosion?  I'm sure any inspection that the was done on-site was a cursory visual inspection to look for obvious glaring issues before moving forward with the rebuild.  The driver assemblies were shipped to a very competent contractor to perform detailed wheel work including bearing servicing.  Do a lot of groups over-restore? Maybe, but inspection of the driver bearings is absolutely prudent.  A defect in this area is not something you want to discover shortly after putting the engine in service unless you want to throw away a multi-million dollar restoration.

Nashville Steam is made up of some prominent members of the steam community and they are making substantial progress.  I assure you that this project is not "tinkering by the curious."

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was confused, too!
>
> NYC&StL was New York, Chicago &
> St Louis RR, A very successful freight hauler,
> back in the day.
>
> NC&StL was the Nashville, Chattanooga & StLouis…
> a much
> different location.
>
> I’m still befuddled by the reason
> for taking everything apart on a perfectly good
> condition locomotive,
> and playing with the pieces.
>
> What necessitated such expensive
> investment? All that occurred was that the
> professionally completed
> work by experienced craftsmen, decades ago, was
> replaced by inexperienced
> amateurs tinkering with the pieces —- out of
> curiosity.
>
> Such as, what was the mechanical
> necessity of taking apart the
> driver axles’ Timken roller bearings?
>
> What was the condemning indication that dictated
> that investment & necessity?
> What “improvement” resulted in
> that exercise?
>
> When completed, the reassembled
> locomotive will not be in
> materially “better condition” than when they
> started. There was nothing on that engine that was
> all worn-out from over-usage.
>
> Now, the biggest risk is that they’ve set a lot
> of mechanical, future traps and road failures for
> themselves, unnecessarily.
>
> Oh, well. It was a perfectly good engine to start
> with. Do the required
> boiler inspections, get it fired-up,
> and making money.
>
> The $millions invested in the tinkering will never
> be recovered in excursion cash flows. Any positive
> cash flow will go to the insurance companies’
> benefit: thank you, very much!
>
> However, all restored steam locomotives are a
> welcome outcome..
>
> Welcome back, 576!
>
> W.
>
> Posted from iPhone

How do you know it was in perfectly good condition? Did you personally inspect the locomotive before it was acquired for preservation?

Nathansixchime..
"What insurance premiums have you paid for in the last 5 years?"

I'm confused: what is the connection between insurance costs and roller bearings?
What kind of insurance are you talking about?
The expensive stuff is the liability insurance.
I don't know of any insurance that applies to service failures of any kind.
And "boiler coverage"  does not apply to boiler abuse, like low water conditions,
or dropped crown sheets.

When a Timken representative visited the 759 at Conneaut toundouse, summer
of '68, he was there to protect Timken's interests.  We were glad to have his expertise.
He said he wanted to inspect the bearings before we moved the engine.
I told him that the engine had just come from Vermont,  and completed the 600 mile 
trip, without incident.  He was surprised.

He removed the pilot bearing covers, and found pristine condition interiors and
new-appearing grease.  He was very pleased.  We removed the tell-tale axle
plugs at each driver, again new-like, pristine grease.

He instructed that we add 12 ozs of new grease, and then re-seal the plugs back
in the housing, wire-tied.  He also instructed us to not open the bearings again
as long as we ran the engine.  The reason was that the probability of future dirt
contamination, by over-zealous maintainers was a greater risk than "routine use"
demands that 759 would be exposed-to.

I also, appreciate that the 765 has been up-graded to all rollers, and that 
765 has had the drivers removed and the rollers given proper attention.
That's very worthy of praise and appreciation.  Well done.

But what had been done to 765's rollers, when it was returned to service,
back about 1980?   Had it gotten a visit, and input from Timken?

W.
 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/23 11:03 by wcamp1472.

re: socalchoochoo....
"Did you personally inspect the locomotive before it was acquired for
preservation?"

As a matter of fact, yes I did inspect that engine, at the instructions
of Ross, for possible use on the American Freedom Train, 
It was eminently an excellent candidate --- well preserved and well 
maintained by its previous owners & years while in service.

​W.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/23 11:25 by wcamp1472.

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> re: socalchoochoo....
> "Did you personally inspect the locomotive before
> it was acquired for
> preservation?"
>
> As a matter of fact, yes I did inspect that
> engine, at the instructions
> of Ross, for possible use on the American Freedom
> Train, 
> It was eminently an excellent candidate --- well
> preserved and well 
> maintained by its previous owners & years while in
> service.
>
> ​W.

That was in the 70's........... I'm sure its condition changed just a bit over 40years

Okay...

What specific, material changes could have occurred,
other than weather related?

​W.

> -----
> > re: socalchoochoo....
> > "Did you personally inspect the locomotive
> before
> > it was acquired for
> > preservation?"
> >
> > As a matter of fact, yes I did inspect that
> > engine, at the instructions
> > of Ross, for possible use on the American
> Freedom
> > Train, 
> > It was eminently an excellent candidate ---
> well
> > preserved and well 
> > maintained by its previous owners & years while
> in
> > service.
> >
> > ​W.
>
> That was in the 70's........... I'm sure its
> condition changed just a bit over 40years

"Back in my day, Sonny, put a good squeeze on her and tell Ross to let 'er eat!"
Where the boiler is concerned, I imagine the sanctimonious objector has been out of the game long enough to likely have never seen an ultrasound machine let alone use one.  But hey, what do us young whipper snappers know?
Curious as to whether the illustrious Mr. Camp is even aware of the identity of the person heading up the efforts or the extremely successful restorations which that individual has completed within the past decade.  It's not exactly a fly-by-night hobbyist taking apart the Timkens just to see how they work.

Kelly: The Lakeshore Group at Elkhart nearly F*****d up the NYC Mohawk at Elkhart, Indiana. I wonder if parts are still in the tender?

Victor Baird


nathansixchime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Can you name any of these “amateurs” who are
> just “tinkering?”
>
 

I can't speak for the 576, but can pass along my experience on 1522.
She was taken out of service in Ft.Scott, KS in 1951 and laid around outside until around 1957 when she was moved to Springfield, then St. Louis, MO to cosmetically restore for donation the the Museum of Transportation.  After a beaiutiful restoration, she sat on display at the MOT until September of 1985 when a group of volunteers got permission to restore her to operation.  Over the next 30 months she was restored.
Now the purpose of a complete teardown revealed:
Pins and bushings beat all to hell.  Rod brass worn, crankpins needing attention. Removal of tubes, flues and superheater units.  Restoring the booster unit. Firebox work, including a fairly large piece of the waist sheet which had corroded behind the firebrick. Honing work on the cylinders, booster engine, power reverse and air pump. All valves, including throttle, lapped in.  Tender disassembled, frame turned upside down and needed work done. Tender cleaned out, sandblasted inside, partitions repaired.  Apexior inside tender, boiler and coating flues/tubes.  Any staybolt work completed.
And you see, even after all of that, we still had some bearing issues.  Converted pilot, trailing truck and tender to roller bearings.  Cured our issues.
If an engine is considered to be in great shape, then you're ignoring all the little hiddin gremlins waiting unseen.
I. can think of another engine or two that I'm more concerned about than the

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

"The $millions invested in the tinkering will never
> be recovered in excursion cash flows. Any positive
> cash flow will go to the insurance companies’
> benefit: thank you, very much!

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm confused: what is the connection between
> insurance costs and roller bearings?
> What kind of insurance are you talking about?
> The expensive stuff is the liability insurance.

Wes, these are your statements. "Any positive cashflow will go to the insurance companies benefit." So I asked if you knew how much insurance coverage was for an operator. If you don't know that, how can you claim that "positive cash flow" will only go to an insurance company's benefit? It's a ridiculous statement my friend.

Not only are steam excursions capable of grossing over six figures in a year, but insurance premiums are less than $100k a year. You can pay off insurance premiums in two weekends. You can see how being mistaken on this raises some eyebrows. In fact, I'm pretty sure most excursion operators have a pretty great relationship with their insurance broker.

There may have been volatile cash flow in the 60s and 70s for start-up operators or for-profit companies, and insurance premiums can and do fluctuate (especially when/if influenced by a host railroad.) As far as we may be from the halcyon days of mainline steam, it's probably much more of a business than it ever was when 614, 759, and others operated. I don't say this as a criticism, because even the organization and business around 765 has continued to evolve a long way. You know as well as anyone the number of issues and mechanical challenges that can arise on the road, and while the can-do spirit can do all, no operator has ever had an unlimited budget, a roundhouse to work in, or old heads willing around to throw in with you, let alone a host railroad (or customers) willing to put up with reduced track speed or canceled trips due to hot bearings or worse.

Your other earlier point about restorations never making back their investment is also a misstep. Not only can they make it back, but the added value and multiplier effect of their operations is widespread. I just learned that a tourism bureau attributed $30,000 per day in visitor spending for a series of steam excursion rides. That's taxes, lodging, restaurants, gas, and misc expenses for an average of 700 visitors per day. That may sound like a lot of money, but it breaks down to 30-40 bucks per visitor and adds up quickly. Imagine advocating for steam restorations and operations...but missing one of the biggest selling points to non-railroad people.

Two of the bearing boxes on 576 were found to be out of spec, but that would have never been discovered if they were not removed. Imagine the pain of restoring a locomotive and two years later getting overheated bearings because your cones were out of spec or races were oblong, and then you're taking an otherwise perfectly good engine out of service, paying thousands of dollars to lift it up twice to remove the errant box, risking downtime, etc. That would be the opposite of ROI. Wouldn't you, as a locomotive advocate, want to have seen every nook and cranny of the engine you're in charge of before carrying 700 people behind you every day?

FWIW, the 576's tender rollers were A-OK. The front trailing truck needed re-profiling. If an organization is already taking the drivers out for wheel work and new tires, why wouldn't this also be part of the scope of work?

A lot of steam excursion work in the 1960s-1970s was enough to get something out of the door and over the road until the next fix – or a better fix – could be applied. A tube job here, a patch job here, and some TLC by competent professionals went a long way in that era. Unfortunately, many of those engines don't even run now. But if they did, you can bet everything they'd get nothing less than the total Class 5. There's merit in how things were executed then, and lessons and people (like Wes, and others) to learn from. But learning those lessons doesn't mean they all have to be repeated verbatim in 2023 because they worked in 1973, either. I think we are mistaken in having this golden view of how perfectly excursion operators once worked – or how steam railroads all ran their engines perfectly and efficiently all the time – because while we all have mechanical standards and values, we also know there are good days and bad days, and anything we can do to lessen the number of bad days is worth doing.

Here is our prior exchange on these matters, ending in the same points: https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?10,5223168,5226189#msg-5226189


wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know of any insurance that applies to
> service failures of any kind.

Isn't this the point of all the "fiddling?" To prevent service failures? To guarantee another 30-50 years of reliable service? I seriously cannot compare the merits of an inspection of a park engine to a full-blown tear down.

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I also, appreciate that the 765 has been up-graded
> to all rollers, and that 
> 765 has had the drivers removed and the rollers
> given proper attention.
> That's very worthy of praise and appreciation.

Built with rollers on the drivers and lead truck, but recently upgraded the trailing truck.

>
> But what had been done to 765's rollers, when it
> was returned to service,
> back about 1980?   Had it gotten a visit, and
> input from Timken?
>

Yep, Timken advised both on the earlier efforts and as recently as 2011.

To the earlier question someone raised about brand new roller bearing axles, a capital expense of a one or two-off project like that would add another 6-12 months or more of fundraising.

---

As someone who works in the trucking industry and in a former life worked as a race car mechanic, I have always placed an extreme amount of emphasis on preventative maintenance and "zero lifing" components.  I think #765's almost flawless performance since she went back out on the road well over a decade ago is a ringing endorsement of the practically down to the last nut and bolt overhaul she received in the early 2000's. Has ANY big steamer racked up more miles than her since 2009, with the possible exception of UP #844?  In today's world, I don't think hosting railroads or the majority of the paying passengers have much if ANY tolerance for mechanical woes that delay or postpone trips or gum up operations.  I think the days of people who slogged through some of Dick Jensen's ill fated trips, or even High Iron's or some of the early #765 trips with a smile on their face, ready to do it again are mostly gone.  The average train rider today, who likely knows little to nothing about steam engines or excursion train travel expect the same defect free on time performance they might get from Metra or some other commuter line.  That requires mechanical and operational performance that is as defect free as possible, and that means not putting 50-100 year old stuff out there and saying, "well it worked OK when we tested it", or "It LOOKED OK to me".  I think the efforts to "zero life" #576 as much as possible is 100% spot on, and if there is ANY problem putting stuff back together to work as good or better than it was before, then you simply don't have the right people doing and overseeing the work.  Would you fly on an airplane where the mechanic said "We better not take that apart, because it might be worse when we get done with it?  I'm sorry Wes, but I don't think saying something looked fine in 1975 so don't touch it, is going to fly with any SERIOUS operator in today's world.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/23 08:21 by junctiontower.

One of the few things that did bite FWRHS was that we didn't replace the thermic syphons in the firebox of the 765 during the major overhaul. They were inspected and relieved based on standard Nickel Plate practice, just as you would have done 20 or 50 years prior, but they were not replaced.

Well, in just a few years, they developed spindling hairline cracks that required another $20k of work and effort to replace, and the engine was not operable for one small open-house event between 2006 and 2009. This was before the excursion career picked up again, so the downtime wasn't as significant – though it was a little silly and begged the question "didn't you guys just overhaul this thing?"

The list of unforeseeable issues that can occur on the road is long (like a tight wye track causing brand-new spring hangers to break, or the cones on a Nathan 4000 injector separating or cracking, or a hot water pump losing its prime...), any step you can take to mitigate issues when you had shop time, capacity, and resources to do so is a good one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/23 15:37 by nathansixchime.