Steam & Excursion > What would you do?

This is just purely for fun....

I have been thinking that since CSX and BNSF have been selling off some of their secondary line the last few years (ex-PRR main through Indiana for example) wouldn't it be great if one of the owners of these shortlines turns out to be another Jerry Jacobson and wants to run steam? Here's where we come to the fun part.

Let's say you are given a chance to pick a locomotive to run on one of these shortlines for a tourist operation. Which locomotive that is still around today would you pick? To make it a challenge you have to factor in a few things to your decision.

1)It's got to be cheap to restore, short lines don't have deep deep pockets.
2)The engine has to be able to handle 10 cars up 1.5% grades.
3)The engine has to be light, as to save on track maintaince. The engine has to be lighter than a new AC locomotive.
4)It's got to be cheap to run (yes, some locomotives are cheaper to run than others)

So, still got an engine in mind?

And to make it fair, you cannot choose a locomotive which is currently being restored or being operated by another group. You cannot go stealing someone's locmotive:-)

tucker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is just purely for fun....
>
> I have been thinking that since CSX and BNSF have
> been selling off some of their secondary line the
> last few years (ex-PRR main through Indiana for
> example) wouldn't it be great if one of the owners
> of these shortlines turns out to be another Jerry
> Jacobson and wants to run steam? Here's where we
> come to the fun part.
>
> Let's say you are given a chance to pick a
> locomotive to run on one of these shortlines for a
> tourist operation. Which locomotive that is still
> around today would you pick? To make it a
> challenge you have to factor in a few things to
> your decision.
>
> 1)It's got to be cheap to restore, short lines
> don't have deep deep pockets.
> 2)The engine has to be able to handle 10 cars up
> 1.5% grades.
> 3)The engine has to be light, as to save on track
> maintaince. The engine has to be lighter than a
> new AC locomotive.
> 4)It's got to be cheap to run (yes, some
> locomotives are cheaper to run than others)
>
> So, still got an engine in mind?
>
> And to make it fair, you cannot choose a
> locomotive which is currently being restored or
> being operated by another group. You cannot go
> stealing someone's locmotive:-)


How many miles of track are we talking about here and how fast do you want to go?

Well, I've never seen a steam locomotive that was cheap to restore, and with your design criteria of 10 cars up a 1.5% grade, we can count out anything smaller than a large 10 wheeler or consolidation (beating the heck out of engine is one way to seriously increase its maintenance costs). That all being said, I always thought that the CN 4-6-4 suburban tank engine would make a good shortline engine. Designed to be compact yet powerful, runs equally well in either direction (skip the turntable if you want), clean lines too. I believe there are still 3 in existance, so parts could be made from the others if they happened to be missing. Anyway, my 2 cents worth.

Steam2k Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many miles of track are we talking about here
> and how fast do you want to go?

Seeing that these lines being sold off have good track, lets say 40mph and 40 miles one way.

I'd be looking for a light Mike or something in that neighborhood. It's got the power for the hills and speed on the flats,that line would be perfect for a Mikado.

I'll help things along with my top 3 engines with the pros and cons of each engine.
Here they are in reverse order.

3) C&O 2716 - Pros: Could easily handle the train, grades and speed.
The overhaul needed to get this engine running would be cheaper than
dragging an engine out of a park.
Cons: This engine is heavy. If I recall correctly the C&O Kanawhas were the
heaviest 2-8-4s built.
The engine still has all friction bearings (again, IIRC)

2) N&W 611 - Pros: Could VERY easily handle the train, grades and speed.
Little overhaul would be needed to have the engine in operating
condition.
The locomotive is completely roller bearing. Even the side rods.
This would be a great savings in maintaince costs on the engine.
The locomotive is world famous so, people may come just to ride
behind 611.
Cons: HEAVY! What you save in engine maintaince might be blown in track
maintaince.

1)Frisco 1522- Pros: This is a light engine that could easily handle the train, grades,
and speed.
The engine would need very little overhaul in order to get it
in running shape again.
Cons: Friction bearings on the driving wheels.

Thats just my thoughts, if anyone else wants to add anything I would love to hear it.

I believe all the C&O 2-8-4's were built with rollers on all axles, just like the L&N "Big Emmas." The big advantage N&W 611 would have is her ability to make about 500 miles between oil re-fills and about 1,300 miles before getting the Alemite guns out. Her big disadvantage, besides weight, is some degree of inflexibilty with respect to curves. IIRC, the roller rods are part of the problem on that score. Cotton Belt 819 would seem a good choice.

What part of the country this line is in also plays a part. If it's in coal country,you'll be in good shape with the 2716 or the 611. In oil country 1522 and 818 would work just fine.
Any of the engines previously mentioned would work well in this scenario,but engines like 2716 and 611 would give you more room for expansion if the operation required such a move,if you wanted to keep the speeds up. A heavy Mike would give you the same performans at low speed,but 2716 would give you more top end and still be able to drag a pretty big train up the ruling grade.

Hmm, well those engines would be great to see run and they'd do the job, but they'd be too expensive to run in that type of service everyday. The fuel costs, water usuage, and added startup time with those large engines would mean you'd have to pay the same employee an extra few hours of time while the engine sits and does no work for the company. You'll need a smaller engine that would be loaded more fully and yet, still be powerful enough to include an extra 1-3 cars. How bout a 57" to 63" drivered 2-8-2? The reason Im saying this, is that those big engines don't devolop their maximum horsepower until 40mph+, and you'd be using alot of steam to spin those larger drivers with that load up hill. I remember reading something about the reason why N&W decided on 70" drivers for their 4-8-4s. It was because they were mostly a hilly railroad, and they wanted to "run" their passenger trains up hills verses "drag" them like the larger drivered engines of the same wheel arrangement would. Makes sense to me, plus you have a higher horsepower at a lower speed. Give me a larger 2-8-0 or 2-8-2 with modern appliences that would suit the grade and load your asking for. Thats my thoughts on the subject, but I could be wrong.

OK, how about a Chinese QJ 2-10-2? Moderate axle loads, good pull, and a proven record in passenger service. Could one of these meet the current Federal regs? Sure would love to have a couple of them over here.