Interesting post in the FLIMSIES section. Seems as if some company (individual?) is trying to talk the authorities into hydo testing two steam locomotives on display in Saltville, VA. According to the story in the SMYTH COUNTY NEWS & MESSENGER, this person believes that, if the engines pass the hydro, they could be fired up for Christmas celebrations THIS YEAR!!! The locomotives are former Norfolk & Western 2-8-0 #305 (the oldest N&W locomotive in existance) and what is described as a "0-6-0 Mogul type" (#2) which is an old Rhode Island Locomotive Works tank engine built in 1894.

Anyone have any further information on this hare-brained scheme?

midlandblb@cs.com

Wouldn't the locomotives need to meet the new FRA boiler regulations prior to being certified for operation?

Jeff

> Interesting post in the FLIMSIES section.
> Seems as if some company (individual?) is
> trying to talk the authorities into hydo
> testing two steam locomotives on display in
> Saltville, VA. According to the story in the
> SMYTH COUNTY NEWS & MESSENGER, this
> person believes that, if the engines pass
> the hydro, they could be fired up for
> Christmas celebrations THIS YEAR!!! The
> locomotives are former Norfolk & Western
> 2-8-0 #305 (the oldest N&W locomotive in
> existance) and what is described as a
> "0-6-0 Mogul type" (#2) which is
> an old Rhode Island Locomotive Works tank
> engine built in 1894.

> Anyone have any further information on this
> hare-brained scheme?


smith@drexel.edu

> Interesting post in the FLIMSIES section.
> Seems as if some company (individual?) is
> trying to talk the authorities into hydo
> testing two steam locomotives on display in
> Saltville, VA. According to the story in the
> SMYTH COUNTY NEWS & MESSENGER, this
> person believes that, if the engines pass
> the hydro, they could be fired up for
> Christmas celebrations THIS YEAR!!! The
> locomotives are former Norfolk & Western
> 2-8-0 #305 (the oldest N&W locomotive in
> existance) and what is described as a
> "0-6-0 Mogul type" (#2) which is
> an old Rhode Island Locomotive Works tank
> engine built in 1894.

> Anyone have any further information on this
> hare-brained scheme?
A neighbor of my grandparents gave me poloroid photos of these engines way back in 1984.They looked like typical neglected park engines than,I am almost positive that not a thing has been done to the locos in the meantime.Surely the FRA would not permit this to happen.I love steam locos but I would not go anywhere near those engines if they were steamed this year!

WINK638@aol.com

> A neighbor of my grandparents gave me
> poloroid photos of these engines way back in
> 1984.They looked like typical neglected park
> engines than,I am almost positive that not a
> thing has been done to the locos in the
> meantime.Surely the FRA would not permit
> this to happen.I love steam locos but I
> would not go anywhere near those engines if
> they were steamed this year!
Let me see, how does it go? If a boiler passes a 200 psi hydro, then it's safe, but if you hydro it to 600 psi, it's even safer. So let's hydro these babies to 1000 psi, and then we'll know that they will be the safest boilers in the county. Some people should not be allowed to breed. Yes, I'm being sarcastic. I like the one locally when a 1902 vintage boiler was examined by a diesel inspector. This boiler had been in a park for 40 years. It was announced that the boiler was in "perfect condition" No 100 year old machine can be in that condition, especially prior to any work being done to it. BTW, loco had been displayed in a rain forest.


nwstaybolt@reachone.com

First of all, I'll be willing to bet that after 20 years of sitting out some of the tubes are toast so they won't hold water, let alone a hydro.(Which would render the rest of the arguments academic.)

Second, I'm sure someone will pass along the new FRA regs to these people as an act of self interest. (I will leave the argument of SAFE to OPERATE vs. "legislatively compliant" for another day)

No Message

> First of all, I'll be willing to bet that
> after 20 years of sitting out some of the
> tubes are toast so they won't hold water,
> let alone a hydro.(Which would render the
> rest of the arguments academic.)

> Second, I'm sure someone will pass along the
> new FRA regs to these people as an act of
> self interest. (I will leave the argument of
> SAFE to OPERATE vs. "legislatively
> compliant" for another day)

If my memory serves me correctly, these engines operated in a very corrosive environment and used water with a high salt concentration. I believe the 2-8-0 was retired by Olin and placed on display in the late '50's when its boiler wore out. As for the other engine, I'll bet it suffers the same maladies.


K4s1361@hotmail.com

The story says December 7, 2002 is the target steam-up date. Talk about fateful days!

ryarger@rypn.org