While chasing 765 out of Conway yesterday, there was a lot of talk about 643 at just about every photo site. Lots of interest in it. Someone mentioned Age Of Steam Roundhouse..........

Brian Hebert

I hate to be that guy, and don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it run, but after so long, even if they still have plans to restore it to operation, wouldn't it be better to put it on display somewhere to help gather public support, as opposed to hiding it in storage? I made this same argument awhile ago with regards to 614. It's the last of its kind, let people see it

There is a nice roundhouse in Greenville that is vacant and for sale. legend has it a B&LE 600 class 2-10-4 would fit inside PERFECTLY!

Dave

According to Al Richmond the 2926 is one of the locomotives that went to the canyon during Santa Fe owner ship. There are three others that survived two were 4-8-4 one being 3751 and the other escapes my memory at this point. The other locomotive still in existence is 4-6-4 3463. I think the branch could take the axle loading of 643 I just do not know how it would do on the curvature. The Santa Fe did run 3800 2-10-2 on the line.

The line is primarily 90 lb rail. FRA inspections at the time I was there were very complementary to our track program. One inspector had heard rumors of defects and came out to inspect and after seeing the first 20 miles he decided it was a better day to play golf with the roadmaster Sam Imbleau. The Sam had 20 years with BN before he went to work for GCR. In 2000 he was diagnosed with cancer and passed away in February 2001. In early 2002 they renamed Apex, Imbleau in honor of Sam. When I made my last run on GCR I varied from normal practice of signing out and stated “rest in peace my friend. GCR XXXX out.” Sam instilled a strong track program and Gus Rico has worked hard on maintaining it. It was a privilege to work with the track department at GCR.

Robby Peartree

Thanks Robby, you are completely right about Sam. He was a man's man and one of the most respected people I've ever come across.
I looked through my slides last nite, but could not come across any that showed the company logo with 643 on a sign.

A couple 'required reading' posts for anyone contemplating this locomotive in service - the specs are well known:

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/texas/?page=ble

That's just raw weight against a relatively shorter, fixed wheelbase...

But for anybody actually running it:
http://www.rlhs.org/Publications/Quarte ... nl24-3.pdf

See page 5 for the article including the B&LE locos, and the evaluation of the 'cousins', the CB&Q 2-10-4's. The combination of smaller driver sizes and no lightweight rods on the warbaby 643 makes this one of the likely surviving champions of dynamic augment problems at anything above about 20mph, and that includes just towing it. B&LE was actually built to take it. It seems counterintuitive that a 74" drivered 5011-class ATSF 2-10-4 would have less problems, but check out the math.

I found the GCRy logo here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/36522233@N08/4773859599/ I can't recally say for sure if that's supposed to be 643 or not.
When I rode the GCRy right before daily steam ended, I was told that the N de M engines as well as Chinese locos were contemplated at various times as well early on. It's not much of a stretch in my mind to imagine 643 being looked at, too, at some point.

My understanding was that said logo was based on one of the line's original ex-LS&I steamers, 18, now at the Rio Grande Scenic.

Decide for yourselves: http://www.flickr.com/photos/80651083@N00/2610711401/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31053639@N06/3776135181/

I'm not making squabbles, this is more lets make a deal right or wrong, but you'd have to ask the painter/artist what he did.

It does look more like 643 or it could be a 2-10-2, naw, doesn't look like a 2-8-0.

Nice work on the GCR sign.

Yeah Robbie, I'm not saying that no ten coupled power would work there, but as Randy vividly explained this isn't the right one for the job. A fleet of QJs, or either the Russian or light decapods like 90......very easily.

How many track men were working for the ATSF on this section back in the 1940's?

But we digress........ 643 is sort of a white elephant of a steam locomotive in terms of being useful on an operating railroad although it certainly deserves better than being scrapped in a landlocked location so close to Pittsburgh. I'd be very pleased to hear from a reputable source that there are rational and practical people working on a solution.

dave

Personally, I think 643 is closer to being a reasonable excursion engine than might be 'expected'. Let's look at a slightly different engine, let's say one with 63" drivers, 29 x 32" cyllinders, 255psi nominal pressure, and 92590# TE, according to the same source at steamlocomotive.com used for 643. Let's also assume that this engine has the infamous Lima articulated trailing truck, so more reciprocating overbalance is necessary for yaw stability. Does this sound like an attractive excursion engine?

Of course, the 'secret' is that the engine in question was rebuilt circa 1938 with the 'right' combination of pieces -- disc main with better dynamic balancing, alloy rods located closer to the locomotive centerline, and so forth. You know her as T&P 610.

I do not think it would be prohibitive to apply the same type of modifications when 'restoring' 643, particularly since very little of the modification would constitute irreversible change. I don't think any changed requirements to the pins on the 'other' four pairs of drivers would be needed. I also see no reason why the 'floating bush' style of main bearing developed for the UP FEFs would not be applicable here.

Using thicker liners and smaller pistons, to suit the working TE to the anticipated needs of excursion service, would further reduce the reciprocating mass... but the reciprocating mass is not nearly as much of a problem with augment as the lateral distance from centerline is. Check Johnson's book if there's any misunderstanding about what the center-of-percussion technique determines; the WHOLE of the effective revolving mass of the main rod can be, and was, properly included in dynamic balancing/cross-balancing; the component of 'reciprocating' mass and piston thrust *expressing in the (vertical) plane of the suspension* is much smaller, well within acceptable axle load even for modern track.

Now, we can discuss longitudinal guiding instability due to yaw, and the potentially severe problems this poses with increasing speed. Just don't go calling that 'dynamic augment' in the sense of hammer blow, because it isn't.

It shouldn't be difficult to find a source for a pair of Boxpok main drivers and a cost for making up a set of "proper" lightweight rods -- perhaps using the ones on 610 as partial patterns. Doesn't seem to me that this would represent a very large percentage of the overall refurbishment cost of 643, but would it not put her at least in the same league with 610 for type and scope of potential service?




If there are any questions about this, refer to late practice with very thin LATERAL section, but relatively deep web alloy roller rods (Niagara, J, the last As) and the results these provided.

Using her to haul freight specials wouldn't be out of the question, assuming money could be made by the locomotive both as power and as an attraction, say around Altoona. It's just a thought.

I do not mean to imply that 643 is a good or bad choice for GCR. I just want to point out they had the ability to handle some heavy axle loads Consider the accident at Coconino AZ on July 27, 1939 which the accident report may be found here.

http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scrip ... _railroads

The problem with saying railroad X should have my favorite locomotive (or type) Y usually ignores the technical, political and/or the economical issues of the situation. From a tech standpoint 1218 or 3985 would have a great balance between tractive effort and ability to run out on the flats on the GCR without helpers for most of their trains. But the little issues of ownership come into play then. For the record about 1995 GCR negotiated a lease of 2472 but apparently SP would not allow the locomotive to move something like 8 miles on their property. In the end it came down to political relations with a RR. I understand an offer was made to Kingman for the 3759 but was turned down as well. It is easy to say they need this or that locomotive it is even harder in this day and age to actually find it available.

Robby Peartree

The other locomotive considered for GCRy was the 4-8-4 displayed in Kingman, Arizona. Kingman wouldn't part with her.

This is the umpteenth time that this sad situation has been discussed. The bottom line here is that the locomotives owner is in denial as to the realities at issue here.

Very unfortunatly it appears that the most likely outcome here will be that this engine will eventually be scrapped in place as other options that could have been brought to bear have disappeared and are no longer available.

It's a classic example of the old adage.......you can lead 'em to water..........

IMHO-Ross Rowland