In the case of a defined gap in a collection for a specific interpretive need, for which no original example remains.

For example, I am in need of a center door, wooden, clerestory roofed, Jim Crow combine that ran on Wrightsville and Tennile or Sylvania Central. A probable example might be a coach conversion, likely from a Ohio Falls product circa 1890. Any of these left out there? Didn't think so.

Using a gutted wooden clerestory roofed car from a work train somewhere I can build a replica of the missing car - which will be interpreted as a replica and not as the original car - and tell the story of the branchline mixed trains, and the Jim Crow era on southern shortlines.

Using raw materials NPS is running replicas of Jupiter and 119 in Utah now. How much more meaningful is the experience to the general public with these replicas than without? Probably the only thing that would get them out to Promontory in the first place are these incredibly beautiful operating locomotives.

Steam locomotives were largely custom produced to the customers specifications but diesels were mass produced as basic models and sold to everybody. Sure, there may be subtle differences in the polacement of grabirons or some such, but generally a '57 Chevy is a '57 Chevy. If one of many from a particular line can be used to fill a gap where none from another line remain for a reason, why not, provided we interpret honestly.

Dave



irondave@bellsouth.net

I think you bring up an excellent point! It is better then nothing. You can get to expierience what it was like. I rather ride behind a CNW F-unit painted as a PRR unit then not. Most of the tourist railroads buisness come from little johnny and ma. They don't care what heritage the loco is. They just want expierience what it was like in the 50's. Replicas can also be useful in a museum. They can show you what the "rocket" looked like. That replica can be very useful, and help johnny and ma to understand railroading better.

The Blue Mountain Lines
norfolk_western_611@hotmail.com

>I would love to see replicas on a widespread basis. We could then dispense with the static vs. operational argument and could allow the preservation of all equipment deemed to be an artfact.

However, are replicas really practical? I know the British are working on a new "Tornado" and there's another group trying to produce an updated 4-6-0.

Could we produce a small steamer, something like a 2-6-2? How about a replica 4-4-0 to give people the idea of 100 years ago (although at some point-I suppose meeting the requirements of CFR 49 might make things like triple valves impossible to experience?)

How about an F-unit? 567's are still plentiful, blomberg trucks available?

It seems like this is the best solution-barring the ugly realities of economics

Superheater@beer.com

Houston's Minute-Maid Park (formerly Enron Field),
sports an enormous vintage-looking steam locomotive atop it's left field wall. When a home-run is hit, the loco steams across 800' of track blowing it's whistle and stirring up the crowd. This 1860's looking 25ton "replica" 4-4-0 is actually larger than a standard gauge locomotive, and was constructed by the company that built the transporters for the stadium's retractable roof.

In this case I think this "replica" is quite useful. Not only has it become a fan-favorite, but also a vivid reminder of Houston's railroad past; quite possibly cultivating an interest in railroading in some young baseball fans.



Minute-Maid Park photos
SJHussar@aol.com

The relatively recent demand for "vintage" trolleys has resulted in the founding of at least two companies to fill this demand plus several in-house operations.


lamontdc@adelphia.net

Since the original is no doubt stuck in Kennesaw for all time, how about an operating replica of the "General" as she oringinally looked? Of course the boiler would be welded steel instead of cast iron, but you could have the outer frame rails, third dome and other details missing from the original. Not as grand a vision as scratch-building a Ps-4 or J3 Hudson, but probably alot cheaper. Not to mention easier to find a place to run it in the 'States.

AD

Southeastern Railway Museum
gapower97@yahoo.com

Well Drew, you aren't the first to consider this scheme. Stephen Syfrett was a principal in pursuing the idea about 20 years ago, actually had some talks with Chad O'Connor who built the Jupiter and 119. Hope he will contribute his findings from that effort to this thread soon.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

As has been pointed out; replicas are a good useful idea. But most projects don't turn out replicas! People start getting into the design. For example, the British Tornado will have roller bearings instead of friction bearings, a second water tender, be oil fired rather than coal and so on.

The NPS has the Promintary engines but they were for a long time oil fired not wood and coal as original. They are now correct.

Diesels sere more of a mass production item than steam engines, but they need a lot of small details to get them right.

So I say if you build a replica, then think about all the small details and do them right!

Ted Miles

ted_miles@nps.gov

Of as much or more interest to me as replicas is honest-to-goodness new construction, especially of steam power. The distinction is fidelity to a specific prototype--a replica seeks to reproduce a specific historic original; new construction is nothing more or less than a new engine, a thing unto itself representing no prior prototype.

In the UK, some of the narrow-gauge 2' tourist railroads routinely construct new steam motive power optimized for their current operating patterns from the frame and boiler up. Talyllyn has built their #7 Tom Rolt, a "heavy" (by their standards) 0-4-2T built using running gear salvaged from a 3' gauge engine; Ffestiniog has built new-design Fairlies (0-4-4-0 Earl of Marionneth) from new plans as well as replica Fairlies (0-4-4 Taliesin) representing lost historic engines.

I for one would love to see a new-design 4-4-0 or 2-6-0 tourist railroad engine for the US market--matching in general form, proportion, and appearance 1900-1920 prototypes, but using roller bearings, welded boilers, and whatever other improvements make economic sense. Build, run, and interpret them as what they are--not replicas, but brand-new steam power designed and constructed to solve specific operating problems on today's steam railways.

Dave Conrad's SY 2-8-2s are a good example of what I mean here, though that specific opportunity has closed or is closing fast.

So, what would the economics of a brand new heavy American or medium Mogul be, compared to keeping and maintaining your 80-to 90-year old Ol' #7 or whatever in regular service? Could the increased reliability and reduced operating and maintenance costs of a new construction locomotive make up for the high initial purchase cost? And how would that purchase cost compare to a park rescue, or to the acquisition and Part 240 survey and rehab of the out-of-service branch line queen of your choice (say for the sake of argument, a CPR D class).

My guess is the economics aren't there yet, or Linn and Kelly would be building their own engines at Strasburg. But I'd be interested to know how close they might be, and whether in the near future the cost-benefit of new construction vs. restoration might break in favor of new construction.

Any thoughts?

eledbetter@rypn.org

> My guess is the economics aren't there yet,
> or Linn and Kelly would be building their
> own engines at Strasburg. But I'd be
> interested to know how close they might be,
> and whether in the near future the
> cost-benefit of new construction vs.
> restoration might break in favor of new
> construction.

> Any thoughts?

Erik,

One huge item to consider with new contruction is dealing with the FRA. Standards such as safety appliances, construction specs, exhaust emissions, sound emissions, etc. are all written into the Code of Federal Regulations.

On an existing engine, many portions of the CFR that have been updated are grandfathered, or waivers are granted due to historical status.

On a newly built locomotive, the process may be much tougher. Not impossible, especially if it's only one or two that you're building to use in a historical context (such as the NPS engines in Utah), but the feds may not be so quick to grant deviations if you start building them in any number for use in revenue tourist service.

Personally, I couldn't even begin to predict how the FRA and AAR would handle such an effort. Nobody has attempted any new construction beyond the handful of recreations out there, so there's a lot of uncharted territory...


Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

As an example, lets take the several 2-foot gauge railroad restorations happening in New England. There are the well known, Wiscasset, Waterville & Farmington Railway in Alna, ME, the SR&RL up in Phillips, The Maine Narrow Gauge in Portland, ME, Edaville, and some smaller less visible efforts underway elsewhere. It's almost to the point that there aren't enough steam engines to go around!

The economy of "scale" should mean that a replica 2-footer could be built for a fraction of what it would cost to build anything standard gauge. So with the pricetag of most restorations approaching the stratosphere, why hasn't it been done?

The Jupiter and the 119 were built by Oconnor to near original specs, so why not a WW&F #7 ?



SJHussar@aol.com

The replicas operated by B&O are old enough to be historic in their own right but were just modernized by Strasburg to keep them alive under the new regs. I don't know for sure if the original Layfayette even had a water glass - now the replica has 2. It still fascinates me to see it run, don't really obsess about the required changes.

It wouldn't make economic sense to capitalize the cost of a new steam locomotive as a one off or to spend most of its life on cold display. Operating tourist railroads are the only rational market for them, they need to be models which are suitable for most tourist line use - say a 4-6-0 or a light 2-8-0, a 2-6-2 for lines with no turning. Crown Metal Products built some nice 3 foot 4-4-0's for light amusement park lines, perhaps a heavier model could be worked out for older styles in heavier railroad use. Maybe a Glover mogul for loggers and industrial lines?

In any case, building new for the purpose of generating profitable ton mileage implies making use of modern means of increasing reliability, availability, durability and efficiency as an inherent part of the design process.

SLM had come out with a design for a European 2-10-0 which had all the new bells and whistles from their new line of steam rack engines some years back, don't know if any were built. They are prepared to build modern but old style 2-8-2's for narrow gage lines - anybody in Colorado listening?

Of course, there is still the occasional one off job like the V&T Lyon project, which I am led to believe is as like the original as is legally possible to manufacture today. I can't believe the perfectionists at Strasburg aren't doing a better job of designing and building it than the original - it had been considered a failure and wasn't long lived on the V&T as a result.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> As an example, lets take the several 2-foot
> gauge railroad restorations happening in New
> England. There are the well known,
> Wiscasset, Waterville & Farmington
> Railway in Alna, ME, the SR&RL up in
> Phillips, The Maine Narrow Gauge in
> Portland, ME, Edaville, and some smaller
> less visible efforts underway elsewhere.
> It's almost to the point that there aren't
> enough steam engines to go around!

> The economy of "scale" should mean
> that a replica 2-footer could be built for a
> fraction of what it would cost to build
> anything standard gauge. So with the
> pricetag of most restorations approaching
> the stratosphere, why hasn't it been done?

Has anybody asked Ffestiniog to quote on building one? If you can get hard numbers and specs from a proven source you have the basis for an excellent proposal.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> Erik,

> One huge item to consider with new
> contruction is dealing with the FRA.
> Standards such as safety appliances,
> construction specs, exhaust emissions, sound
> emissions, etc. are all written into the
> Code of Federal Regulations.

> On an existing engine, many portions of the
> CFR that have been updated are
> grandfathered, or waivers are granted due to
> historical status.

> On a newly built locomotive, the process may
> be much tougher. Not impossible, especially
> if it's only one or two that you're building
> to use in a historical context (such as the
> NPS engines in Utah), but the feds may not
> be so quick to grant deviations if you start
> building them in any number for use in
> revenue tourist service.

> Personally, I couldn't even begin to predict
> how the FRA and AAR would handle such an
> effort. Nobody has attempted any new
> construction beyond the handful of
> recreations out there, so there's a lot of
> uncharted territory...

Code of Federal Regulations 49 CFR 210 Railroad Noise Emission,49 CFR 229 Locomotive Safety Standards, and 40 CFR 92 Control of Air Polution from Locomotives and Locomotive Engines specifically exempt steam locomotives. Also, the Feds recently went through a thorough overhaul of 49 CFR 230 Steam Locomotive Inspection. In the quantities we are talking about, as long as the equipment was in compliance with Part 230 and Part 231, the Safety Appliance Standards, I really do not think it would cause a great regulatory stir. And at this point the AAR would not really care, as long as you had roller bearings! (I do not think locomotives per se come under the Interchange Agreement, I think moving locomotives is always subject to individual acceptance and agreement)

This still does not mean that the railroad will not allow you to operate your locomotive if they dont want you to, though.


SZuidervee@aol.com

> Code of Federal Regulations 49 CFR 210
> Railroad Noise Emission,49 CFR 229
> Locomotive Safety Standards, and 40 CFR 92
> Control of Air Polution from Locomotives and
> Locomotive Engines specifically exempt steam
> locomotives. Also, the Feds recently went
> through a thorough overhaul of 49 CFR 230
> Steam Locomotive Inspection.

That's what I suspected. Not having the CFR's in front of me, how does the wording on them read? Is it possible there will come a time when someone within the FRA interprets those CFR's as pertaining only to existing locomotives, and not newly built versions updated from older designs?

LOL... maybe if there's a loophole in the law, the Class 1 carriers could bypass the new EPA emissions standards by switching back to steam locomotives exempt from the newer laws... :-)

Fiv4HghStk@aol.com