I know this is slightly OT, but I think it's really funny (in the odd) sense (not the "they shouldn't do that" sense) that the US National Park Service is spending all that time and money on restoring CANADIAN locomotives...

Now I know know that they ran in the US too. But it just amuses me.

The 2317 is confined to the Steamtown site - the longest trip it does is the yard shuttle that goes up towards the former DL&W station. I am not sure if it is Steamtown, the DL or the Rail Authority that made the decision, but it is not allowed out onto the mainline.

Question and only a question, What all is wrong with the Reading T-1 2124. I 've heard on other fourms that this locomotive could be restored. I just would like to know how come they never thought of restoring a locomotive that ran in the Scranton/Wilksbara area. Did the B&M run this far east?

Len.

I would assume that everything is wrong with 2124. Like any loco out in the weather since the early 60's, it would require a total rails-up restoration. Also, this loco is probably bigger than the typical need. A Pacific or Mikado is probably closer to optimal in horsepower.

Hi Len!

Here is the Steamtown report. This should clear it up. Looks like to me it was a toss up.

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/onli ... /shs2c.htm

P.S. we are trying to get some folks up on a Sunday for 565.

Steve

Thanks for the clarification. David Kaplan

If you are sufficiently interested there are several recent Steamtown threads on Trainorders addressing the general loco. issue.

Some of the points made on them are IMHO interesting.

Ross Rowland

A large part of the decision to restore the 3713 is that, at the time there were two operational (or nearly operational) T-1's and two operational (or nearly operational) berkshires. The 3713 was thought to be somewhat more uncommon.

Also, the T-1's did not run in Scranton or Wilkes Barre. Not until the 2102 did in the excursion era at least...

Dave Crosby

What's is so uncommon about a 4-6-2?

Len.

You missed my point there. There was only one B&M pacific as opposed to the two operational (more or less) T-1's and the two berks.

Len,

By your same logic, what would be so uncommon about a 4-8-4 or a 2-8-4?

The B&M loco is interesting in that it is a relatively late-built 4-6-2, after most U.S. railroads went with bigger power. From what I understand, the 3713 is also relatively modern.

Well, technically speaking (not necessarily in terms of up-to-date paperwork, boiler inspections, and whatnot), there are still in 2009 "two operational" Berkshires (NKP 765 and PM 1225) and "two operational (or nearly operational)" Reading T1's (2102 and 2100).

If your "argument" is to restore to operation what isn't running elsewhere, then that CN commuter 4-6-4RT #47 jumps far ahead of the rest of the queue......... followed quickly, of course, by CP 4-4-4 2929, if she's still there.......

Not sure why I feel compelled to respond to this, but...

The arguments made for or against each restoration candidate had other stipulations attached: the locomotive needed to be able to handle a decent sized train, at speed, in and out of Scranton (either east or west it is an uphill climb).

You missed your chance to be the only one to argue for the Baltic or the Jubilee as a mountain climber.

Knowing that stipulation, there were only a handful of locomotives in the collection at the time that fit the bill. #3713 met the need, and she was also from the US and she (I believe) fits on the turntable.

So there you have it.

Rob

I would hardly consider the 2102 operational, and as for the 2100...it ran mabye 8 times in Washington. Not very well at that. My vote would have been the 2124.

Why not return 759 to service? Hardly "used up", its been kept under cover for many years. Just read the recommendations in the linked "Special History Study" a few posts back. 'Nuff said-