sp 4460

Ron Goldfeder · **Posted:** Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:54 am

When I worked at MOT (over 10 years) I had several opportunities to go into the tunnel and have walked its entire length several times. It was built in the 1850s through a limestone ridge. Much reinforcement work was done by the MP over the years and there are concrete support piers in part of it. But when the railroad relocated its tracks in 1945 the tracks in the tunnel were removed and all maintenance ended. As the museum grew at this location new track was eventually run through the tunnel and there are films of the Illinois Terminal railbus going all the wa through it. But as was mentioned there was a partial collapse of a side wall that crushed a streetcar that was among the things stored on that track when there was no other overhead cover available. Once the tunnel was cleared from that it was found that the drainage had become blocked, being partly the cause of the collapse. Remember that the tunnel is on a grade with the east end being higher than the west. For whatever reason the track was removed. Later there was a reallignment of much of the track as part of the work being done when the larger shed was being built in the early 1990s. A contractor installed new track about half way into the tunnel by just pushing ballast in ahead of the work and then putting the track on it. This process raised this track a foot or two above the historic level it was at in the east half, there being none in the west half. That is where it remains today. A few things are stored in the tunnel most of the time, and when they are removed there are small pieces of the roof limestone found all over them. The drainage has never been restored and it will be very, very expensive to make the tunnel usable for passenger carrying trains in the future. Running a caboose or two up to its gate is no problem, but it isn't safe to go inside at present and isn't being done.

o anderson · **Posted:** Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:03 am

I have seen well-placed good ideas generate change. Whether or not those ideas came from an open forum or personal discussions, who is to say?

The museum in St. Louis, which I first visited when it had just turned over to the County, has accomplished much over the subsequent years. I had a copy of the old equipment brochure which showed fully intact or restored cars and locomotives delivered to the site. It was nothing like they looked after years out in the weather, vandals, and the sad streetcar in tunnel incident.

I imagined both an operating trolley line and tourist train route. I'm glad that a trolley line got installed. It would require a bit of engineering but I was hopeful that the train could loop through the tunnel and around the hill, continuing the stub track which the DL&W camelback sat on for so long. Where the track might go west of the tunnel, I was not sure but it seems like there is or was open land back there.

Regardless, having a tunnel on your ride falls into the category of the "real live Lionel/American Flyer/HO train set." That effect, to me, seems to makes a tourist train a bit more appealing to the public. Maybe it is worth the investment.

Les Beckman · **Joined:** Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:25 pm **Posts:** 6488

wilkinsd wrote:

By the way, the St. Louis Chapter of the NRHS (of which I am not a member, and do not speak for in any official or unofficial capacity) is moving beyond armchair museum management, and is raising funds to cosmetically restore Wabash 573. I'm sending them a check this week. Paul and others, will you join me? They estimate it will take about $11,000 to do a cosmetic restoration of the locomotive. More threads on RYPN don't pay for paint or other materials. Checks in the mail do.

Information can be found here: http://www.stlouisnrhs.org/wabash_573.htm

I’m not certain this thread, or any others can really effectuate positive change. It takes dollars and boots on the ground. However, donate to the 573 fund, and I can almost certainly assure you real results will occur.

David Wilkins
Dirty boots and greasy gloves, Missouri

David -

It's really great to hear that the NRHS St. Louis Chapter is working to raise funds for the cosmetic restoration of Wabash 2-6-0 #573. That project is long overdue. One thing that the Chapter incorrectly states on its website though, is that the Mogul is the only remaining Wabash steam engine. There is also Wabash 0-6-0 #534 which is at the Ft. Wayne Railroad Historical Society. That engine however, has long taken a back seat to the groups other locomotive; NKP 2-8-4 #765.

Les

wilkinsd · **Posted:** Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:59 pm

Les and all,

The 534 is probably often forgotten of as a Wabash engine as it served its final years working for a WAB subsidiary, the Lake Erie and Fort Wayne Railroad Co. as their #1.

Either way, when I was at Ft. Wayne in about 1999 to help prep C&O 2716, they were removing the cab that weekend. It's a neat locomotive, and I'm sure she'll eventually get some attention. She's in good hands there.

David

firefighter25dfd · **Joined:** Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:52 pm **Posts:** 89

The #1 is in the shop, at least out of the elements. I think she would be a nice little addition to run on our shop track at New Haven.

Maybe if the Headwaters Junction proposal comes through like many of us hope it will, the #1 might be steaming in Fort Wayne again!

CP O'Shea · **Joined:** Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:33 pm **Posts:** 121

davew833 wrote:

One thing I've often been curious about is whether the single-headlight smokebox door from #4460 would fit on #4449. I've grown to love #4449's looks over the years, but have heard it expressed by others (and I can see their point of view) that the double-headlight smokebox door is pretty ugly compared to the original (and later) single-headlight versions. Borrowing #4460's smokebox door (or fabricating a duplicate) would really change up the look of #4449, and it could be temporarily renumbered, too, as other locomotives have.

While I don't have the exact data in front of me, I believe the GS4's differed from the other classes in many other ways than the double headlight front end (which was original to the GS-4's when constructed). Mostly, they differed in boiler, driver, and cylinder sizes. While simply swapping out the smokebox door might give the engine a new look, it would not accurately portray any of the other GS classes.

A quick glance over some photos of the various GS-2 through GS-6 classes seems to indicate that the smokebox doors on the GS-4's and 5's were NOT interchangeable with the other classes.

MARC 66 · **Posted:** Sun Nov 14, 2010 10:56 pm

Edited. Youth brings hope for more than is probably realistic, as realized in later years.

Les Beckman · **Joined:** Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:25 pm **Posts:** 6488

Marc -

First, the wide wheels on the Frisco Decapod would keep it off of most rail systems, even if those systems WERE receptive to operation (which they aren't). And second, you missed the BEST choice of locomotives for a future operational restoration; Nickel Plate Road 4-6-4 #170. But I am 99.44% sure that none of this will ever happen; not even the restoration of the little 0-4-0T to run on MOT's own museum trackage.

Les

MARC 66 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:31 am

Les-

I completely forgot the 170, I do think it would be nice to see running someday.

And by the way, my name actually isn't Marc, the Maryland Area Rapid Commuter (or something like that) 66 is an E8 at MOT.

Nathan

Les Beckman · **Joined:** Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:25 pm **Posts:** 6488

MARC 66 wrote:

Les-

I completely forgot the 170, I do think it would be nice to see running someday.

And by the way, my name actually isn't Marc, the Maryland Area Rapid Commuter (or something like that) 66 is an E8 at MOT.

Nathan

Nathan -

My apologies for making that assumption.

Les

MARC 66 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:33 pm

Les Beckman wrote:

MARC 66 wrote:

Les-

I completely forgot the 170, I do think it would be nice to see running someday.

And by the way, my name actually isn't Marc, the Maryland Area Rapid Commuter (or something like that) 66 is an E8 at MOT.

Nathan

Nathan -

My apologies for making that assumption.

Les

It's cool Les.

Hey, does anyone here know anything about East Barretts Tunnel across Barrett Station Road?

wilkinsd · **Posted:** Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:52 pm

MARC 66 wrote:

Les Beckman wrote:

MARC 66 wrote:

Les-

I completely forgot the 170, I do think it would be nice to see running someday.

And by the way, my name actually isn't Marc, the Maryland Area Rapid Commuter (or something like that) 66 is an E8 at MOT.

Nathan

Nathan -

My apologies for making that assumption.

Les

It's cool Les.

Hey, does anyone here know anything about East Barretts Tunnel across Barrett Station Road?

It's still there.

wilkinsd · **Posted:** Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:00 pm

MARC 66 wrote:

Back to the subject of MOT,

It would be nice to see a small operating engine running around the museum on special days, the Union Electric 1 would be a better choice than the MKT 311, mostly because the 311's main rods were cut sometime back. If one were to look on RRPictureArchives.net for the MKT 311, there are photos that show the side of the 311, along with her cut rods. As for the UE 1, it is in much better condition, with little to no deterioration, and has been stored under cover, out of sight of the public for many years.

If a small steam locomotive were to be restored at MOT, it would show two things:

A) The MOT is willing to operate more than just trolleys.

B) Volunteers there can work on steam locomotives.

Something like this, as small as it is, would somewhat "restrike" interest of steam power in St. Louis. This said, some may remember the Frisco 1522, her popularity during her excursion career, and what happened in the end.

For those of you who don't know, the 1522 was retired in 2002 because of three major things:

1) Rapidly raising insurance costs

2)Required boiler inspection and possible work

3) Limited access to the main

While I have no idea about insurance costs these days, I know the St. louis Steam Train Association (SLSTA) had the money to complete all required boiler inspection costs. If MOT wanted to become part of the main line steam experience, I suggest that they restore a railcar to use to exhibit some of the special railroad equipment found at the museum and create publicity for the museum itself. The SLSTA, if reformed, could use an exhibit car to show the original restoration and excursion operation of the 1522 and how it and other main line steam locomotives differ from the operation of steam in regular service all those years ago.

If this plan to return the Frisco 1522 to service would happen to succeed, the SLSTA might consider another steam locomotive to return to service. The most likely choices for main line steam from MOT would possibly be (not in any particular order):

1)SP 4460

2) SLSF 1621 as MKT 8008(in the paint scheme with the Katy hearld on the tender)

3)C&IM 551

4) NYC 2933

I list these here because not only their size is good for main line operation, but they are either rare locomotives or the railroad company that formerly owned them ran into St. Louis. The MKT 8008 (SLSF 1621) is listed here because it worked for the Katy in WWI, and yes, for all you MKT Railroad historians out there, the Decapods on the MKT did not appear in this scheme, but no other engine besides the 311 would be eligible for this scheme,. besides, what would the railfans and older generations of this country say if they saw a MKT steam locomotive on the rails today? the results, I can tell you now, would be very changing to the main line steam world.

That's my thoughts on all of this.

Mr. Marc 66 appears to be a younger reader of this forum. Nothing wrong with that, but youth often brings enthusiasm, which is good. Only experience will temper this enthusiasm with some reality. I don't know if you are a current volunteer, but I recommend you work with a project already in progress. Even something as simple as restoring a caboose can seem daunting.

Actually, and more realistically, the pressing need for MOT and many other museums is the ongoing restoration and conservation of their existing collection. MOT's volunteer base is limited, and so are resources. I sometimes think a steam operation would divert these limited resources, with little or no real benefit.

The streetcar operation at MOT is successful because of a small group of volunteers that restore, maintain and operate the equipment. It also serves a people-mover function around the museum grounds. I just don't see a locomotive doing that, or filling any role, especially when you can walk out to the viewing platform and watch real, live, mainline trains go by all day.

David M. Wilkins

MARC 66 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 16, 2010 6:45 pm

David-

I am aware that the MOT volunteer base is small, one of my best friends is a tour guide there, and I got most of these ideas from him. With a small steam locomotive, the intention was not to replace the streetcar group, but to show that the "Museum is not afraid to restore steam", according to what he said.

And thanks for the info about the tunnel, happy to know that it is still there.

wilkinsd · **Posted:** Tue Nov 16, 2010 6:56 pm

What would not "being afraid to restore steam" accomplish? Every time I am out at MOT, I don't see volunteers crouched in the corners, afraid to restore steam, or come out and show themselves.

There are many good reasons to restore a steam locomotive to operation, though I've never seen "not being afraid" as being one of them.

I think the real inquiry is would a working small steamer, steaming back and forth on the limited (and mostly crowded) yard trackage on select days increase the number of visitors? Would it increase the number of donors to the museum? Would it help the Museum accomplish any of its goals? Would a museum have the manpower not only to operate, but to maintain the locomotive? Is the "if you steam it they will come" philosophy legitimate (for both brining in visitors and volunteers)? Will the museum be able to pay for the next 1472 day inspection? If any museum examines these factors and concludes that steam isn't for them, I understand. I don't think the decision would be out of "fear" but more of one based on what the management of any museum feels their needs are and if steam will or will not fit them.

David M. Wilkins
Dose of Reality, Missouri