Overmod: Exactly. The question then becomes an exercise in economics, instead of physics, when physics are not your friend on this one. Other railroads with 2-10-4's got around the problem with money and changes; just B&LE was running slow enough with an exceptional infrastructure that it wasn't that big of a deal.

RP: Interesting report on that Coconino derailment of 1939, but the bottom line is that it was still 90-lb rail with 10-coupled power and everything ended up in the ditch at 20mph. "it appears that a combination of curve-worn rail, flange wear, wide gage, loose spikes, and the brakes remaining applied on the engine caused the engine to sway, following which at least one left driving-wheel dropped inside the left rail and the right wheel flanges climbed the right rail to a point where the weight and the lateral force, applied at an angle, overturned the right rail outward. The flange then ran in the web of the rail, which resulted in its fracture." That being said, the 3751 has performed quite well on GCR in the modern era.

And the general problem on a majority of FRA class-1 and class-2 track is that same report could be written today. They particularly got into the 'fulcrum' effect of a steam locomotive with downhill braking force against the drawbar spreading the wheelbase against the rails. Easy to forget about stuff like that in this day.

Personally, I'm hoping for 643 to end up in the RR Museum of PA... it's certainly deserving of preservation and it's a child of PA. We aren't going to solve the operational debates during the time available, and if anybody had a viable plan to operate as a commercially feasible venture on a property capable of supporting it, it would have likely already happened.

we're watching, its just like the Lost Engines of Roanoke, eventually the owner died, then it became a last ditch rescue.

643 is considerably bigger and heavier than those locos, and you're talking a distance of far more than a mile or two.

Got winning lottery tickets? A very rich friend or two?

Would it matter if Bill Gates walked up and said, "Wahtever it takes to get this thing running, here's my checkbook", if the owner didn't go along?
How many cases like this have we read where a locomotive owner has some almost mythical happy ending in mind and won't allow anything other than that to occur?
The name Dick Jensen sure rings a bell in this regard: http://www.steamlocomotive.com/union/gtw5629-beck1.jpg

We'd be best served by no longer thinking about "running" but just thinking about "not cut up." That's much more likely considering the rather unique requirements for a line capable of using this locomotive. Until it is transferred with or without the agreement of its owner, it will depend on the willingness of its owner to build strategic partnerships with entities not yet determined to common knowledge capable of having it removed to "safety."

I hope he's looking for those partners.

dave

Hello,

To all in this board I apologize for bringing up this subject and my silly sentimental comments about it. It simply is a mute point.

Regards,

Randy

I have to presume the engine is not in the way of some new Amtrak depot or a new housing redevelopment causing another Dick Jensen issue.

We know the engine has been brought to near operational condition, theoretically it could "rescue" itself, just reconnect up tracks, slow speed out.
The alternative is establishing a museum where it sits create a near parallel track to the existing mainline it can run and it runs on its own track.
And it doesnt leave Pennsylvania. Just theoretical thinking here.

Alexander...doesnt change the circumstances.

#643 was ostensibly brought to near-operational condition over 20 years ago, about the same time a certain PRR 4-6-2 was last operational. Time spent in unprotected storage plus new FRA regs pretty much negate most if not all of the work done to that point. Sorry, but I highly doubt it's going to move out of there under its own power.

If you look carefully at what was done in the '80s, the work stopped just BEFORE anything was done to the boiler. That's where the lion's share of the cost would be anyway: you have a full set of '50s flues, a full ultrasonic test -- essentially the whole covers-off 1472-day job to do ...

... and you're seriously thinking this is going to be accomplished in the open, with trucked-in tools, just to move the locomotive?

A better question would be how much of the '80s work to the running gear is still in suitable shape to allow the locomotive to move. Again, I see some interesting logistical issues in doing this with nothing more than truck-portable jacking -- is there money for a crane and operator? -- and then we get to the issue of permission from CSX to tie up their main, and then we get to permission from CSX to tie into their main, and then we get to laying shoofly track to the tie-in switch...

... and all this before anyone actually asks the owner what his preference in the matter might be, and receives an actual response?

Sorry, but I have to throw a truckload of polydimethylsiloxane into the boiler of this train of thought...

Back in 1975 I got the $100 tour of the B&LE Greenville facilities, and as a teenager, was led out back to the roundhouse where I was stunned to find three dusty, yet very intact steam locomotives - a B&LE 2-8-0, an Union Railroad 0-10-2, and the 2-10-4 643. I was too young to have ever seen PRR's Northumberland collection in the 60's, but this would do for me.

While we're lamenting the 643, I think it's healthy to remember that there were three locomotives in that roundhouse with an uncertain future.

The 2-8-0 is now on display and well restored in the Henry Ford Museum:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... ?id=603926

The 0-10-2 is the centerpiece of the Greenville (PA) Railroad Park:
http://hawkinsrails.net/lagniappe/grp/grp.htm

And then we have the 643. I'd hope the same fate for it, at least. Don't give up just yet. Strangely enough, nobody thought about using an 0-10-2 for a tourist railroad though...

I think someone here is mis-informed.

The 643 was actually restored...and steam tested...she did not move off property at any point...but she did have boiler work performed, etc. It is just as important to remember that 643 did not have any major running gear work performed...drivers dropped...shoes & wedges...none of that heavy duty work. But...she did steam...

This being said...643 would require the 1472 to be re-certified.

If you are looking for photographs of her blowing steam etc...look no further than TRAINS Magazine...they ran several pictures of her under steam.

I will gently remind folks here that it's certainly possible, in certain "exceptional" circumstances, to boil water in a steam locomotive without doing full boiler "work" or certification.

It's certainly not recommended or advisable, and in certain cases may lead to legal sanctions. But it's certainly possible.

Therefore, the fact that steam has been seen emanating from this particular steam locomotive in years (decades?) past has NO bearing whatsoever on the worthiness, safety, or advisability of a similar action in 2012.

But I think a lot of us already knew that.

Are there any photos online of her under steam?

During the 60's, 70's and even the 80's it was relatively easy to find a steamer that was put away lightly used through mostly used up but with a little work would breathe a little steam once more. There is no word available where in the "how used up" she was spectrum when she was steamed but one thing is for sure is she would need a full work-up to turn a wheel on her own now.

The bigger issue has been mentioned by others is not getting her running but keeping her from being cut up. She is ringing up a 9 out of 10 on the "danger of being cut up meter".

Thank you Alexander for the reply.

I was not stating that the 643 would in anyway be operable. The truth is the engine was steam tested. Again, to verify this information one only must contact Trains magazine and dial back the steam-o-meter.

I clearly stated that the locomotive would require a 1472...just like any other overhaul.

And just for the record...

Do you guys ever get tired of using the words: restore, restoration, etc?

I do. I prefer: overhaul, class repairs, etc.