Milwaukee Road 261 after being overhauled has pretty much everything on her except a section of jacketing, and her mars light. According to a trusted source, the friends of 261 plan to keep the mars light off and retain her classic fresh from alco look.

I want to say this and not be harsh. 1st off, it's not my locomotive. I really enjoy 261. The debate begins. On a lot of locomotives, headlight centered or on top or down low is one thing, but a lot of locomotives, diesel or steam, were equipped with mars lights for safety reasons. Just like the ditch lights of today's modern diesels, so were a lot of steam locomotives getting equipped with new safety features, the mars light being one of them. I feel if the device helps out with safety, leave it on. However I do realize a lot of devices were created from that era that were a total waste of time. I always felt the mars light was the equivalent of today's ditch lights. Safety first. I'll be honest, the 614 with ditch lights was not my favorite thing to see, but it was applied for safety. In today's mainline steam, I know it's not a requirement, but, because of today's modern thinking in society (sue or be sued), be as safe as possible. If I remember correctly, 261's mars light was red, right? Change it to clear. That's just my 2 cents. But again, not my locomotive. However I do love the 261.

Subpart C_Safety Requirements

Sec. 229.125 Headlights and auxiliary lights.

(2H) Any locomotive subject to Part 229, that was built before
December 31, 1948, and that is not used regularly in commuter or
intercity passenger service, shall be considered historic equipment and
excepted from the requirements of paragraphs (d) through (h) of this
section.

I just posted this so you folks realize I'm not oblivious to the regulations. I just know judges overrule regulations.

I see this no different that Doyle occasionally changing something on 4449 to keep things different (one of the crew said they change little things so they can look at a photo and tell what timeframe it was taken in based on the details on the engine at the time).
I couldn't find any photos online that show any of the class without the mars light, but I assume they were delivered without them? If so, what's the difference between this and 4449 being returned to it's 1941 paint job a few years back?
More power to 'em!

I believe we are speaking of the red light which illuminates if the brakes are placed in emergency to warn oncoming traffic on an adjacent track of a possible derailment. Is it a a Mars light, whose beam swings in a figure 8 pattern? Whatever the case, it's not something that has ever been deemed a significant enough safety improvement to make it standard. Sure, lets see her without it for a change.

Steve

If you went back to as delivered appearance, wouldn't you have a different smokebox front/door?

CFR 49 Part 229

229.1 Scope.
This part prescribes minimum Federal safety standards for all locomotives except those propelled by steam power.

Mike Tillger

I could not find a builder's photo of the S-3 class. I found a photo of the S-2 class in the 1950-51 edition of WORLD RAILWAYS, published by Rand McNally.

I've thought for a long time that #261 was like a girl with a beautiful body, great legs, nice, er, appliances, and a face made from pure ugly. She'd be a great date if you could get her to wear a ski mask for the night. I'm not sure leaving off the Mars light has much more effect on appearance than said girl parting her hair on the other side...

Still, I am more than overjoyed at the prospect of #261 returning to operation. The one time I was in the same place at the same time with her was a few days after the grand opening of Steamtown in fall of 1995. Unfortunately she was locked up tight in the backshop and I had to be satisfied with pics of her auxiliary tender...

I concur. All I can say is--beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Hold the ski mask, please.

Can't wait for the first run next spring.

It will run. Its future is secure. Anything else is tiddly winks. Thank heavens that we did not have the variety of liveries that they did in the UK, otherwise this and other boards would be even more cluttered up with opinions.

Joshua

Here is a photo of an S3 w/o the light.

Source: http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr541.htm



Paul
Seattle, WA

I see the Milwaukee did not use visors on their headlights either. Wasn't aware of that. Nice photo. Thanks for sharing!

Well, others are weighing in with opinions, might as well toss in a couple more. . .

That front end could have been better, but it's not unique. The smokebox front is very similar to what was used on late Mohawks and on the Niagaras on the NYC. My big complaint, if you could call it that, would be the pilot.

I'm not too fond of the big numbers, either, but others here would disagree with me--no doubt they are strong Milwaukee fans!

I also think someone transposed the date of the photo--instead of 1954, I'd say it was more likely 1945! In any event, how many of us--myself included--would love to walk into that photo and take a look at the steam power and the electrics, too, along with the roundhouse, the Pullmans we see, and all those classic freight cars that would have been around then? How many of us wouldn't mind too badly if it were a one-way trip?

In any event, thanks for finding that cool photo, and thanks to the Friends of the 261 for keeping this girl in rod brasses and staybolts. . .

Any chance her sister could get to run? :-) Or any other Milwaukee STEAM power for that matter?

(I know, I know, but it doesn't cost anything to dream. . .might as well go first class)

Why on earth would the bell be off center like that unless they were already planning something to go next to it? Is this really representative of the as-delivered appearance?

Steve