Since we were speaking of Jack Showalter's G-5s, I got curious, and yes, they are on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucalu8XvZPo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnNx9cBAT3s

Was it that long ago that the center platform and third track were still missing at Cumberland?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAilpmVjtMw

Winter operations in Showalter's time. What's with all the tourist roads and red cars? What's wrong with Pullman green, which was more typical?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnNeVhXO8Gw

Not on the WMSR, but a find:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUurgkwLzqo

CPR G5's pulling red coaches is appropriate. :-)

OK, so it should be a "consumable" locomotive that does not have historic ties to the U. S., but could be made to look the part, and is capable of handling a 10 car train on 2%+ grades. You know, there is a certain Asian 2-10-2 that just might be coming available in the near future, in need of a new home. I have no idea if the track can handle it, let alone the table at Frostburg. Just sayin' though...

That's not a bad idea, 'Americanizing' one of the QJs. The SY that was in the fire looks like one of ours now. I don't have the time right now to translate the specs on Multipower's site from metric to English, but my gut feeling is that a QJ would be a good fit as far as tractive effort and axle loading goes.

To address the issue of the trains in the fall, using everything that rolls, it shouldn't be that big a deal to put an MU box in 734, or a G5 or a QJ. As a start, 734 even has 26-FNL air, which will 'MU' nicely with a trailing diesel.

This is a whistle off one of them, just don't know which.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrPDPL5LppA&feature=youtu.be

I'm amused by the post in this thread that suggests that the presence or absence of C&O 1309--or for that matter any other steam loco--would make a significant difference in WMSR's total patronage. If the museum with which I am associated had to depend on railfans to fill our seats, we'd have dried up and blown away decades ago. They constitute maybe 1% of our patronage, and that's being generous. Joe and Mary Family and all the little Familys couldn't care less what engine was up there and consequently their decision whether to ride or not would have nothing to do with the motive power. But are the butts in the seats and thus the income.

Get real.

I would agree to some extent that many folks don't care what's up front at many railroads. Verde Canyon, Napa Valley, Grand Canyon, etc.

The numbers say somewhat differently at places where steam is marketed as part of the package--Strasburg, Valley RR, Wilmington & Western, New Hope & Ivyland, etc.

But the WMSR gets a lot of mileage out of its "Mountain Thunder" marketing, and I don't see GP30s or even Alcos "thundering" in that regard. It probably doesn't matter if it's 734, 1309, doubleheaded Pacifics, or a Chinese 2-8-2 or 2-10-2, but my gut feeling is that they would either have to drop prices somewhat or expect a downturn in ridership somewhat if/when they run without steam for an extended period.

I mean, there's a reason they didn't just stick with diesels exclusively after those leased Alcos years ago.

Both David and ADM4 make good points here. I agree that most members of the general public, especially today, are not too aware of the differences between having steam or diesel pulling a train, unless the train ride is specifically marketed as being steam powered. I agree WMSR has gotten lots of mileage out of the "Mountain Thunder" marketing theme, and of course should remain steam powered. (Having something like a B unit, disguised as a baggage car like Clinchfield did, would likely be un-noticed by the general public, though).

Three cases in point; I was a volunteer at the NH&I back in the Baldwin era. Either the 9 or the 40 wasn't quite ready on opening day, and we were running with one of the Copper Range DS 4-4-1000s. I was on the engine, spotted right up against Bridge Street, when a mother (with her three kids) asked the conductor about the ride. He told her where we went, how long it was, and then apologized for having a diesel that day. She asked what the difference was; quickly recovering, the conductor said "Why, none at all" and led her to the ticket counter. Butts in seats...

When Strasburg was running Camelback 4, and using the 44 tonner as a pusher, it was said that lots of people thought the diesel was a caboose. (And when I was at WMSR in July, combine Man 'O War was the last car; I heard several people call it the caboose).

Some time ago, on a chilly and rainy spring day, I rode in a heavyweight parlor car, with the windows closed. Pulled by a 44 tonner, with a little bit of smoke and a Hancock air whistle, the sight and sound from within the car, with windows closed, was very reminiscent of having steam up front.

My point here is that it is a marketing matter. If you are an established steam operator, using steam as a draw, stay with it. But for an operation like Grand Canyon or Napa Valley, with another attraction to bring in the patronage, diesel operation is fine; again the general public doesn't know or care about the locomotive. And 1% railfan patronage at a museum may be generous-

"If I recall correctly, there use to be this REALLY BIG SHAY that sat in a corner of the
roundhouse at the B&O Museum. What happened to it"?

That REALLY BIG SHAY is Western Maryland 6 which now resides on the Cass Scenic Railroad.

This business about "original fabric" and steam locomotives is bogus. The consumable items on a steam locomotive should not be construed to be part of the "original fabric". These machines began losing their "original fabric" the moment they left the builder. The railroads had no qualms about modifying them and replacing anything that wore out with the latest and greatest technology available. When we replace the firebox side sheets or the smokebox netting or the tubes and flues or the steam pressure gauge to restore a locomotive to operation are we destroying the "original fabric"? Hell, no! We are preserving the FUNCTION of the machine. Is installing an MU stand in the cab "destroying the original fabric"? Not if part of the "original fabric" is the original intended use of the machine! Restoration of a locomotive to operation is for all intents and purposes removing it from the realm of the dead, cold and only to look at "artifact". This bothers only the romantics who want to operate these things inside their heads and not in the real, physical world.

And when the locomotive is no longer economically supportable, it simply goes back to being the cold, dead artifact that it was. And certainly in no poorer condition that it was to start with.

What's bogus here is the imposition of preservation based m orality on a scenic railroad, which is not in the preservation business but in the tourism business. Choose the right yardstick when measuring please.

dave

Incorrect.



This is correct, however you're mistaking "us", the people caring for historical artifacts, and the people who's history we're trying to preserve.



No, it bothers people who want to perform historical research based on preserved artifacts. If someone 100 years from now was researching steam locomotives, what would they take away from seeing one with an MU stand in the cab? That is why we preserve things, so that they can be seen by future generations, not so that we can get our jollies playing with them.



Its actual condition may be better or worse, but the condition has been irrevocably changed.

This is the difference between toys and museum pieces. It's fine to have both, but it's important to remember that they're not the same thing.

I completely agree, which is why it's not a good idea to cross bring an artifact from one into the other.

The arguments made about the preservation of "original fabric" are, for the most point, spot on.

And now I'd like to raise a question.

Exactly how many folks have gone to the B&O Museum, the RR Museum of Pa., the California State RR Museum, etc. and taken the effort to carefully scrutinize this "original fabric" of which they speak? How many have, for example, compared riveting techniques, done metallurgical testing on boilers or truck frames, ascertained exact journal bearing sizes, ascertained the carbon content of leaf spring steel, or any of a kazillion other bits of data that are "preserved" in this "original fabric"? Go on, how many? (Leave aside the model makers; they can be satisfied for the most part with the drawings and documentation you make before you scrap it.)

Now, how many people have been to the Strasburg, the Grand Canyon, the Cass Scenic, the Cumbres & Toltec, the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum, the Nevada Northern, the Texas State RR, and other places where they're "consuming the original fabric"? How many got interested in railroads, and made a passion, or even a vocation, out of railroad preservation as a result? I would suggest that the latter category, a painfully small subset of this paragraph's first one, is still greater than the total for the preceding paragraph's query.

Which does more to get people interested in zoology, biology, and preserving nature, the taxidermy studio or the zoo?

I'd rather see a scenic railroad put a engine to good use and maybe improve it then leave it to rust away in the museum's parking to preserve its historic fabric. The museum moved both #1309 & the kanawha where you can't see them anyway so most visitors wouldn't miss them anyway .I say let them have the kanawha also if it will fit on the unstable