This discussion about CATS #19 has been very interesting. A lot of the same questions come up again and again about #19. Last summer I volunteered to apply some of my rotating DC electrical equipment experience toward helping to bring 19 back into service. I met John Hammond of the GLRR, had several wonderful conversations with him about sister engine #15. John is very knowledgable about these engines and has been a productive contributor (much more than I accomplished in my one day with the old gal last June) to assisting the CATS in getting her back in service. John has definite ideas for electrical upgrades that could help 19 out based on improvements and upgrades he has made to #15.
Another gentleman that spent some time on her wrote up a very detailed proposal for upgrading 19 to a turbocharged loco (required new or rebuilt CAT prime movers). I am sure that Bob Wright (have I got the name correct, I am at work and can't reference my notes) received the same report because Ed McL gave me a copy of that report. I can't go into the details of the report but in summary, the engine needed newer electrics (solid state voltage regulators, newer contactors, etc.; also suggested by John Hammond), new prime movers (or at least rebuilt) with turbochagers, there were also some FRA items mentioned, but the bottom line is that a tidy chunk of change would be required, like $80 to $100K. (Earl would refer to this as cubic dollars)
Now, looking at that, would it be better to patch 19 together for switching duties only and locate a couple of units like GLRR's 70-toners. These locos are turbocharged, thus more efficient at high altitudes. They also can be MU'd thus not requiring an extra crew. The advantage would be to serve as viable rescue train power units. To be fair, this is NOT my idea, but rather information to consider that I have picked up in conversations with aforementioned individuals.
Another advantage the 70-toners (or similar locos) have is the traction motors are forced air cooled which helps to alleviate the heat buildup that a low RPM, highly loaded DC motor endures. This is a mostly chronic failure situation for DC motors that are not forced air cooled. The 19's traction motors tend to pickup dirt from the ground and the dirt buildup on the fields and armature keep the heat from dissipating. The dirt also buildsup in the brush boxes causing the commutator brushes to stick. When they stick, they begin to lose tensioned contact with the commutator. The load is then shifted to the other brushes causing imbalanced loading on the armature which then leads to premature failure also due to heat buildup. Some (not all) of 19 traction motor failures are directly attributable to this situation. I found 3 out 4 brush sets on one of the motor stuck so tight, I could barely free them with a lever and pliers.
IF the CATS is to have productive and secure future, several things have to happen. Utilization vs. consumption of the steam loco fleet needs to be optimized. While steam powered work trains may be an interesting attraction, the new FRA rules will make steam power being used for every day MOW and switching duites an expensive luxury. Small and unobtrusive, diesel units, setup for specific duites (i.e. switching, MOW, rescue, off season work) should be considered for much of the background support activities necessary to maintain a 64 mile long mountain railroad. Many of the smallest of steam tourist and museum operations keep diesels around for the same purpose. The CATS hopefully will have this in mind for the long term development plan for the railroad. Right now, though, I think IMHO that the railroad is, in fact, still in a basic survival mode.
So, anybody out there got a spare 3-ft gauge diesel sitting around that they would be willing to give, or loan, to the CATS, or to the Friends, perhaps for a tax deduction???
Wow, did I write all that?
Mark Valerius