Paul,
That explanation of the problem of using the boiler from #4 on #3 is basically what I recall hearing when Pine Creek declined taking #3 when they leased #6. But let me ask this:
1) When Quincy Mining tore down #3 and left it that way once the mine shut down in 1945, was it their plan to replace the boiler of #3 with the new boiler for #4. That seems like a logical assumption, but was that really the intent? Or was #3 simply being repaired in other ways with the intent to retain its own boiler?
2) When Huckleberry RR acquired #3, were they planning to build a new frame and cylinder saddle for #3 in order to accommodate #4’s boiler? Considering the problems in using #4’s boiler on #3, and all the other work that #3 needed, I am somewhat surprised that they were planning to do all that work to operate #3 when other locomotives might have been available in better condition.
3) Last summer, locomotive #6 was returned to the Quincy Hoist Association at Hancock, MI. I understand that they intend to place it back into the engine house and restore it for cosmetic display. Are there any plans to return #3 to the Quincy Hoist Association for the same purpose? If not, what would prevent this?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2010 09:46AM by Ron Keagle.