Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: Replica 2-6-6-2

December 31, 2010 08:22PM
The Sumpter Valley Railroad planned to build the 2-6-6-2 replicas as part of the 5 mile extension being planed between McEwen and Union Creek. We developed replica mallet plan because we would need 3’ locomotives that could handle the expected loads on the new line and the planned grades. While I personally love the DSP&P Mason Bogies, there is no way they could have fit this plan because they have no where near the tractive effort needed.

Now, it would be cool to have a Mason Bogie or a C-21 built. However, the SVRR did not come to this decision of building replicas 2-6-6-2s just because it would be “cool”.

You see, this was an on going debate at the SVRy for some years now. We knew that once our Union Creek extension was completed, we are going to need more then just our two original 2-8-2s #19 and #20. So, we started to try and figure out what other engines we could use. Since there are no other original SVRy engines still around to rebuild, we knew we would have to obtain engines that where not original to the SVRy and still be big enough to be able to pay for themselves and hopefully keep the SVRy in the black.

So, what engines could we use? Having used the Heisler for a number of decades, we knew geared engines were not the answer. All the K-27s, K-28s and K-36s are spoken for. Anything smaller like a C-16 or 18 would be too small and we doubted that we could even obtain any of them from their present owners anyway.

The White Pass 70 class engines would be great. Newer engines and good power but we seriously doubt if the owners would ever part with any of those three engines.

EBT engines? Not available. I once heard that the White Pass was looking into obtaining an EBT engine a couple of years back and John received very “cold” responds from the EBT, and that is putting it nicely.

So, after all of that, we knew we would probably need to look even further a field. We looked into the 2-8-2s in Central America and even thought about Garretts from South Africa but when faced with the huge amount of money it would take to just get them to the U.S. and then rebuild them, we figured that it would be a better value to just build a couple of brand new engines.

We thought about a couple of K-37s but when we consider the age of the boilers, we though we would get more for our money if we went new. In the end we decided that the engines we needed did not exist anymore or where not for sale.

OK, new it is then. So, what do we build? At first we were thinking of 2-6-0s like the early SVRy engines from Brooks. To make an already way too long of a post a little shorter, after looking at Hawaiian K-28s and other types that are not based on older prototypes, in the end we decided that the 2-6-6-2s where the perfect fit. Big enough to haul good size trains and with axel loading that would not destroy our tracks and historic to the SVRy. After all, while we do want the SVRy to earn enough money to keep itself running, we are also trying to preserve the history of the original SVRy.

WELL, THAT WAS THE PLAN ANYWAY. Since then, the SVRR has changed directions and plans. After spending around $23,000 on design and survey work, the Union Creek extension has been placed on hold, and the replica 2-6-6-2s along with it. It turned out that at the time, the SVRR was growing way too fast for our resources and management structure to handle. So, it was decided that we should slow down a little and focus on finishing a few projects before we get started on new ones.

So, now the SVRR is focused on completing the line we already have between McEwen and Sumpter with turning facilities at Sumpter. There is also an effort to finish our backshop that has been an on-going project for a number of years now. We also have some issues with our current locomotives that need to be dealt with.

IF the Union Creek extension is ever revived, then there will be a need for the 2-6-6-2s, but until then, those engines on not really on the current agenda. And, maybe by then Lindsey’s 2-8-0s would be available, or some other engines.

BUT, I guess my point was that we were not thinking of just building new engines because it would be “Cool”. We were planning to build them because it made economic sense at the time. And maybe it will again at some point in the future.

Sorry for making this post so long but I though some people may be interested in the background of this project.
Subject Author Posted

IRCA 250 and 251 again Attachments

John West December 27, 2010 10:51PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

LOGGERHOGGER December 28, 2010 05:59AM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

Fred Folk December 28, 2010 10:27AM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

Beau Brandstetter December 28, 2010 11:23AM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

mikerowe December 28, 2010 11:30AM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

Beau Brandstetter December 28, 2010 11:37AM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

Tom Moungovan December 28, 2010 02:20PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

Will Gant December 28, 2010 05:45PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again Attachments

mikerowe December 28, 2010 06:16PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

Beau Brandstetter December 28, 2010 06:18PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again...for MRowe

Tom Moungovan December 28, 2010 07:24PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again...for MRowe

mikerowe December 28, 2010 07:36PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again...for MRowe

weston1879 December 28, 2010 09:48PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again...for MRowe

mikerowe December 28, 2010 11:20PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again...for MRowe

El Skonk December 29, 2010 01:11AM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again...for MRowe

Steve Singer December 29, 2010 07:41AM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again...for MRowe

El Skonk December 29, 2010 08:12AM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again...for MRowe

GeorgeGaskill December 29, 2010 03:03PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again...for MRowe

Jeff A. December 29, 2010 03:35PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again...for MRowe

weston1879 December 29, 2010 06:59PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again...for MRowe

El Skonk December 29, 2010 07:08PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again...for MRowe

Jeff A. December 29, 2010 08:02PM

Re: Replica 2-6-6-2

Tim Bain December 31, 2010 08:22PM

Re: Replica 2-6-6-2...to Tim

Tom Moungovan December 31, 2010 10:02PM

Re: Replica 2-6-6-2...to Tim

J.B.Bane December 31, 2010 10:55PM

Re: Replica 2-6-6-2

Gavin Hamilton January 05, 2011 05:36AM

Re: Replica 2-6-6-2

weston1879 January 05, 2011 06:29PM

Re: Replica 2-6-6-2

mikerowe January 05, 2011 08:13PM

Re: Replica 2-6-6-2

jessica stacey January 05, 2011 08:24PM

Re: Replica 2-6-6-2

mikerowe January 06, 2011 12:42AM

Re: Replica 2-6-6-2

GeorgeGaskill January 06, 2011 07:03PM

View from Google

Adam Wright January 07, 2011 10:21PM

Re: Replica 2-6-6-2

Will Gant January 05, 2011 06:36PM

Re: Replica 2-6-6-2

Tim Bain January 06, 2011 01:49AM

Re: Replica 2-6-6-2

Curtis_F January 07, 2011 12:50PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again...for MRowe Attachments

Erik Priess December 29, 2010 09:57AM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

hwcwsl January 06, 2011 09:36PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again Attachments

jalbers January 07, 2011 10:52AM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

weston1879 January 07, 2011 11:40AM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

GeorgeGaskill January 07, 2011 01:30PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

hwcwsl January 07, 2011 04:41PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

weston1879 January 07, 2011 06:06PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

Tom Moungovan January 07, 2011 07:28PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

J.B.Bane January 07, 2011 09:32PM

Re: IRCA 250 and 251 again

hwcwsl January 07, 2011 10:04PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login