Jon Bentz Wrote:
=======================================================
> Completely understandable. My question is - what
> were the things that weren't attended to? Just
> curious since the 346 tackles a nearly 4%
> ascending grade on a tight curve every time she
> orbits the museum site. That's got to put some
> strain on the old girl. I know that steam ups
> aren't that often so this wear gets spread over a
> long period.
Linn summed it up nicely a couple of years ago, and I'll take the liberty of reposting his response. You might want to revisit that old thread to see some of the give and take on the subject.
Paul
Re: Eureka, the 315 and ships in a harbor
Posted by: Linn W. Moedinger
Date: May 05, 2010 09:24AM
Since my name has been mentioned a few times I suppose a few comments are in order.
First to address the CRRM board. In my dealings with them I can say that I have not found a more responsible organization in my 42 years in this business. Money is ultimately what fuels everything, for better or worse. Since money is always in short supply, prioritization becomes paramount. My experience with Bill G. and CRRM during #346's repair was one of the most refreshing professional experiences I have had. It was a process of continuous communication and weighing of pros and cons to determine the optimum outcome for the funding available. Decisions were made based on the hard mechanical realities and the goals of the CRRM. I have no doubt that Bill and the board, like me, would have loved to have seen #346 in daily service in her old stomping grounds, but anti-foam had to be added to that "boiler" in the form of mechanical reality.
As to #20, she will be rebuilt as opposed to repaired. While we are reusing all possible original fabric, in the end she will be in excellent "almost like new" condition. To that end the options for operation will be different than they are for #346. That being said, I would not question the CRRM if they decided to keep her at home.
Aside from normal mechanical wear and tear, the one consideration that is blatantly missing from this thread is the physical characteristics of the lines on which any locomotive would operate. There are no cliffs on the CRRM railroad. No matter how much care is taken on trackwork, there are natural hazards that can and do pose risks. Most of these engines have taken "off the track" excursions in their careers, and not all of these were due to substandard mechanical or infrastructure conditions. In discussions I had with Soni regarding the #315 excursions, he was well aware of the propensity of the consolidations to go way off the track if the lead driver stubs its toe simply because of the blind drivers on the 2 and 3 axles. Probably the reason for the half flanges used by C&S but that's another discussion involving hard mechanical facts. It's easy to decide how someone else should spend their money and if Dan is comfortable with the risk benefit ratio for Eureka, more power to him and we are indebted to him for sharing with all of us. We still must be able to accept a responsible fiduciary decision by the CRRM board regarding a million dollar investment on an irreplacable artifact. While the chance of a catastrophic derailment is very slim (I can't quantify that risk) the very nature of mountain railroading demands that the risk at least be acknowledged.
