drgwk37 Wrote:
=======================================================
> Dick Cowles Wrote:
> ==================================================
> =====
> -- as would any evaluation of the
> > alternative of replacing 497's suspect boiler
> with
> > 492's boiler. Nice to have John back.
>
>
> I've never been a fan of destroying historical
> equipment but when did 497 have a suspect boiler?
> What issues specifically are suspect? RGS 20 is
> being rebuilt and it has/had a suspect boiler
> which I'm familiar with from the updates Strasburg
> has put out. If your going to swap boilers
> wouldn't it just be cheaper and more efficient to
> select the 492 over the 497 as a candidate for
> restoration. And yes I'd like to see all the
> K-37's running again someday---possible
> yes...likely....that remains to be seen.
>
>
> William
> aka drgwk37
I have to agree. The known facts are that the running gear on the #497 is fairly good but has some boiler problems. The #492, on the other hand, has a decent boiler but a worse running gear.
The talk has been to put #492's boiler on the #497's running gear to make an operable locomotive. The result, unfortunatly, would probably be a slightly less worn out locomotive which would probably need major rebuilding within a few years and the destruction of another historic locomotive.
My feeling is that it would be the best plan to try and raise funds to completely rebuild #492 from the frame up, resulting in a reliable locomotive that would be good for many years service. Then switch attention to the boiler problems with the #497, possibly considering a new boiler altogether. This would result in 2 powerful locomotives to help ease the strain on the K-36's.
Yes, I do know that it would take a s**t load of money, but, it is happening with the #463 and it happened with the #464 in Michigan, so anything is possible.
My ramblings,
Donald Foster
