As with many things, the answer is a long drawn out story, which I will attempt to make short by only hitting the highlights.
BIG DISCLAIMER / IMPORTANT INFORMATION; NONE OF THIS APPLIES TO OR IS IN REFERENCE TO THE PRESENT OPERATOR OF THE GEORGETOWN LOOP!!!! ALL OF WHAT IS DISCUSSED BELOW TOOK PLACE 14 YEARS AGO UNDER A DIFFERENT OPERATOR (RAILSTAR). RAILSTAR HAS NOT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE GEORGETOWN LOOP FOR WELL OVER A DECADE.
AGAIN, THIS IS A DISCUSSION OF PAST EVENTS THAT HAVE NO BEARING ON NOR RELATION TO THE PRESENT DAY GEORGETOWN LOOP.
First things first, the story about someone draining the water from the boiler and then damaging the boiler to prevent the locomotive from being operated again is just that, a story. Did not happen, no way, no how, would love to meet whomever cooked that one up and see what, if anything, they are using to back up that bit of nonsense.
Secondly, C&S 9 has been owned by the Colorado Historical Society/History Colorado since 1987 and is in fact still owned by them.
Moving on, why did C&S No. 9 only run for one season (2006) on the Georgetown Loop?
No. 9 was restored to service on a relatively small budget, with the idea that it would be a special occasion locomotive, not a "daily driver" and the only steam locomotive on the Georgetown Loop. As with any steam locomotive brought back from the dead, there were alot of bugs to be worked out. The initial plan was to spend as long as needed to work out said bugs and learn how No. 9 liked to be operated before putting her to use. That plan got upended one day in June of 2006 when management just decided to put No. 9 in service as a helper locomotive, every train, every day. Experience with the locomotive was gained the old school way, by just doing it and learning as you go. No. 9 made one test run (by itself) over the railroad before being placed into daily service. As such, issues that would have come to light on test runs, and been dealt with accordingly, reared their ugly heads while in service and were thus harder to deal with and got bigger before they could be dealt with.
Compounding the issues was another decison made by management to add drip cups to No. 9's crossheads. As used by the C&S, the top of No. 9's crossheads were lubricated by pouring oil into a cotton was filled cavity on the top of the upper crosshead guide, the waste held the oil and kept it from running out immediately, thus insuring the crosshead shoe was lubricated for more than 10 seconds after it was oiled. At one point in July of 2006, when locomotive No. 12 was out of service for a boiler wash, one of the managers decided that he new better than the C&S, took the drip cups off of No. 12's crossheads, pulled the waste out of the cavities on No. 9's and installed the drip cups on No. 9. This was all well and good until No. 12 was back in service several days later and the drip cups came off of No. 9 and went back on No. 12. (The plan had been to get new drip cups for No. 12, thus allowing No. 9 to keep 12's old ones, but this never came to pass). This might have been fine, but the waste was never put back into No. 9's crosshead guides and the oil ran out as fast as it was poured in, thus leaving the top crosshead shoe essentially unlubricated. This caused excessive wear on the crossheads, causing them to go in an almost circular motion rather than just back and forth. This in turn caused the locomotive to wear out piston rings like they were going out of style (lifting the end of an 18" or so long piston rod up even 1/8" means that the piston at the end of it is sitting at an angle in the bore and all of the force is being transmitted to a section of the edge of the rings as opposed to being carried by the whole width of the entire ring).
On top of that, No. 9 liked to break staybolts, generally near the front of the firebox at the transition from the straight portion of the sides to the curved portion. Weather this was related to the oil conversion or had been a long standing issue (photos appear to show that the C&S had cut an access panel into the cab to make it easier to get at the staybolts that were breaking) was never really determined.
By the end of the 2006 season, No. 9 needed a bunch of work and plans were underway for that work to be done. It was not an insurmountable or unprecedented amount of work, No. 9 could have been back in service for 2007 and many years beyond. I think that the shortest answer as to why No. 9 was not repaired and placed back into service was that a better opportunity came along. While No. 9 is a beautiful and quite capable locomotive, it really is too small to be the main locomotive for today's Georgetown Loop. The town of Breckenridge, which owns former IRCA 2-8-0 No. 111, really wanted an actual C&S locomotive to display and the CHS really needed a bigger locomotive for the Loop. Thus, a trade (really a long term lease) was made, No. 9 was off to Breckenridge and No. 111 to the Loop. While the trade and return to operation of No. 111 took several years to come to fruition, simple economics made it the better decision over dumping more money into No. 9.
While No. 9 is now on display in Breckenridge, it is actually still an oil burner and still operational, should anyone choose to add fire and water. Her tender, while it looks nice, would be in need of major work before it could be considered operational. (No. 9 ran with C&S 74's tender in 2006)
Jason Midyette
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2020 10:42AM by Jason Midyette.
