Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: 492

Earl
May 17, 2005 01:52PM
492 was stored serviceable in Alamosa in 1966. At that time she had only used 30+ months on her flue time. There was a persistant story in the early years of the C&TS that the FRA would be very reluctent to certify a pre-1911 boiler and would never allow flue extentions requiring it to be reflued every 5 years. BTW this was an issue with the 463 at that time too. Later inspectors reversed this idea and of course allowed both 497 and 463 to operate without any other special conditions.
My stand on the 490's is they are hard on sub-standard track. The D&RGW ran them for years with no difficulty, we ran 497 for several years with out much trouble. If the track structure was up to snuff, the 490's should have no trouble.
Subject Author Posted

492

480 May 16, 2005 06:30PM

Re: 492

Carlos Llamas May 16, 2005 08:05PM

Re: 492

Dave Peterson May 16, 2005 11:12PM

Re: 492

Steve C May 17, 2005 08:05AM

Re: 492 *LINK*

Greg Scholl May 17, 2005 08:30AM

Re: 492

Earl May 17, 2005 01:52PM

Well said--they aren't bad engines. *NM*

William Reed May 18, 2005 08:04AM



Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.