Official Valley Railroad Thread (VRR) - 2009

I plan to be down on Saturday,
I'll try to remember to bring my camera then.

I need to get back down to the VRR. I was down there in November but the K&K engine and the #2 wasn't there so I need to get back.

OK it's official, This Saturday we will be running the SATURDAY STEAM PROGRAM working on engine number 2, so mark your colanders and please try to make it, I'm hoping for our biggest turn-out yet!!!!!! One of are last sessions we had 10 volunteers come. There will be jobs for all skill levels. work has been proceeding wonderfully on this engine and the weekday shop staff is vary impressed, and more hopeful than ever for steam-up with resent findings of some boiler thickness. we have also been receiving donations towards this project, so the excitement is building. See you there on Saturday the 28, 9:00 am at the gray shop building in Essex. Brendan

PS now that temperatures have gotten above 20 during the days we have turned some of our attention back on the line. This past Saturday saw a great crew working on widening the right-of -way on marina extension north of the stop pole for future trains, thanks to the small crew of 4 we go a lot accomplished.

Brendan wrote:so mark your colanders

So we'll know who the steam volunteers are because they will be the ones wearing colanders on their heads?



-otto-

Brendan wrote:... more hopeful than ever for steam-up with resent findings of some boiler thickness. we have also been receiving donations towards this project, so the excitement is building.

Brendan,
Given the relatively smaller size of #2 versus the 3025, and its excellent condition (at least on the outside), is the railroad considering restoring it before 3025? I don't know the exact legal and financial relationship between FVRR and VRR and the use of equipment, but if #2 would be easier, quicker, and cheaper to restore/ maintain, it could be used in regular service. The kids and families who are riding don't need to know/ care that an 80 Ton GE is shoving at the rear of the train, they'll just see the steam loco on the front and be happy to buy tickets.

BiggAW wrote:Given the relatively smaller size of #2 versus the 3025, and its excellent condition (at least on the outside), is the railroad considering restoring it before 3025?

If you read back, I'm fairly certain we discussed this already and the answer is "no."

kitn1mcc wrote:the number 2 is gonna be cosmetic for now ... the Knox & Kane loco is probably gonna get a full overhaul...

The 3025 will pull passengers and help generate revenue for the railroad, which has a more immediate effect on the bottom line.

if #2 would be easier, quicker, and cheaper to restore/ maintain, it could be used in regular service. The kids and families who are riding don't need to know/ care that an 80 Ton GE is shoving at the rear of the train, they'll just see the steam loco on the front and be happy to buy tickets.

No, running two engines is not cheaper than running one.

-otto-

BiggAW wrote:

Brendan wrote:... more hopeful than ever for steam-up with resent findings of some boiler thickness. we have also been receiving donations towards this project, so the excitement is building.

Brendan,
Given the relatively smaller size of #2 versus the 3025, and its excellent condition (at least on the outside), is the railroad considering restoring it before 3025? I don't know the exact legal and financial relationship between FVRR and VRR and the use of equipment, but if #2 would be easier, quicker, and cheaper to restore/ maintain, it could be used in regular service. The kids and families who are riding don't need to know/ care that an 80 Ton GE is shoving at the rear of the train, they'll just see the steam loco on the front and be happy to buy tickets.

There's no real need to doublehead using #2. Both the active VRR steamers are perfectly capable of pulling the usual train without help.
The 3025 will be an even bigger, "beefier" loco than either #'s 40 or 97, so no need for help there.
Interestingly enough, the Porter 0-6-0 that "Thomas" was built from is also capable of pulling a good size train on it's own. In fact, when the usual VRR steamer does it's thing on the opposite end of the train for "DOWT" it only pulls in one direction. THOMAS does all the pulling himself on the way back. The arangement itself is oly used to save turn-around time for these trains which only travel a short distance (30 min round trip) up the line.
The #2 locomotive will actually be eaqual to or greater than 97 in tractive-cohesion as it's entire weight will rest on the drivers.As for the other part of your question, no, there's no way #2 would be completed faster than 3025. 3025 was run much more recently and only requires minimal mechanical work and a good bit of cosmetics, where the #2 hasn't been run in decades and was left out in the weather for much of that time. I've seen the inside of the #2's boiler (through the removed steam dome) and I can tell you she'll need a TOTAL tube replacement and probably a good bit of other boiler work before she'll steam again.

Otto, I got the best laugh out of your posting of my typo, love it, I can picture it now.....

Otto,

That was before the post about the condition of #2. I was asking Brendan since he's involved with the railroad and would know the answer to my question.

You obviously didn't read my question, I was saying that #2 could run as the steam locomotive on revenue trains with a diesel helper.

#2 would likely be cheaper and quicker to get going for now and would avoid putting as much wear on the other 2 going on 3. It's a smaller loco with less moving parts, so it would be easier and cheaper to maintain. Running a diesel wouldn't add that much cost. It was discussed that if the railroad could have gotten 103 back, they would have wanted to run it with a GE helper, and since its a smaller locomotive, that cost savings would offset the additional cost of running 0900.

Cosmo,

I was talking about #2 and a diesel. I guess the answer is that #2 wouldn't need 0900 to help. Thomas is pretty impressive, as he also pulls #97 as dead weight. #97 isn't exactly light on top of 9 cars.

Thanks for actually answering the question. I thought that 3025 would need more serious rebuilding because of the fire damage. Looking at it, it looks absolutely awful. I should have known that, since I know the boiler is in relatively good shape, and is virtually brand new in steam locomotive terms (aside from the fire damage).

EDIT: 0900 not 0800. 0800 is at CERM.

BiggAW wrote: Cosmo,

I was talking about #2 and a diesel. I guess the answer is that #2 wouldn't need 0900 to help. Thomas is pretty impressive, as he also pulls #97 as dead weight. #97 isn't exactly light on top of 9 cars.

Thanks for actually answering the question. I thought that 3025 would need more serious rebuilding because of the fire damage. Looking at it, it looks absolutely awful. I should have known that, since I know the boiler is in relatively good shape, and is virtually brand new in steam locomotive terms (aside from the fire damage).

EDIT: 0900 not 0800. 0800 is at CERM.

All quite true, and THOMAS was lightened up conciderably with it's rebuilding, so #2 would be even a bit beefier than Thomas.
My thought was that it could possibly be used on the dinner train as it's oil fired and would be quicker to steam up and easier to put away at night, but that's only a thought.
My guess is that steaming #2 is anywhere from 5-10 yrs down the road. We'll just have to wait and see if we can get the grant $$ to do it with.
Meantime, the goal is to get 3025 running before #97's tubes run out of service hours.

Cosmo is right, 3025 will steam first. The week day crew is not ready to bring it into the shop yet, they want to finish all the coaches first. but when it does come in, it will be the priority, #2 fits in the shop with 2 coaches because it is so small, So it is giving us a good chance to work on it.
On a side note, it was suggested to me that since #2 is an oil burner, could it be run on bio fuel or mix? it could be our "green" steam engine and I don't mean its color. Brendan

Cosmo wrote: before #97's tubes run out of service hours.

And how long is this?

About a year and a half from now in 2010. (IIRC.)

What are the plans for it? Put it where the CP engine(1246) was or try to rebuild it?

BiggAW wrote:2 would likely be cheaper and quicker to get going for now and would avoid putting as much wear on the other 2 going on 3. It's a smaller loco with less moving parts, so it would be easier and cheaper to maintain. Running a diesel wouldn't add that much cost. It was discussed that if the railroad could have gotten 103 back, they would have wanted to run it with a GE helper, and since its a smaller locomotive, that cost savings would offset the additional cost of running 0900.

When was that ever mentioned? I had heard at one time interest in purchasing 103 but it needs a helper? I think there is alot of pipe dreams being displayed on this VRR page!