Official Valley Railroad Thread (VRR) - 2009

NNR wrote:

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!

#2 may be "smaller," but it certainly does NOT have "less moving parts!" With the exception of a tender, the #2 has most, if not all the mechanical features of the "larger" engines. One other exception might be that she does not have a lubricating pump system, but such items were added to #'s 40 & 97 at some point and could be to #2. That being said, lack of a lubricator's moving parts is not necessaarily any kind of advantage.
#2 is NOT a "small engine!" She is quite large for an 0-6-0 saddle-tanker. The 103's need for a helper had less to do with her size and more to do with her operating condition. If 103 is ever steamed again, such things would be addressed at that time. Again, not impossible, but certainly a long way off.

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

The general concensus is that it will either go there, or in 103's place (if RMNE ever reclaims it,) or possibly in front of the Dickenson Building.
As for rebuilding, that's been discussed.

Cosmo wrote:or possibly in front of the Dickenson Building.

Which building is that? The one with the model in it?

atsf sp wrote:

Cosmo wrote:or possibly in front of the Dickenson Building.

Which building is that? The one with the model in it?

Yes

I thought that 97 was definitely going out of service before 3025 came online, the idea that 3025 has to have been in revenue service for a while before 40 goes out of service too?

What I heard about the dinner train was that it was not pulled by steam because steam can't run slowly enough given the track conditions, so the GE has to be used since it can basically be run as if it switching the whole way, very smoothly. If the #2 could be used for the dinner train, so could 97 or 40, but then you run into a problem with the Sunday train where you would need two steamers up. As it is, they sell out the dinner train. I think that if anything is changed with the dinner train (probably not much will be, since it is not the railroad's main business, the generators should be replaced with modern CARB-certified generators that have low noise and vibration and additional cars should be added. The additional two cars could go on the other side of the kitchen car, increasing the capacity significantly.

They should put booths in too, they would work a lot better than chairs, and would be really comfy. I'd actually like to see the dinner train as part of the regular steam consist to serve lunch and have A/C'ed first-class cars for hot days. First class cars make more $$ per seat, and the ridership isn't such that they need the seats given up by using lower capacity cars.

Brendan, it could be run off of biodiesel, and it would be a neat thing to do. Real biodiesel is just as expensive or more expensive than diesel fuel, but it is also almost able to be dropped-in, with the exception of a few materials for the hoses that handle it since it is a strong solvent. Greasel from restaurants or other sources is much cheaper (less than $.50/gallon depending on how it is processed), but also requires some fuel-handling techniques. If it were to run in the winter, it would also require a way to avoid the fuel gelling, maybe running some low-grade steam through pipes in the oil tank to keep it warm, sort of like the way Bunker C is handled, although not as bad. The modifications necessary would add negligible cost and complexity if they were done while the locomotive is being rebuilt anyways.

I heard 97 had about 150 days left, so it depends on how much it is used this season and next. Maybe we will be seeing a lot of 40? Will 97 run at all this season or are its hours being conserved?

103 was one of the options considered by the railroad, but it wasn't seriously considered since they couldn't come to an agreement with RMNE to get it back. It's sad that it was steaming on the railroad when it was a tourist operation, and now it is in awful condition and owned by a group who doesn't have the ability to restore it or the willingness to give it back to VRR where it belongs.

The helper thing that I heard was that 103 would make it with 6 coaches, but what I have also heard from Strasburg in relation to 89 is that if a steam locomotive that is that old is used at anywhere close to its capacity it will wear out much more quickly than if it is oversized for its assignment (i.e. 90).

Ok, #2 isn't that "small". But, it is still a simpler locomotive. The WK&S got rid of a locomotive like 103 in favor of #65, #2's "twin" because #65 was much simpler and cheaper to maintain. It has a lot fewer wheels, doesn't have the complexity of a tender and the connections, and is much shorter.

#2 would look great up where 1246 was. That spot is pretty empty at the moment. I doubt RMNE will claim 103, as I'd be surprised if Amtrak/ MNCR could move that thing, although then again they did manage to move 1246.

BiggAW wrote:I thought that 97 was definitely going out of service before 3025 came online, the idea that 3025 has to have been in revenue service for a while before 40 goes out of service too?

What I heard about the dinner train was that it was not pulled by steam because steam can't run slowly enough given the track conditions, so the GE has to be used since it can basically be run as if it switching the whole way, very smoothly. If the #2 could be used for the dinner train, so could 97 or 40, but then you run into a problem with the Sunday train where you would need two steamers up. As it is, they sell out the dinner train. I think that if anything is changed with the dinner train (probably not much will be, since it is not the railroad's main business, the generators should be replaced with modern CARB-certified generators that have low noise and vibration and additional cars should be added. The additional two cars could go on the other side of the kitchen car, increasing the capacity significantly.

They should put booths in too, they would work a lot better than chairs, and would be really comfy. I'd actually like to see the dinner train as part of the regular steam consist to serve lunch and have A/C'ed first-class cars for hot days. First class cars make more $$ per seat, and the ridership isn't such that they need the seats given up by using lower capacity cars.

Brendan, it could be run off of biodiesel, and it would be a neat thing to do. Real biodiesel is just as expensive or more expensive than diesel fuel, but it is also almost able to be dropped-in, with the exception of a few materials for the hoses that handle it since it is a strong solvent. Greasel from restaurants or other sources is much cheaper (less than $.50/gallon depending on how it is processed), but also requires some fuel-handling techniques. If it were to run in the winter, it would also require a way to avoid the fuel gelling, maybe running some low-grade steam through pipes in the oil tank to keep it warm, sort of like the way Bunker C is handled, although not as bad. The modifications necessary would add negligible cost and complexity if they were done while the locomotive is being rebuilt anyways.

I heard 97 had about 150 days left, so it depends on how much it is used this season and next. Maybe we will be seeing a lot of 40? Will 97 run at all this season or are its hours being conserved?

103 was one of the options considered by the railroad, but it wasn't seriously considered since they couldn't come to an agreement with RMNE to get it back. It's sad that it was steaming on the railroad when it was a tourist operation, and now it is in awful condition and owned by a group who doesn't have the ability to restore it or the willingness to give it back to VRR where it belongs.

The helper thing that I heard was that 103 would make it with 6 coaches, but what I have also heard from Strasburg in relation to 89 is that if a steam locomotive that is that old is used at anywhere close to its capacity it will wear out much more quickly than if it is oversized for its assignment (i.e. 90).

Ok, #2 isn't that "small". But, it is still a simpler locomotive. The WK&S got rid of a locomotive like 103 in favor of #65, #2's "twin" because #65 was much simpler and cheaper to maintain. It has a lot fewer wheels, doesn't have the complexity of a tender and the connections, and is much shorter.

#2 would look great up where 1246 was. That spot is pretty empty at the moment. I doubt RMNE will claim 103, as I'd be surprised if Amtrak/ MNCR could move that thing, although then again they did manage to move 1246.

HUH? where did you get your info from? steamer has to run slow because of track condtions? The dinner train sells out? Bio Diesel? I dont think you know anything about the possible sale of 103 we will just leave it at that and RMNE is perfectly capable of restoring 103 they have the talent and have you seen their new shop? Willingness to give back? Nothing in life is free they own it! I think you need to relax abit before you talk negatively about another Tourist railroad you don't wan't to be the one starting trouble between the two Railroads besides we are all working for the same goal! And one more thing WK&S just got a prarie they are going to restore last summer when did they get rid of one?

103 easily handled a three car train at VRR. Four cars was a good workout for the engine and the fireman. I do recall some five car trains (all coaches/LNE gon, no Pullmans), but that was a struggle. A real struggle. I know, because I fired 103 "back in the day" (1971-1973), including a day buring anthracite as an "smoke elimination experiment". Now, that day was fun!!! (not)

BiggAW, you have lots of enthusiasm (which is good). You have a few (or more) things to learn, and you ask questions, that is also good. But, you also need to learn that experience counts for something, and that some of us ancient fossils who were around when the dinosaurs roamed the Essex meadow, have thought about and possibly even tried some of the things you are so enthusiastically suggesting--- and know what works and what does not. Keep your ears and eyes open, keep your mind open, and make sure that your mouth (and keyboard fingers) don't run on ahead of the rest of you. "Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

OK, I will now crawl back into my cave here in the Old Preservation Railroader's Home, and hook up my oxygen bottle. Sayonara, buddy.

BiggAW wrote: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.

Doesn't matter who answers, you refuse to accept the facts as they are presented to you.

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.

Are you daft, man? You said:

BiggAW wrote: 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

And then I said:

OttoWhoCantReadGood wrote:No, running two engines is not cheaper than running one.

A steam locomotive with a diesel helper is two locomotives. Two crews. Two fuel bills. For one train. That normally only needs one locomotive. One crew. One fuel bill.

#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.

No, this is wrong.

It's a smaller loco with less moving parts, so it would be easier and cheaper to maintain.

No, this is wrong.

Running a diesel wouldn't add that much cost.

No, this is wrong.

Do less "telling" and do more "learning."

-otto-

BiggAW wrote:maybe running some low-grade steam

You ever try carrying a bucket of "low-grade steam"? It's real heavy. I had to carry one from the pit track to the shop once.
Almost slipped on a puddle of "no oil", the stuff you're supposed to use to oil the oxygen gauge on the oxy-acetylene torch set, though. It did say "use no oil", right?
Harry Malone, you agree?

NNR,

What I heard was that the Dinner train has to run slow because of track conditions, and steam doesn't run well that slow, but the GE is really, really good at it (it's a switcher). It's nothing technical, it has a lot to do with the waiters and waitresses being able to serve food and drinks without it all going flying. That being said, Cosmo's idea of putting #2 on might work, since it is a switcher, so it might be able to be run slower. Steam dinner train, just imagine that!

We have to get tickets way ahead for the dinner train, and its been chock full every time I've ridden on it for a past few years. I'm glad its selling out, its a neat train especially since its the only in CT.

Biodiesel in a steamer is not absurd, the Cog railway tried it, but they converted a coal burner, so it didn't work that well, and there is some conspiracy theory that they made the project fail so that they would have to switch to cheaper IC biodiesel locos (see the thread for that). Some furnaces burn bio-heat now, and it works well.

The two already have plenty of trouble, and I'm not disparaging the Naugy, I'm just saying it takes a HUGE amount of money to run steam. I'd put my money on #2 steaming before 1246 has any serious work done on it, let alone 103. VRR has a tough enough time, and they are a much bigger, and commercial operation, and are amazing at what they do especially with such limited funds. The comparatively small Naugy is going to stay diesel for a long time into the future. As for free, VRR tried to negotiate a buy or trade deal to get it, but nothing has happened.

WK&S got rid of one a long time ago (its on Google). They are likely better able to handle a more complex locomotive now.

H.F. Malone,

Thanks for the info. The Virginia Blue coal that the VRR burns now is anthracite... It burns much more cleanly than other other steam railroad I have ever seen.

Otto,

I said if. If the costs were much lower, it would offset the cost of running a helper. i.e. I have no clue if it is or not. Plus, the fuel burn in total would be lower with a helper, as 0900 has a higher thermodynamic efficiency than a steam locomotive. That doesn't account for the cost of coal vs. oil though.

Yes, it does matter who answers, as Brendan is involved with the railroad, so hence he would know.

Back in the early days of the Valley RR a phonograph record of the train was made and sold in the gift shop of the 103 with 3 coaches and the gondola making a run for the hill on the way back to Essex and almost stalling at the top of the hill.

BiggAW,

From a railfan perspective I would say the Dinner Train being pulled by a steam locomotive would be interesting to see. But speaking on behalf of a rider/consumer, honestly, I do not care. I assure you, 95% of the riders could not care less. Not to mention, the price is already high given the current state of the economy and adding steam to the mix would only make it worst. There comes a point you have to figure out whether you are trying to compete with Steamtown or running a legimate buisiness.

I'm pretty sure the dinner train does not go slower because of track conditions - its so that passengers can have time to enjoy their meals. Back in '95, a train from SX to Goodspeed (well, south side of Rt 82) was carded at around 35 minutes, so that's just over an hour at track speed, roundtrip. Since then, numerous track improvments have been made and 4 stop & protect operations have been eliminated. A train without stopping at DR and without a runaround, could make it in just over an hour. Now the DT goes cross Rt 82 and about a mile or so (less) north. Sometimes if the train is ahead of schedule or if timing is right, they'll stop at Broadway to let pax/diners enjoy the unobstructed view.
We have used steam on the dinner train in the past. It did seem like a rougher ride, but it was cool having steam vs the 0900.

Dinner trains are frequent sell-outs. In fact, the schedule in the fall has been expanded in recent years to have two trains a day. Even if there were more dining cars added, the 0900 could still pull them all - no need for steam as I've seen 0900 pull 9 cars. Steam = another crew member, added expense, etc etc.

BiggAW... I used to share some of your opinions about the 103/1246, etc, until I actually met the Naugy/RMNE crew. They're good guys (and good cooks from what they always brag about ). While they do have a lot of projects on their plate, they have quite the nice shop to do them all in. If you want to help them out, go to rmne.org or check the Naugy thread here. Regardless of the projects, their goal is to not just operate but also to possess historic railroad equipment. They have A LOT of historic equipment from the NH (and other railroads too). As much as I've dreamed of seeing 1246 restored to operate by the VRR and pulling a train to Middletown, while a cosmetically restored 103 and caboose sit in a landscaped plaza outside a rebuilt station at Essex et al... that isn't going to happen.

Here's a thought... is there another need for a Thomas locomotive to roam the country? Perhaps the VRR/FVRR could take #2 and paint 'er blue and restore her to run, then offer it to railroads throughout the country for Thomas events, like the Strasburg did. That'd be a really good money maker!

And I heard 2 days ago that #97 will be the locomotive to be the regular this season, with #40 as a backup. #40 will do the Hand on the Throttle in the spring. Didn't have time to make it to the station (nor did I have my camera) so I can't update on what's going on around SX.

shadyjay wrote:Here's a thought... is there another need for a Thomas locomotive to roam the country? Perhaps the VRR/FVRR could take #2 and paint 'er blue and restore her to run, then offer it to railroads throughout the country for Thomas events, like the Strasburg did. That'd be a really good money maker!

No. This would just be another waste of an old engine. Its better, in a railfan perspective, to have the old engine as it is. Plus that would ruin the restoration already being done to it. Plus how are the tracks connecting to the line to take it across the country? Would they have to redo these to even get it in and out a lot?

atsf sp wrote:No. This would just be another waste of an old engine. Its better, in a railfan perspective, to have the old engine as it is. Plus that would ruin the restoration already being done to it. Plus how are the tracks connecting to the line to take it across the country? Would they have to redo these to even get it in and out a lot?

Okay, it was just a thought.

The VRR's outside world connection is as good as you're going to find anywhere... Amtrak's electrified Northeast Corridor. The 4 miles between Essex and the connection in Old Saybrook are in fine shape for equipment moves and such. For the 30th Anniversary, a CDOT/Shore Line East trainset was brought up. Coal comes in this way in coal cars, ballast too. Hand on the Throttle runs sometimes on this trackage. No pax trains usually, as there's not much to see.