The Flying Yankee

Just took a look at the website for the first time in a while and came upon this:

FYRG Chairman and Board member Stoney Morrell recently passed way on 10/22/06 after battling cancer for two years; Stoney was just 50 years old. He served as the President of the family businesses, Story Land & Heritage-NH for the past 25 years.

My thoughts and prayers go out to his friends and family.
As for the restoration project goes I have a feeling it’s going to be a pretty quite winter. I think there main goal right now is going out and getting all the money they can get, before moving forward.

I wonder what is keeping them from putting the 201A engine back together as an "educational" display, something they mentioned on their website a long time ago. If you aren't going to operate it, you don't have to be very fussy about what gets used for gaskets. Seems to me that leaving it sitting aroung in pieces is a good way to have parts of it disappear. The individual components were all cleaned up in shots they had on the website, having it back together would at least generate some useful publicity.

When I try to access their website how I am getting a host organization message that the website expired on November 18 2006 and is awaiting "renewal or deletion".

Paul sent out an message to everyone on the Friends email list. Summing it up, basically there was a breakdown of communication and the FY Group didn't know that it was time to renew the domain name until the website went down.

Matt

The November news posting which is now on the website is excellent, and provides a lot of additional information on the propulsion equipment situation. It sounds like they still have very challenging obstacles to deal with. It appears that one critical question is whether they can come up with replacement traction motors that are suitable for the power truck and the wheel/axle sets without needing a lot of modifications to work that has already been done.

Unfortunately I saw no mention of the fate of the Winton engine, which would be an excellent exhibit all by itself.

When the decision was made to remove the Wilton engine; something was mentioned on the website that it would become a display model and that future work on the engine could be possible; that’s if someone wanted to get it running again.

With no replacement parts available and with some of the existing ones already auctioned off, and with plans in place for the train to be repowered, it seems to me that it is very unlikely the Winton will ever run again. But it has great historical value as a display, and could contribute useful publicity for the restoration of the train if they reassembled it and loaned it to a museum that gets a lot of visitors. An ideal place to show it off would be the protected indoor exhibit hall at Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania.

Making the Winton engine an "educational exhibit" for children sounds wonderful, and gets you one nice "fluff" story in the local newspaper, but does very little for the restoration financially unless it helps land a grant. You could do the childrens educational exhibit with a Detroit Diesel 4-71 that can be moved around on a pallet with a fork lift truck, it is pretty impractical to use an 20,000 lb. 8-201A as a mobile training aid.

The Winton doesn't need any gaskets for reassembly if it is never going to run again, so lack of those parts is not a problem, and all the parts look to be clean in the pictures on the website. At least this way it would do them some good and get them some attention. Right now it is just a pile of parts occupying space.

The there seems to be a lack of understanding that the Winton by itself is an extremely important piece of railroad history, having significance on a par with that of the train.

Just wondering if the cost of using the Winton engine might be mitigated by extra costs for modifications using something else. Considering the historical nature of the train and engine, is its original engine rehab really out of the question ? Also considering the trains popularity, notoriety, and historical value, aren't there ways to come up with needed funds, either publically or privately ?

I do apologize if this has been asked or answered before.

Seeing that the Winton engine is so heavy, is there any chance that the engine itself fromed an important part of the structure, and that its deletion will cause problems for structural integrity?

I know on most locomotives that this is not the case, but is that a problem for something like the Yankee?

Dave Becker

My understanding is that the decision to not use the Winton was based on two factors:

1) Since it is hoped that the Flying Yankee might make trips far from its home grounds, and would need permission from host railroads to do so, it is important that any road failures be easily fixable. The parts and expertise to deal with a more conventional propulsion system would be far more available than the parts and expertise to fix a Winton.

2) As has been pointed out in a previous post, the Winton is a very important historic artifact. It is hoped that the Flying Yankee will be operated sufficiently often and for sufficient distances that there will be some engine wear. It would be undesireable that such destructive wear be imposed on an irreplaceable historic artifact.

Gee, that's disappointing to find out. I was under the impression that the cost of rehabbing the Winton motor was out of reach. If it comes down to the two points posted regarding wear-and tear, it seems that that is also an argument to keep it in a plastic bubble as a static display. With any operation comes wear and tear, not only to the motor, but to all the parts. Nothing lasts forever. My feeling is that a 100% reconstruction of the original with all its parts is the only befitting mode for this historic train. Let's run the hell out of it and then let the next generation have the enjoyment of another restoration and finality.

I would think that if the ability to obtain replacement parts and the talent to deal with propulsion system problems when operating far from home is a major concern, then they would want to select an engine and other transmission system components that are common and widely used in the railroad industry. Recent postings about the study of custom designed "advanced" electrical systems and an engine that will burn biodiesel seem to be headed in exactly the opposite direction. A one of a kind transmission system would almost guarantee that they would have to arrange for their own technical support staff to accompany the train everywhere it goes, to advise host railroads how to troubleshoot the system and perform repairs when needed.

Exactly. So what they will wind up with, as you state, is a complex motor that only a few know. Just like the Winton !

I keep wondering when the reality of the traction motor situation is going to surface. Expensive reconditioning work is being done on wheels and axles and the truck frames, all of which are set up for the geometry of the original traction motors. At the same time they are talking about replacing the transmission system with modern "state of the art" equipment. If they are going to use different traction motors, they may have to make additional modifications to components they have already had reconditioned. If they are going to use the existing 70 year old traction motors, then they are going to need spares and/or replacement motor and wheel/axle assemblies, otherwise the first traction motor failure is likely to be the end of the train's operations. And if they are going to operate far from home with equipment that is not currently standard and readily available in the industry, then they need to either be able to expedite their spare parts anywhere the train might be operating on short notice or maintain their own support vehicles that can carry spares. The logistics involved in supporting this will not be simple or cheap. This is likely to be a very expensive train to operate for a very limited seating capacity, it is not like a fantrip with conventional equipment where you can add additional coaches if you can sell the seats.

And can you imagine changing a traction motor on this train at a busy Amtrak or commuter rail facility? The train might have to be put around a wye to get the front end properly directed for a single ended lead to a drop pit, it would extend far out of the building requiring the doors to be kept open while the work was being done, and in most facilities I have seen it would foul the floor paths while it is on the drop pit, preventing movement of material to other equipment. You wonder if any of these things have been taken into consideration at all, and whether they have talked with anybody familiar with busy modern shops about how they are going to do repairs on this very unusual equipment. It will be very interesting to see how they proceed.

Perhaps the idea of "far reaching" travel is too grand for this car, whereas local travel with nearby spare equipment and facilities would enable the unit to be reassembled and run in its original configuration. This way it would be true to its original design and more historic with less wear and tear. What will inevitably happen if the overall plan gets too big is that it will be self-cancelling. (What were they ever thinking auctioning off those Winton motor part(s) ?)