If I remember correctly, the unit is missing a traction motor and something with a few of the cylinders on the engine.
Railroad Forums
S2 206 in its final resting place
- Discussion related to New York, Susquehanna & Western operations past and present. Also includes some discussion related to Deleware Otsego owned and operated shortlines. Official web site can be found here: NYSW.COM.
Moderators: GOLDEN-ARM, NJ Vike
On a similair note, I found a photo on the internet that showed at least that the #205 wasn't scrapped until 1987? I thought they were scrapped much earlier. I'm surprised they sat for so long before scrapping. I just find it interesting about these NYSW also s2 switchers. The more research I do, the more interesting things I find out.
A few of the RS's and S's were on hand as parts units up until the RS-1's were all officially retired which I believe was 87-88. I have seen pictures of the 205 in the late 70's and early 80's and that unit was heavily cannibalized missing a truck, grills, panels etc. The deadline maintained the last operable RS-1's, the 238 240 and 252 and eventually helped get the 206 back to service.
dano23 wrote:A few of the RS's and S's were on hand as parts units up until the RS-1's were all officially retired which I believe was 87-88. I have seen pictures of the 205 in the late 70's and early 80's and that unit was heavily cannibalized missing a truck, grills, panels etc. The deadline maintained the last operable RS-1's, the 238 240 and 252 and eventually helped get the 206 back to service.That explains the #205 then. I wonder if all the s2's hung around for parts units. I do know the other s2's as you say did help revitilize the #206. I'm still searching for more info on #206, so thanks so much Dano23, every little bit helps!
206 made it as far north as Marathon on the Syracuse Branch for display during a Maple Fest during the 1980s. Per Railpace the plan was to use her in service on the ND but it sounds like a mechanical problem but the ax to that idea. Would like to know if she ever ran on the ND before the defect reared its head.
The SD45
The SD45
I apologize for bringing this up again. However I've done alot of research and still question all that happened to the 206. As an example: The official account is that the 206 was retired in 1986. I know she was running in early 1987. The consensus is that she had her failure BEFORE 1987. So then that would mean she was running AFTER her "failure". Why is it nobody knows exactly when she failed? So I ask, when EXACTLY did she fail?
The 206 also had her stack capped in 1988. A stack is not capped if a loco has a "blown engine". That would mean that even if by then she didn't run she was at least serviceable. But a loco with a "massive prime mover failure", or a engine that "froze up" is not exactly what I would call "serviceable".
In addition the official account has her traded-in to GE in 1988. She was up in binghamton in 1989 still on NYSW property. So I believe many questions still go unanswered about #206 and I don't believe for one second that she's "dead".
The 206 also had her stack capped in 1988. A stack is not capped if a loco has a "blown engine". That would mean that even if by then she didn't run she was at least serviceable. But a loco with a "massive prime mover failure", or a engine that "froze up" is not exactly what I would call "serviceable".
In addition the official account has her traded-in to GE in 1988. She was up in binghamton in 1989 still on NYSW property. So I believe many questions still go unanswered about #206 and I don't believe for one second that she's "dead".
So I see no one wishes to touch any of the thoughts in my previous post. I'm NOT putting out there some kind of weird theory. But please be honest... doesn't anyone else here see the inconsistencies in the story of #206. I see enough questions raised that it makes a good case that something is up. And there are other things involved too. Such as why the #206 was out in Pennslyvania in 1989?
I know she doesn't run now, but... I believe she is not beyond operation salvation.
I know she doesn't run now, but... I believe she is not beyond operation salvation.
chief wrote:Hi AIRMAN00
The plot thickens
Yes their are more holes in the story of #206 than swiss cheese. And I could be wrong about all this. But no one has come forward to address any of these inconsistencies.
airman00 wrote:I apologize for bringing this up again. However I've done alot of research and still question all that happened to the 206. As an example: The official account is that the 206 was retired in 1986. I know she was running in early 1987. The consensus is that she had her failure BEFORE 1987. So then that would mean she was running AFTER her "failure". Why is it nobody knows exactly when she failed? So I ask, when EXACTLY did she fail?While those who know all the details may be quiet, I can say that she was retired, stored serviceable, traded in, then brought back and ran around the system, altho the exact dates escape me. I was told it had a fire in one traction motor, which finally ended the back and forth and ended up in the Naporano scrap yard. They started scrapping it, and was pulled back by one of the groups for its historic value. When it came back the heads were off and the motors were now unusable. Also alot of the wiring was stripped. It ended up at PSE&G and sat there for over 10 years with the rest of the URHS projects. And since it has friction bearing trucks it is now not able to interchange to another railroad. The decision made by the NYSWTHS and MSHC was to try and obtain it and keep it preserved in Maywood, hoping that someday, someone would win the lottery or some kind benefactor would bestow us with the $100,000 or more it would take to get it running again. So if you have or know someone who has the spare cash, we would like to talk to you, and keep your dream alive for her rising from the static rail pile. Until then, the 206 will sit cosmetically preserved where people can appreciate it for what it was.
The 206 also had her stack capped in 1988. A stack is not capped if a loco has a "blown engine". That would mean that even if by then she didn't run she was at least serviceable. But a loco with a "massive prime mover failure", or a engine that "froze up" is not exactly what I would call "serviceable".
In addition the official account has her traded-in to GE in 1988. She was up in binghamton in 1989 still on NYSW property. So I believe many questions still go unanswered about #206 and I don't believe for one second that she's "dead".
Thank you! Now the picture is starting to get a bit more clearer. Your info may be the missing link. Anyone else out there who can shed more light on this? Now maybe she didn't have a crankshaft failure? In any event I'm surprised one traction motor was enough to do her in. 
Now the picture is starting to get a bit more clearer. Your info may be the missing link. Anyone else out there who can shed more light on this? Now maybe she didn't have a crankshaft failure? In any event I'm surprised one traction motor was enough to do her in. There is still more to this story like how exactly she ended up in a scrap yard. Something doesn't fit. I've tracked her all the way to June 1989. I don't see/find her again until 1991 when she is at the hoboken rail festival. Those 1 1/2 years are critical to what exactly happened because the story of 206 has now completely changed. I had a feeling she was still serviceable after 1988 and here in 1989 she was still running, something that nobody seemed to know.
Now I don't have alot of money at all, if I did she'd be running again. Still an engine that was worked on and freshly painted,
that went to being in a scrap yard in just 5/6 years all because one traction motor caught fire?? And with a prime mover that was still good??
Now I don't have alot of money at all, if I did she'd be running again. Still an engine that was worked on and freshly painted,
that went to being in a scrap yard in just 5/6 years all because one traction motor caught fire?? And with a prime mover that was still good??
Something else to consider... since the bergen/rockland chapter of the URHS was able to have her repainted, why wasn't the URHS given some chance to aquire her before she got to the scrap yard?
On a related note, why was she painted back into the single stripe scheme? I much like the original red/white scheme much better?
On a related note, why was she painted back into the single stripe scheme? I much like the original red/white scheme much better?
airman00 wrote: On a related note, why was she painted back into the single stripe scheme? I much like the original red/white scheme much better?The original colors were maroon and gray, not red & white. They were chosen by the head of the NYSW, Henry Norton, in the early 40's. The reason he chose them was they were the colors of Stevens Tech in Hoboken, of which he was an alumni.
As for the single strip scheme, since the original wide center stripe had already been done, it was decided to paint in the second scheme they used in the 50's, in silver and maroon.
Well I e-mailed someone from the URHS who never responded. (it's been like 3 weeks+) So if anyone else out there can help shed light on #206...
I have yet to find out how the #206 ended up at the scrap yard? I know she had a fire and that 1 traction motor apparently got burned out. The locomotive was otherwise relatively ok as the fire WAS NOT fatal. The prime mover was still in operating condition AFTER the fire, this I know. Now this idea that the #206 was being scrapped due to ONE traction motor problem simply because she had friction bearing trucks? I can't see that. I'll explain why. I understand that friction bearing trucks are not good anymore. And so as long as she still ran fine, no sense scrapping a perfectly good loco.
However... I can see how one burned out traction motor repair can also turn into having to replace the trucks and well while your at it, new wheels as well. Now THAT can turn into one major $$$ repair job. But as I understand it, the URHS and specifically the bergen/rockland chapter was instrumental in having her repainted. Why weren't they given like a "right of first refusal" before the #206 was scrapped? I would think they might have some kind of interest in her and would've followed her career so that when she got retired, they might approach the railroad to acquire her. Instead it's like this big rush to scrap her. I thought that Mr. Rich the owner of the railroad at the time was a bit of a railfan guy himself? I assume he'd love to see old #206 still go on.
I have yet to find out how the #206 ended up at the scrap yard? I know she had a fire and that 1 traction motor apparently got burned out. The locomotive was otherwise relatively ok as the fire WAS NOT fatal. The prime mover was still in operating condition AFTER the fire, this I know. Now this idea that the #206 was being scrapped due to ONE traction motor problem simply because she had friction bearing trucks? I can't see that. I'll explain why. I understand that friction bearing trucks are not good anymore. And so as long as she still ran fine, no sense scrapping a perfectly good loco.
However... I can see how one burned out traction motor repair can also turn into having to replace the trucks and well while your at it, new wheels as well. Now THAT can turn into one major $$$ repair job. But as I understand it, the URHS and specifically the bergen/rockland chapter was instrumental in having her repainted. Why weren't they given like a "right of first refusal" before the #206 was scrapped? I would think they might have some kind of interest in her and would've followed her career so that when she got retired, they might approach the railroad to acquire her. Instead it's like this big rush to scrap her. I thought that Mr. Rich the owner of the railroad at the time was a bit of a railfan guy himself? I assume he'd love to see old #206 still go on.