Railfan.net Home Railfan Photos ABPR Archives Staff Safari Photos Railfan Links

Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please Sign In or Register. Aug 20th, 2017, 12:09am
Categories •  FastIndex •  LongIndex •  Help •  Search •  Members  •  Sign In •  Register


Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
   Railfan.net Web Forums
   Tourist Railroads and Museums
   Steamtown
(Moderators: NKP759fan, strasburg90)
   Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2 3  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint
   Author  Topic: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039  (Read 1950 times)
mikes47jeep
Enthusiast
Posts: 46
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #20 on: Dec 20th, 2006, 10:19pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Jul 31st, 2006, 3:22pm, 3254Fan wrote:       (Click here for original message)
It has been mentioned several times on this board that NO locomotive will be restored next. 3713 will take forever to complete, and when it is complete, it is doubtful mainline excursions will still be going on. 790 will not be restored next! Nothing will!

 
 
never say never, money talks, if enough interest is shown and a financial backer shows up almost ANY locomotive in the collection is a possible restoration candidate if enough people want it bad enough


Logged
565fan
Historian
Posts: 1029
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #21 on: Dec 24th, 2009, 3:27pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify


Merry Christmas, National Park Service!


Logged

www.project3713.com

Max Hamberger
Railfan
Posts: 167
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #22 on: Dec 31st, 2009, 12:00am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Her steam chest is also cracked, sadly beyond repair   Shame really, I'd love to see her pound the rails up the grade to Moscow and beyond

Logged

Best,
Maxwell Hamberger
Montana State University
School of Film & Photography
Class of 2015
mikes47jeep
Enthusiast
Posts: 46
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #23 on: Dec 31st, 2009, 8:30pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

its only a chunk of metal, if you get enough money you can have anything rebuilt, repaired, or replaced

Logged
Max Hamberger
Railfan
Posts: 167
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #24 on: Jan 3rd, 2010, 10:55am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Good luck getting it for them  

Logged

Best,
Maxwell Hamberger
Montana State University
School of Film & Photography
Class of 2015
restore_RV15
Railfan
View Profile  

Posts: 178
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #25 on: Jan 26th, 2010, 7:11pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Jul 31st, 2006, 12:47pm, Alek77 wrote:       (Click here for original message)
Restoring #6039 would indeed be nice because it does look like a fast pace locomotive for the fans, but restoration of #3713 and possibly #759 (I hope not) is getting in the way of Steamtowns plans. More fans would appreciate an American Locomotive, and GTW #6039 looks like a Canadian engine and would not benefit. Since #2124 cannot be restored to operationable condition because the turntable would not fit it, it gives Steamtown even more of a chance to restore this particular engine. IC #790 will probably be next in line, and #6039 should be after that. Since #790 and #6039 are among my favorites in the collection, I would like to see this happen. #6039 is probably not too heavy for the Scranton to Pocono Summit trackage, Steamtown can really make some very interesting operations if they put their back into restoring more than one engine at a time.Since the #6039 has bad cylinder castings, we could donate money to Steamtown to help fix the cylinders.This engine is exactly the kind of modem, heavy-duty, main line motive power that should become the primary focus of the Steamtown collection. NPS should commission a report to document the use and physical history of the locomotive.If it can be restored to run, it should be so restored for interpretive use and special excursions; if it cannot be restored mechanically, it should be restored cosmetically to serve as a static exhibit engine in the roundhouse.Although ostensibly in good condition, this engine reportedly has bad cylinder castings, which means that its restoration for operation may not be fiscally within reason, although enough money will buy any type of repair. As with many locomotives in the collection, this engine had its drive rods removed for the move from Bellows Falls to Scranton, and those need to be reinstalled.Locomotive No. 6039 is one of about 17 Grand Trunk Western Railroad engines that have survived in the United States, of which 10 are 0-8-0 switch engines, so that No. 6039 is one of only seven Grand Trunk Western road engines, and the only 4-8-2 of the railroad to survive. No. 6039 is the only 4-8-2 Mountain-type engine in the Steamtown collection, and one of only 14 "Mountains" preserved in the United States, six of which were engines of the St. Louis and San Francisco Railway.
 
-Alek

 
You took the last half of that from the NPS special history study on steamtown


Logged
restore_RV15
Railfan
View Profile  

Posts: 178
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #26 on: Jan 26th, 2010, 7:15pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Where is this coming from that by the time these engines are restored they wont be able to run?  The only thing that could conceivably stop them is the Lackawanna Cutoff being restored and since thats a 550 million dollar project thats been attempting to start for years now, I highly doubt it will be happening anytime soon.

Logged
bigjim4life
Historian
Posts: 349
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #27 on: Jan 26th, 2010, 9:36pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Jan 26th, 2010, 7:15pm, restore_RV15 wrote:       (Click here for original message)
Where is this coming from that by the time these engines are restored they wont be able to run?  The only thing that could conceivably stop them is the Lackawanna Cutoff being restored and since thats a 550 million dollar project thats been attempting to start for years now, I highly doubt it will be happening anytime soon.

 
Why would having the Cutoff be restored have anything to do with Steamtown restoring this engine for excursion use?


Logged
Espee9180
Historian
Posts: 633
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #28 on: Jan 28th, 2010, 7:45pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Jan 26th, 2010, 9:36pm, bigjim4life wrote:       (Click here for original message)

 
Why would having the Cutoff be restored have anything to do with Steamtown restoring this engine for excursion use?

 
Cloudy/weak connection in that if the cutoff would be restored, then NJT and or Amtrak would run trains over to Scranton thus stopping Steamtown excursions to Moscow, Tobyhanna, Del. Water Gap. Think I have it right. Anyhoo....
 
Glad the engines in the parking area are being looked at and painted.  


« Last Edit: Jan 28th, 2010, 7:47pm by Espee9180 » Logged
SR4501
Historian
Posts: 544
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #29 on: Jan 29th, 2010, 8:47am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Jan 28th, 2010, 7:45pm, Espee9180 wrote:       (Click here for original message)

 
Cloudy/weak connection in that if the cutoff would be restored, then NJT and or Amtrak would run trains over to Scranton thus stopping Steamtown excursions to Moscow, Tobyhanna, Del. Water Gap. Think I have it right. Anyhoo....

 
Espee9180 brought up a good point. Now here is a question (or 2)Currently when Steam engines operate over the line, who pays who and who is the insured? Now.. lets say the cut-off is restored and NJT does go to Scranton. Who pays who? My point is if NJT were to operate  to Scranton, would they have  trackage rights or full ownership? If it is trackage rights, then Steamtown can still run their trains under the current owner of the line. IF NJT owns it outright, then that could bring up an insurance issue. Either way, the cut-off is a long long way off. I do believe Steamtown should have "Steam" and they should do alot of stuff (let's not get me started) but if it happens that they can't, then we make do, wish them the best, and then maybe its back to 80's "Dieseltown". LOL!


Logged

http://www.rvcmr.org

"I am the thoroughbred of steam- Born to run- Born to be free- Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do!"
The_Former_Fireman
Railfan
Posts: 123
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #30 on: Jan 29th, 2010, 9:47am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Two things...
 
As others have said, enough time and money could get anything repaired.  SP 786 has had a new cylinder/saddle set made.  A few years ago M&H 91 had a crack replaced by a "stitching" method and was able to keep the cylinder saddle intact.
 
Who knows what the future will bring with the cutoff, but that's a long long time away.  I'll be retired from the railroad before it happens.  I have 20 years still to go.  Yesterday the president announced 8 billion dollars for rail passenger service projects and the cutoff was not amongst them.  With this pro-passenger administration and a VP who once lived in Scranton, if the cuttoff isn't funded now or in the near future, it never will be.
 
Dave Crosby


Logged
565fan
Historian
Posts: 1029
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #31 on: Jun 7th, 2010, 11:12am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify


The asbestos removal project at Steamtown is coming along very quickly.  Today, GTW 6039 and Reading 2124 are being moved to the East end of the shop, so the clean up can continue.  
The last week or so, the gaps in the boiler jacketing was sealed, and on Friday, Nickel Plate 514 moved them a bit so the track area under the two can be cleaned up.

Coupling up to 6039, and rocking her back and forth to loosen up the bearings and brakes.

Then picking up 2124.

Pulling 6039 through the traffic circle

And her final positioning, at least for the weekend.  


Logged

www.project3713.com

restore_RV15
Railfan
View Profile  

Posts: 178
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #32 on: Jun 7th, 2010, 11:01pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

If thats where shes sitting for the time being, how did they get 2124 to the back of the shop?

Logged
565fan
Historian
Posts: 1029
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #33 on: Jun 8th, 2010, 4:41pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I must have written wrong. All the photos were taken on Friday, whereas the "today" I mentioned was Monday, when I did not take pictures. Both locomotives were moved, but not to the shop until Monday. Or at least that was the plan.


Logged

www.project3713.com

restore_RV15
Railfan
View Profile  

Posts: 178
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #34 on: Jun 8th, 2010, 7:55pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Ah I see.  awesome pictures either way.  I'm mad I couldn't get up there, but I got sucked into working saturday morning.

Logged
Ollie
Historian
View Profile   WWW  

Posts: 916
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #35 on: Jun 8th, 2010, 11:38pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

wow!
 
anyone know when the 6039 and 2124 wer last moved?


Logged


montclaire
Railfan
View Profile  

Posts: 140
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #36 on: May 25th, 2011, 3:02pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I could be wrong, but I don't think they've gotten to her yet.  She's still in the back shop area and dirty as ever.

Logged
restore_RV15
Railfan
View Profile  

Posts: 178
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #37 on: May 26th, 2011, 6:17pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I believe all the engines were abated but only 759 is completely finished (I use complete lightly since she hasnt been painted yet).  I heard that Steamtown was waiting for the warmer weather to finish them up.

Logged
restore_RV15
Railfan
View Profile  

Posts: 178
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #38 on: May 26th, 2011, 6:31pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Jan 29th, 2010, 8:47am, SR4501 wrote:       (Click here for original message)

 
Espee9180 brought up a good point. Now here is a question (or 2)Currently when Steam engines operate over the line, who pays who and who is the insured? Now.. lets say the cut-off is restored and NJT does go to Scranton. Who pays who? My point is if NJT were to operate  to Scranton, would they have  trackage rights or full ownership? If it is trackage rights, then Steamtown can still run their trains under the current owner of the line. IF NJT owns it outright, then that could bring up an insurance issue. Either way, the cut-off is a long long way off. I do believe Steamtown should have "Steam" and they should do alot of stuff (let's not get me started) but if it happens that they can't, then we make do, wish them the best, and then maybe its back to 80's "Dieseltown". LOL!

 
 
Jersey Transit owns the actual Cut-off from Hoboken to Slateford.  Pennsylvania Northeast Region Rail Authority owns the rest of the line from Slateford to Scranton (and if we're talking the original route of the Phoebe Snow, CP owns everything north of Scranton).  If the DL is still the designated operator of the Pocono mainline when the Cut-off is finished, I imagine they would do any freight hauling along the line, whereas it is known that Jersey Transit will be the designated passenger operator.  If you can believe Donald Pevsner (guy who wrote A Failed Mission: Steamtown (http://www.concorde-spirit-tours.com/steamtown.htm)), Jersey Transit is ok with steam on their lines.  I made the comment that Steamtown won't be able to do trips anymore once the Cut-off is finished because the plan is to have 9 eastbound and 9 westbound trains per day, so I just don't see where Steamtown is going to get a timeslot to do runs (which is why i also feel at least one of those eastbound and westbound trains should be steam powered).  But, as you said, the Cut-off is a long way off.


Logged
montclaire
Railfan
View Profile  

Posts: 140
Re: Engine Disscusion: GTW #6039
 
« Reply #39 on: May 27th, 2011, 10:17am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Well, if they ever do lose permission to use the ROW, that's a big nail in their coffin.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 3  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint

« Previous topic | Next topic »