It is interesting to see both the milk cars together. I had been wondering if the steam department would use the IC car. The Railway Express reefer from the FTA would also look good on a heavyweight passenger train.
Yes. We are looking at what it would take to rig it like the existing one to use as a water back up for #1630. It currently lacks the connections.
Nigel
Nigel, I know the auxiliary water tender for Frisco 1522 was for sale a year or two ago. I don't remember if it was sold, or is still for sale. I know we have these two cars, but could the tender be a viable option as well?
Jeron,
I do not think this is something we would seriously consider. The IC car is already part of the collection. It did run on passenger trains and, if it can easily be modified as a water carrier would be a better looking item to include in the train.
We do not need additional capacity to the extent of buying another tender (unless it were a possible substitute for the existing tender).
Nigel
I don't see any stripping on the tender..will that be repainted too?
Also, I'm not sure how relevant this is to the discussion, but does 1630 have modern cab signalling?
And finally, there should be a discussion board on this site...
John,
We are not intending to repaint the tender end and sides.
No #1630 does not carry cab signaling. (She left Frisco service long before it came into use on the main lines and neither Eagle Pitcher nor the museum have any use for such equipment). Her unusual wheels (due to conversion from Russian gauge) would preclude any significant mainline work today.
The blog is a part of the IRM website and subject to moderation by the museum. There are third party sites that host open discussion forums so I do not believe there would be any advantage to the museum hosting another one.
Nigel
yes, i remember one of the guys in the steam shop telling me that the size of 1630's wheels make it difficult to navigate the modern railway. but if there were an off campus steam, (to gain national attention), which would be the best bet? i understand you have your hands full with painting 1630, restoring 428, repairing shay 5, and funds to start on GNA 26, but which would you go for if you had to choose? my choice is CBQ 3007. your turn.
Yep. IF there were ever to be incentive or funding to put one of the larger items of the steam collection into operation, my personal favorite would be 3007. She is potentially in fairly good condition, is big enough for excursion service and does not duplicate anything else operating.
However, short of someone coming up with a comprehensive proposal including massive funding commitment, it is difficult to see this happening. Such a locomotive would be a very expensive toy on the demonstration line while creating and operating an offsite excursion operation would be a major activity well outside the scope of the museum.
Nigel
3007 would be primarily for outside excursions with help from LOTS of volunteers, funds, and class 1 support. lets pretend Iowa Interstate decides to lease CRIP 938 to promote both its company, and the museum. if they say that they will restore it for you (Which will most likely never happen), they could modernize it to class railroad specs. and when the engine comes home, it can operate on the demo line without getting grey hair. in other words, killing two birds with one stone. ;-) though this may not work the same way for 3007, but its an efficient process, though its only a theory.
I would love to see the 3007 in steam! But a lass Nigel is right. But it does not hurt to dream big. Maybe in the future, once the museum has secured its future. Then maybe an offsite excursion operation could be looked at.
I Know that it is a little rough around the edges, but if it were possible wouldn't IRYM 6323A serve a better purpose than the milk cars as it was at some point a water tender in the past. Just curious to see if it could happen in the future.
Think this was a decision a long time back that still makes sense. The milk cars were built for express service and often ran in passenger trains. Aside from a bit of work on the connections to link the water to the locomotive, they are pretty much suitable as is.
A tender requires quite a lot of modification, is a lot heavier and it looks a bit odd to have two tenders in the consist.
Nigel