Rock Island 938 Restoration Candidate???

[MQT1223]

As most may know Rock Island #938 at IRM has been undergoing some much needed cosmetic work at IRM these past few months. IRM just posted an update on their website and included in the work being done on #938 is removal of the boiler tubes and superheaters for a boiler inspection. Now I know that they have their hands full, but why inspect #938 when you got #1630 and three other steamers being rebuilt/restored? I don't think IRM could handle the workload of five locomotives. Size is not a question, as a pacific is not far off from a decapod. I know members of IRM have expressed interest in her before because of all the Rock Island passenger cars that they have with her. I think 938 is a little big for IRM, but then again I have no idea on her condition. I would love to see a Rock Island locomotive in steam again as would many others. Would IRM move aside one of the other steam locomotives such as the Mogul they are working on and instead restore #938? IRM is accepting donations to the "Rock Island 938 Fund". Not trying to spread rumors or anything, just want some opinions or thoughts from other people. Anybody from IRM willing to chime in on here?

[Bulby]

As most may know Rock Island #938 at IRM has been undergoing some much needed cosmetic work at IRM these past few months. IRM just posted an update on their website and included in the work being done on #938 is removal of the boiler tubes and superheaters for a boiler inspection. Now I know that they have their hands full, but why inspect #938 when you got #1630 and three other steamers being rebuilt/restored? I don't think IRM could handle the workload of five locomotives. Size is not a question, as a pacific is not far off from a decapod. I know members of IRM have expressed interest in her before because of all the Rock Island passenger cars that they have with her. I think 938 is a little big for IRM, but then again I have no idea on her condition. I would love to see a Rock Island locomotive in steam again as would many others. Would IRM move aside one of the other steam locomotives such as the Mogul they are working on and instead restore #938? IRM is accepting donations to the "Rock Island 938 Fund". Not trying to spread rumors or anything, just want some opinions or thoughts from other people. Anybody from IRM willing to chime in on here?

As I said on the Michigan thread, 938 needs a lot of work. Which Mogul are you saying the steam shop is working on? The one out back?

The current shop priorities are as follows: 1630 inspection/repairs as needed; getting J. Neils #5 restored, rebuilding its trucks, replacing a few staybolts, smokebox repairs, and then flues; the 428's boiler is good, just need to get the running gear in order: badly wasted axle boxes are the big problem.

Besides this, the dept. is responsible for maintaining it's machine tools, like the planner and the wheel lathe.

After 1630, 5, and 428; who knows what is next: if 938 has the money in the locomotive's restricted fund, it will be first in line. If not, it won't.

As a preliminary (based on several cursory visual inspections and conversations with steam team members), 938 needs a new tender body, running gear rebuild, air brake overhaul, the obvious retubing, unknown firebox repairs, and it may need new parts fabricated to replace ones missing when IRM acquired the locomotive.

[MQT1223]

As most may know Rock Island #938 at IRM has been undergoing some much needed cosmetic work at IRM these past few months. IRM just posted an update on their website and included in the work being done on #938 is removal of the boiler tubes and superheaters for a boiler inspection. Now I know that they have their hands full, but why inspect #938 when you got #1630 and three other steamers being rebuilt/restored? I don't think IRM could handle the workload of five locomotives. Size is not a question, as a pacific is not far off from a decapod. I know members of IRM have expressed interest in her before because of all the Rock Island passenger cars that they have with her. I think 938 is a little big for IRM, but then again I have no idea on her condition. I would love to see a Rock Island locomotive in steam again as would many others. Would IRM move aside one of the other steam locomotives such as the Mogul they are working on and instead restore #938? IRM is accepting donations to the "Rock Island 938 Fund". Not trying to spread rumors or anything, just want some opinions or thoughts from other people. Anybody from IRM willing to chime in on here?

As I said on the Michigan thread, 938 needs a lot of work. Which Mogul are you saying the steam shop is working on? The one out back?

The current shop priorities are as follows: 1630 inspection/repairs as needed; getting J. Neils #5 restored, rebuilding its trucks, replacing a few staybolts, smokebox repairs, and then flues; the 428's boiler is good, just need to get the running gear in order: badly wasted axle boxes are the big problem.

Besides this, the dept. is responsible for maintaining it's machine tools, like the planner and the wheel lathe.

After 1630, 5, and 428; who knows what is next: if 938 has the money in the locomotive's restricted fund, it will be first in line. If not, it won't.

As a preliminary (based on several cursory visual inspections and conversations with steam team members), 938 needs a new tender body, running gear rebuild, air brake overhaul, the obvious retubing, unknown firebox repairs, and it may need new parts fabricated to replace ones missing when IRM acquired the locomotive.

I don't remember what Mogul that is under restoration. It was found to have a sound boiler but the firebox was bad. Look on IRM's website in the steam section I don't remember exactly what locomotive it is. Some shortline.

[ns8401]

Graysonia, Nashville & Ashdown R.R. Co. 26 (2-6-0), this was found to have a sound boiler in 1998 according to the site, the UP steamer is the priority so they haven't done much with this one.

[Bulby]

As most may know Rock Island #938 at IRM has been undergoing some much needed cosmetic work at IRM these past few months. IRM just posted an update on their website and included in the work being done on #938 is removal of the boiler tubes and superheaters for a boiler inspection. Now I know that they have their hands full, but why inspect #938 when you got #1630 and three other steamers being rebuilt/restored? I don't think IRM could handle the workload of five locomotives. Size is not a question, as a pacific is not far off from a decapod. I know members of IRM have expressed interest in her before because of all the Rock Island passenger cars that they have with her. I think 938 is a little big for IRM, but then again I have no idea on her condition. I would love to see a Rock Island locomotive in steam again as would many others. Would IRM move aside one of the other steam locomotives such as the Mogul they are working on and instead restore #938? IRM is accepting donations to the "Rock Island 938 Fund". Not trying to spread rumors or anything, just want some opinions or thoughts from other people. Anybody from IRM willing to chime in on here?

As I said on the Michigan thread, 938 needs a lot of work. Which Mogul are you saying the steam shop is working on? The one out back?

The current shop priorities are as follows: 1630 inspection/repairs as needed; getting J. Neils #5 restored, rebuilding its trucks, replacing a few staybolts, smokebox repairs, and then flues; the 428's boiler is good, just need to get the running gear in order: badly wasted axle boxes are the big problem.

Besides this, the dept. is responsible for maintaining it's machine tools, like the planner and the wheel lathe.

After 1630, 5, and 428; who knows what is next: if 938 has the money in the locomotive's restricted fund, it will be first in line. If not, it won't.

As a preliminary (based on several cursory visual inspections and conversations with steam team members), 938 needs a new tender body, running gear rebuild, air brake overhaul, the obvious retubing, unknown firebox repairs, and it may need new parts fabricated to replace ones missing when IRM acquired the locomotive.

I don't remember what Mogul that is under restoration. It was found to have a sound boiler but the firebox was bad. Look on IRM's website in the steam section I don't remember exactly what locomotive it is. Some shortline.

Yep, you're talking about the one that is stuck behind the steam shop since 428 is immobile, ditto the shay. To say it (GN&A 26) is currently under restoration is a gigantic stretch. I have yet to see anybody working on it, and I drive by it to get in and out of the museum. It may get worked on once 428 and the shay are mobile; but it is not currently an official project. With the exception of the blog; the IRM website is hideously out of date.

[MQT1223]

Graysonia, Nashville & Ashdown R.R. Co. 26 (2-6-0), this was found to have a sound boiler in 1998 according to the site, the UP steamer is the priority so they haven't done much with this one.

Yeah that one. I can't wait to see 428 emerge from her restoration, and the shay. I haven't seen a geared locomotive up close, much less in operation. The IRM has such a eclectic mix of steam locomotives. It's too bad that with the good relationship that they have with UP that no mainline operations can happen. Plenty of big power at IRM too.

[Bulby]

Graysonia, Nashville & Ashdown R.R. Co. 26 (2-6-0), this was found to have a sound boiler in 1998 according to the site, the UP steamer is the priority so they haven't done much with this one.

Yeah that one. I can't wait to see 428 emerge from her restoration, and the shay. I haven't seen a geared locomotive up close, much less in operation. The IRM has such a eclectic mix of steam locomotives. It's too bad that with the good relationship that they have with UP that no mainline operations can happen. Plenty of big power at IRM too.

5 should be done within a few years, then 428 a few years after that. That is from multiple friends of mine that are "boiler rats" down in steam land. No definite plans beyond that, but 26 and 938 are the likely candidates for another restoration project. Pulling the tubes on the 938 is purely speculative at this point.

UP doesn't allow foreign steam. No amount of begging, pleading, or writing to your congressman will do much about it. Even if the UP changed it's mind tomorrow and did allow it, the only currently operable steam locomotive on the property (1630) can't run anywhere else, and can't even leave IRM on it's own wheels.

[MP73point4]

Graysonia, Nashville & Ashdown R.R. Co. 26 (2-6-0), this was found to have a sound boiler in 1998 according to the site, the UP steamer is the priority so they haven't done much with this one.

Yeah that one. I can't wait to see 428 emerge from her restoration, and the shay. I haven't seen a geared locomotive up close, much less in operation. The IRM has such a eclectic mix of steam locomotives. It's too bad that with the good relationship that they have with UP that no mainline operations can happen. Plenty of big power at IRM too.

To see a working Shay geared locomotive closer to home that IRM, try the Hesston Steam Museum in Hesston, IN. You will be able to see it up close. It doesn't run every weekend so check the website for the schedule. It is barely across the border off I-94 east of Michigan City out in the middle of nowhere.
http://www.hesston.org/

[MQT1223]

Graysonia, Nashville & Ashdown R.R. Co. 26 (2-6-0), this was found to have a sound boiler in 1998 according to the site, the UP steamer is the priority so they haven't done much with this one.

Yeah that one. I can't wait to see 428 emerge from her restoration, and the shay. I haven't seen a geared locomotive up close, much less in operation. The IRM has such a eclectic mix of steam locomotives. It's too bad that with the good relationship that they have with UP that no mainline operations can happen. Plenty of big power at IRM too.

To see a working Shay geared locomotive closer to home that IRM, try the Hesston Steam Museum in Hesston, IN. You will be able to see it up close. It doesn't run every weekend so check the website for the schedule. It is barely across the border off I-94 east of Michigan City out in the middle of nowhere.
http://www.hesston.org/

There is also the SC&S with the Heisler down in Illinois. I think that is the closest operational Heisler.

[MQT1223]

Graysonia, Nashville & Ashdown R.R. Co. 26 (2-6-0), this was found to have a sound boiler in 1998 according to the site, the UP steamer is the priority so they haven't done much with this one.

Yeah that one. I can't wait to see 428 emerge from her restoration, and the shay. I haven't seen a geared locomotive up close, much less in operation. The IRM has such a eclectic mix of steam locomotives. It's too bad that with the good relationship that they have with UP that no mainline operations can happen. Plenty of big power at IRM too.

5 should be done within a few years, then 428 a few years after that. That is from multiple friends of mine that are "boiler rats" down in steam land. No definite plans beyond that, but 26 and 938 are the likely candidates for another restoration project. Pulling the tubes on the 938 is purely speculative at this point.

UP doesn't allow foreign steam. No amount of begging, pleading, or writing to your congressman will do much about it. Even if the UP changed it's mind tomorrow and did allow it, the only currently operable steam locomotive on the property (1630) can't run anywhere else, and can't even leave IRM on it's own wheels.

Hasn't IRM operated other locomotives in the past that no longer run? The only one I can think of is that Tuskegee locomotive. Besides what is being run now what other steamers could make good restoration candidates for the type of operation IRM runs? I will say this, I think the two Tank Locomotives are out of the question due to small size. That IC 2-4-4 is included with the tank locomotives. But then again, 126 has ran well at IRM. Anything longer or larger then 1630 should be too big as well, so definitely the Kanawha and three Northerns are out of the picture. Definitely the Y as well. SP 975 is too long and the Tuskegee locomotive was put away for a reason. So that leaves (locomotives not under restoration) three switchers (0-4-0, 0-6-0 and 0-8-0), one Mogul, one Ten Wheeler, one American, two Consolidations, a Pacific, a Hudson and a Mikado. If I remember the CB&Q Hudson is a good restoration candidate also and there was a movement to raise funds for it that died off. Just seeing what you think. I know that the Steam team has their handful but nothing says you can't talk about the "What If's".

[Bulby]

5 should be done within a few years, then 428 a few years after that. That is from multiple friends of mine that are "boiler rats" down in steam land. No definite plans beyond that, but 26 and 938 are the likely candidates for another restoration project. Pulling the tubes on the 938 is purely speculative at this point.

UP doesn't allow foreign steam. No amount of begging, pleading, or writing to your congressman will do much about it. Even if the UP changed it's mind tomorrow and did allow it, the only currently operable steam locomotive on the property (1630) can't run anywhere else, and can't even leave IRM on it's own wheels.

Hasn't IRM operated other locomotives in the past that no longer run? The only one I can think of is that Tuskegee locomotive. Besides what is being run now what other steamers could make good restoration candidates for the type of operation IRM runs? I will say this, I think the two Tank Locomotives are out of the question due to small size. That IC 2-4-4 is included with the tank locomotives. But then again, 126 has ran well at IRM. Anything longer or larger then 1630 should be too big as well, so definitely the Kanawha and three Northerns are out of the picture. Definitely the Y as well. SP 975 is too long and the Tuskegee locomotive was put away for a reason. So that leaves (locomotives not under restoration) three switchers (0-4-0, 0-6-0 and 0-8-0), one Mogul, one Ten Wheeler, one American, two Consolidations, a Pacific, a Hudson and a Mikado. If I remember the CB&Q Hudson is a good restoration candidate also and there was a movement to raise funds for it that died off. Just seeing what you think. I know that the Steam team has their handful but nothing says you can't talk about the "What If's".

Note: I am not a long time IRM volunteer; what I know of the museum's past is based on photographs, stories, and faded memories.

Other locomotives IRM has run include Tuskegee 101, Com Ed 5, and there may have been one or two more.

My personal opinion for a idea locomotive for IRM is something with 6 or 8 drivers, and a pilot and trailing truck. It also needs to be able to achieve 30 mph (or thereabouts) on the mainline. The Shay and (visiting) 126 did much shorter runs since they can't keep up with the flow of traffic. I'm partial to the 2-6-2, 4-6-2, and 2-8-2 wheel arrangements for IRM's operation. Less rigid wheelbase, good ability to take curves (both forward and in reverse), and able to get up and go; that's what IRM needs. The 2-8-2 at IRM is really to big going off of published tractive effort. That really only leaves the 101 and 938 as "ideal". However, if you include L&A 99, IC 3719, and GN&A 26 which all lack trailing trucks; you do have a fair pool of candidates. The CB&Q Hudson is too big for IRM's operation (unfortunately) as is LS&I 35.

Several of the boiler rats from steam land have said that the 4-4-0 from the Henry Ford is in great shape, and might be a simple as a tube job, new firegrates, renew a few bearings, and light her off. For the time being, this will not happen. Even if she is close to operating, she is a rare bird, looks good on display, and is small enough that you are looking at more frequent component failure (a very, very, very bad thing).

Remember, choosing the right locomotive is a balancing act. You want an overpowered (for the job) locomotive to reduce the wear and tear and component failure that comes with running a locomotive close to capacity. On the other hand, the locomotive needs to have enough power to get up and go with as many as 11 cars, and when running the lighter trains, you don't want to have to run a very thin fire like the 1630 does. It's much harder on the fireman. If the locomotive is a coal burner, a stoker is a good idea. You also need an locomotive that doesn't have to stop and take on coal or water midway through the day.

[MQT1223]

5 should be done within a few years, then 428 a few years after that. That is from multiple friends of mine that are "boiler rats" down in steam land. No definite plans beyond that, but 26 and 938 are the likely candidates for another restoration project. Pulling the tubes on the 938 is purely speculative at this point.

UP doesn't allow foreign steam. No amount of begging, pleading, or writing to your congressman will do much about it. Even if the UP changed it's mind tomorrow and did allow it, the only currently operable steam locomotive on the property (1630) can't run anywhere else, and can't even leave IRM on it's own wheels.

Hasn't IRM operated other locomotives in the past that no longer run? The only one I can think of is that Tuskegee locomotive. Besides what is being run now what other steamers could make good restoration candidates for the type of operation IRM runs? I will say this, I think the two Tank Locomotives are out of the question due to small size. That IC 2-4-4 is included with the tank locomotives. But then again, 126 has ran well at IRM. Anything longer or larger then 1630 should be too big as well, so definitely the Kanawha and three Northerns are out of the picture. Definitely the Y as well. SP 975 is too long and the Tuskegee locomotive was put away for a reason. So that leaves (locomotives not under restoration) three switchers (0-4-0, 0-6-0 and 0-8-0), one Mogul, one Ten Wheeler, one American, two Consolidations, a Pacific, a Hudson and a Mikado. If I remember the CB&Q Hudson is a good restoration candidate also and there was a movement to raise funds for it that died off. Just seeing what you think. I know that the Steam team has their handful but nothing says you can't talk about the "What If's".

Note: I am not a long time IRM volunteer; what I know of the museum's past is based on photographs, stories, and faded memories.

Other locomotives IRM has run include Tuskegee 101, Com Ed 5, and there may have been one or two more.

My personal opinion for a idea locomotive for IRM is something with 6 or 8 drivers, and a pilot and trailing truck. It also needs to be able to achieve 30 mph (or thereabouts) on the mainline. The Shay and (visiting) 126 did much shorter runs since they can't keep up with the flow of traffic. I'm partial to the 2-6-2, 4-6-2, and 2-8-2 wheel arrangements for IRM's operation. Less rigid wheelbase, good ability to take curves (both forward and in reverse), and able to get up and go; that's what IRM needs. The 2-8-2 at IRM is really to big going off of published tractive effort. That really only leaves the 101 and 938 as "ideal". However, if you include L&A 99, IC 3719, and GN&A 26 which all lack trailing trucks; you do have a fair pool of candidates. The CB&Q Hudson is too big for IRM's operation (unfortunately) as is LS&I 35.

Several of the boiler rats from steam land have said that the 4-4-0 from the Henry Ford is in great shape, and might be a simple as a tube job, new firegrates, renew a few bearings, and light her off. For the time being, this will not happen. Even if she is close to operating, she is a rare bird, looks good on display, and is small enough that you are looking at more frequent component failure (a very, very, very bad thing).

Remember, choosing the right locomotive is a balancing act. You want an overpowered (for the job) locomotive to reduce the wear and tear and component failure that comes with running a locomotive close to capacity. On the other hand, the locomotive needs to have enough power to get up and go with as many as 11 cars, and when running the lighter trains, you don't want to have to run a very thin fire like the 1630 does. It's much harder on the fireman. If the locomotive is a coal burner, a stoker is a good idea. You also need an locomotive that doesn't have to stop and take on coal or water midway through the day.

Another vintage 4-4-0 would be nice. For the kind of running that IRM does I think the 4-4-0 would be alright. Why was the Tuskegee locomotive and Com Ed #5 put away? Are they rough? If the Shay can't do much why run it? Is it because its a totally different bird compared to a traditional rod locomotive? It almost would seem like its in the same situation as 4-4-0 #16. She is the only one in the collection and a rare bird yet it operates. Plus its not like the IRM track can only handle the shay because of condition. IRM's track is like a red carpet for #5, smooth and straight, which is not what the Shay's were intended to operate on.

[Bulby]

Remember, choosing the right locomotive is a balancing act. You want an overpowered (for the job) locomotive to reduce the wear and tear and component failure that comes with running a locomotive close to capacity. On the other hand, the locomotive needs to have enough power to get up and go with as many as 11 cars, and when running the lighter trains, you don't want to have to run a very thin fire like the 1630 does. It's much harder on the fireman. If the locomotive is a coal burner, a stoker is a good idea. You also need an locomotive that doesn't have to stop and take on coal or water midway through the day.

Another vintage 4-4-0 would be nice. For the kind of running that IRM does I think the 4-4-0 would be alright. Why was the Tuskegee locomotive and Com Ed #5 put away? Are they rough? If the Shay can't do much why run it? Is it because its a totally different bird compared to a traditional rod locomotive? It almost would seem like its in the same situation as 4-4-0 #16. She is the only one in the collection and a rare bird yet it operates. Plus its not like the IRM track can only handle the shay because of condition. IRM's track is like a red carpet for #5, smooth and straight, which is not what the Shay's were intended to operate on.

My educated guess would be that 101 and Com Ed 5 were put away because they needed firebox work, something that IRM doesn't like doing. The other possibility is they needed running gear work on the rear driver boxes to correct wear from running in reverse so much with no trailing truck.

The shay is unique, and while it can't run out on the main, it has uses, and can do what 126 did when it came to the museum. Um...keep thinking IRM's track is a red carpet. The shay is a locomotive that runs more because we want it to run than because it is a good fit, as I recall it was also the first operating steam locomotive on the property. I wouldn't compare the 16 and the shay like you do, the shay is not a locomotive that suffers a lot of component failure with the size trains IRM runs. The 16 would; and it would need the inevitable rear driver work from running in reverse half the time with no trailing truck.

[MQT1223]

Remember, choosing the right locomotive is a balancing act. You want an overpowered (for the job) locomotive to reduce the wear and tear and component failure that comes with running a locomotive close to capacity. On the other hand, the locomotive needs to have enough power to get up and go with as many as 11 cars, and when running the lighter trains, you don't want to have to run a very thin fire like the 1630 does. It's much harder on the fireman. If the locomotive is a coal burner, a stoker is a good idea. You also need an locomotive that doesn't have to stop and take on coal or water midway through the day.

Another vintage 4-4-0 would be nice. For the kind of running that IRM does I think the 4-4-0 would be alright. Why was the Tuskegee locomotive and Com Ed #5 put away? Are they rough? If the Shay can't do much why run it? Is it because its a totally different bird compared to a traditional rod locomotive? It almost would seem like its in the same situation as 4-4-0 #16. She is the only one in the collection and a rare bird yet it operates. Plus its not like the IRM track can only handle the shay because of condition. IRM's track is like a red carpet for #5, smooth and straight, which is not what the Shay's were intended to operate on.

My educated guess would be that 101 and Com Ed 5 were put away because they needed firebox work, something that IRM doesn't like doing. The other possibility is they needed running gear work on the rear driver boxes to correct wear from running in reverse so much with no trailing truck.

The shay is unique, and while it can't run out on the main, it has uses, and can do what 126 did when it came to the museum. Um...keep thinking IRM's track is a red carpet. The shay is a locomotive that runs more because we want it to run than because it is a good fit, as I recall it was also the first operating steam locomotive on the property. I wouldn't compare the 16 and the shay like you do, the shay is not a locomotive that suffers a lot of component failure with the size trains IRM runs. The 16 would; and it would need the inevitable rear driver work from running in reverse half the time with no trailing truck.

So then how has 1630 gone 40 years in service for IRM (After just being down for 10)?

[MQT1223]

Remember, choosing the right locomotive is a balancing act. You want an overpowered (for the job) locomotive to reduce the wear and tear and component failure that comes with running a locomotive close to capacity. On the other hand, the locomotive needs to have enough power to get up and go with as many as 11 cars, and when running the lighter trains, you don't want to have to run a very thin fire like the 1630 does. It's much harder on the fireman. If the locomotive is a coal burner, a stoker is a good idea. You also need an locomotive that doesn't have to stop and take on coal or water midway through the day.

Another vintage 4-4-0 would be nice. For the kind of running that IRM does I think the 4-4-0 would be alright. Why was the Tuskegee locomotive and Com Ed #5 put away? Are they rough? If the Shay can't do much why run it? Is it because its a totally different bird compared to a traditional rod locomotive? It almost would seem like its in the same situation as 4-4-0 #16. She is the only one in the collection and a rare bird yet it operates. Plus its not like the IRM track can only handle the shay because of condition. IRM's track is like a red carpet for #5, smooth and straight, which is not what the Shay's were intended to operate on.

My educated guess would be that 101 and Com Ed 5 were put away because they needed firebox work, something that IRM doesn't like doing. The other possibility is they needed running gear work on the rear driver boxes to correct wear from running in reverse so much with no trailing truck.

The shay is unique, and while it can't run out on the main, it has uses, and can do what 126 did when it came to the museum. Um...keep thinking IRM's track is a red carpet. The shay is a locomotive that runs more because we want it to run than because it is a good fit, as I recall it was also the first operating steam locomotive on the property. I wouldn't compare the 16 and the shay like you do, the shay is not a locomotive that suffers a lot of component failure with the size trains IRM runs. The 16 would; and it would need the inevitable rear driver work from running in reverse half the time with no trailing truck.

Oh, the Tuskegee locomotive is a 2-6-2 Prairie type, so it should've had no issues with driver bearings. What's with IRM and fireboxes?

[MQT1223]

Graysonia, Nashville & Ashdown R.R. Co. 26 (2-6-0), this was found to have a sound boiler in 1998 according to the site, the UP steamer is the priority so they haven't done much with this one.

Yeah that one. I can't wait to see 428 emerge from her restoration, and the shay. I haven't seen a geared locomotive up close, much less in operation. The IRM has such a eclectic mix of steam locomotives. It's too bad that with the good relationship that they have with UP that no mainline operations can happen. Plenty of big power at IRM too.

To see a working Shay geared locomotive closer to home that IRM, try the Hesston Steam Museum in Hesston, IN. You will be able to see it up close. It doesn't run every weekend so check the website for the schedule. It is barely across the border off I-94 east of Michigan City out in the middle of nowhere.
http://www.hesston.org/

How often does it operate? Are their any sure fire days that it always operates on?

[Bulby]

My educated guess would be that 101 and Com Ed 5 were put away because they needed firebox work, something that IRM doesn't like doing. The other possibility is they needed running gear work on the rear driver boxes to correct wear from running in reverse so much with no trailing truck.

The shay is unique, and while it can't run out on the main, it has uses, and can do what 126 did when it came to the museum. Um...keep thinking IRM's track is a red carpet. The shay is a locomotive that runs more because we want it to run than because it is a good fit, as I recall it was also the first operating steam locomotive on the property. I wouldn't compare the 16 and the shay like you do, the shay is not a locomotive that suffers a lot of component failure with the size trains IRM runs. The 16 would; and it would need the inevitable rear driver work from running in reverse half the time with no trailing truck.

Oh, the Tuskegee locomotive is a 2-6-2 Prairie type, so it should've had no issues with driver bearings. What's with IRM and fireboxes?

Fire boxes are just hard (and expensive) to work on. Staybolts aren't cheap and if you have to change a sheet you have to change all the stays for that sheet. Plus you have the time expended and the volunteer hours that could have been spent elsewhere.

True, the 101 I think has firebox issues, might be something with the burner or firebox sheets; remember, an oil burner is more intense and damaging to firebox sheets.

In answer to your other question, 1630 was down for 10 years for, among other things, extensive repairs to the rear driver's axle boxes. Excessive lateral motion (among other issues with that wheelset), all due to years of running in reverse half the time.

[MQT1223]

My educated guess would be that 101 and Com Ed 5 were put away because they needed firebox work, something that IRM doesn't like doing. The other possibility is they needed running gear work on the rear driver boxes to correct wear from running in reverse so much with no trailing truck.

The shay is unique, and while it can't run out on the main, it has uses, and can do what 126 did when it came to the museum. Um...keep thinking IRM's track is a red carpet. The shay is a locomotive that runs more because we want it to run than because it is a good fit, as I recall it was also the first operating steam locomotive on the property. I wouldn't compare the 16 and the shay like you do, the shay is not a locomotive that suffers a lot of component failure with the size trains IRM runs. The 16 would; and it would need the inevitable rear driver work from running in reverse half the time with no trailing truck.

Oh, the Tuskegee locomotive is a 2-6-2 Prairie type, so it should've had no issues with driver bearings. What's with IRM and fireboxes?

Fire boxes are just hard (and expensive) to work on. Staybolts aren't cheap and if you have to change a sheet you have to change all the stays for that sheet. Plus you have the time expended and the volunteer hours that could have been spent elsewhere.

True, the 101 I think has firebox issues, might be something with the burner or firebox sheets; remember, an oil burner is more intense and damaging to firebox sheets.

In answer to your other question, 1630 was down for 10 years for, among other things, extensive repairs to the rear driver's axle boxes. Excessive lateral motion (among other issues with that wheelset), all due to years of running in reverse half the time.

Well IRM should be able to replace the firebox. The SRI guys just gave 1225 an entirely new firebox during the last rebuild and that is a large firebox compared to 101's; but oil burners do present their own set of challenges. I didn't know 101 was an oil burner anyway so that can justify things.

[Bulby]

As a further update to this thread:

938 is due to be switched back outside next weekend, if it hasn't moved already. 1630 will go in to the shop for the winter as soon as the 938 is out.

While the boiler survey is not in my hands, the 938 is still not a candidate for operational restoration. Based on what is known, it would take at least as long as the 428 has.

Once the shay and the 428 are done, the big push will hopefully be to fund the firebox work on the 26. This of course assumes that 428 and the shay are done before 1630 goes down for a re-tube.

Both the 101 and the CE 5 need extensive work, basically, when they ran at IRM before, they were spit-and-bailing wire restorations, and both locomotives are totally worn out.

[MQT1223]

As a further update to this thread:

938 is due to be switched back outside next weekend, if it hasn't moved already. 1630 will go in to the shop for the winter as soon as the 938 is out.

While the boiler survey is not in my hands, the 938 is still not a candidate for operational restoration. Based on what is known, it would take at least as long as the 428 has.

Once the shay and the 428 are done, the big push will hopefully be to fund the firebox work on the 26. This of course assumes that 428 and the shay are done before 1630 goes down for a re-tube.

Both the 101 and the CE 5 need extensive work, basically, when they ran at IRM before, they were spit-and-bailing wire restorations, and both locomotives are totally worn out.

There is not another locomotive that IRM could possibly restore if they ever had the chance? What about that ICRR 2-4-4 or the saddle tankers? There is that Lehigh and New England 0-6-0 too, just to name a few.