N.W. 611 without a home???

good question...looking forward to some answers...

I think the reason why VTM hasn't built their facilities yet is because of the new requirement for mainline steam to install PTC. I heard through the rumor mill the main reason why 611 went up to Strasburg this summer was to raise funds to install PTC. People from 765, 611, and all of the other big steam programs are watching 4014 closely this summer to see how well PTC works in steam locomotives.

I would be inclined to believe that installing the proper equipment to be able to do excursions, and make the most amount of money, takes precedent over building shops in Roanoke especially since they have an agreement with the North Carolina Museum of Transportation.

@superwarp1 posted:

Or should I say an orphaned child? 611 is in Strasburg for the summer, spent lot of time in 2019 in Strasburg.  Spends the winters in Spencer, North Carolina.  Occasionally spends time at its home base in Norfolk.  Now the Virginia  Museum of transportation spent a lot of money restoring 611 and it's never there.   My question is this.

Wasn't the Virginia Museum of Transportation supposed to build a workshop/home for 611 at one time?

I won't pretend that I know the details about 611's situation, however from an operational standpoint, there is nowhere for it to run at VMT.

Given that they did put in a lot of money to get it running, they want to run it so that they get (some) return on that money. Strasburg and NCMT provide places for it to be run and maintained.

This is an over-simplification of the situation, but I believe it covers the "why".

I don't have any information as to what VMT is planning but I expect Prr7688 is right. Also, if I remember right didn't NS say that in order to run excursions on its track, Amtrak would have to be involved? Since Scott Smith spends so much time at VMT perhaps he's heard something.

Now to really speculate, the State of Virginia bought (with stimulus money) 38 miles of the former Virginian mainline from Roanoke to Merrimac, Va (between Christiansburg and Blacksburg) from NS in order to extend Amtrak service from Roanoke into the New River Valley. I'm guessing the state wanted to link the new high tech university campuses being set up in Northern Virginia with Va Tech in Blacksburg. As far as I can tell Amtrak would pretty much be the only user of that line unless the state contracts it to a short line railroad to try to develop business on it. Seems to me it would be a great use of this trackage to run excursions over it. However, VMT would have to aquire some passenger cars and there are no turning facilities at Merrimac.

Anyhow, its fun to speculate.

Ken

She looks really good in Strasburg

The VMT only owns two passenger cars. I believe that the NRHS in Roanoke has at least one more. Norfolk Southern will not let us operate on the NS mainline and that leaves us landlocked. The VMT hasn't raised enough funds to build the service facility. Add to that the City of Roanoke purchased the parking lot in front of the museum and plans on turning it into the city bus depot, eliminating the parking necessary to have large scale events. It's in ugly situation with covid causing additional staff layoffs. In addition the VMT has lost numerous museum directors over the last two years.

Scott Smith

@scott.smith posted:

The VMT only owns two passenger cars. I believe that the NRHS in Roanoke has at least one more. Norfolk Southern will not let us operate on the NS mainline and that leaves us landlocked. The VMT hasn't raised enough funds to build the service facility. Add to that the City of Roanoke purchased the parking lot in front of the museum and plans on turning it into the city bus depot, eliminating the parking necessary to have large scale events. It's in ugly situation with covid causing additional staff layoffs. In addition the VMT has lost numerous museum directors over the last two years.

Scott Smith

Well that sums it up.  I can see them moving or even failing due to these events Scott mentioned.  Not a good situation

I wish they had her more near the public at Strasburg than near the loco shops.

The 611 if the NS would allow , could be towed behind any PTC equipped loco.

I really don’t know why they wouldn’t , unless there’s an insurance issue maybe ?

If they have room on the Strasbourg grounds , it seems it would be in good hands to stay there until PTC could be included in the 611’s budget.

These systems are not cheap .

As a newcomer to this discussion, what does "PTC" stand for?  thanks, John

@Seafarer posted:

As a newcomer to this discussion, what does "PTC" stand for?  thanks, John

https://railroads.dot.gov/trai...ve-train-control-ptc

NS moved its HQ from Norfolk to Atlanta, Roanoke presence vastly reduced when they combined shops in Pennsylvania, 611 has not been in Norfolk in years (remember the Dismal Swamp derailment/track problem)… no trips east of Petersburg.

Virginia doesn’t exactly appear to be a hotbed of major financial support which is obviously needed.

Sounds like 611 might have two homes now??, ….I visit the North Carolina Transportation Museum quite often, and seems like I’m always bumping into 611….then off to Strasburg it goes,…..maybe 611 will become a migratory bird,…perhaps spending peak times at Strasburg, and stored/used at the NCTM when the real winter hits up north?…doesn’t sound like a bad possibility…..no??..

Pat

I’m pretty sure when they started the restoration, they envisioned main line excursions, like 765, and not being towed around by NS locomotives.  Spencer has, maybe, 1/2 mile of track to move the locomotive back and forth while Strasburg has a couple of miles along with steam locomotive facilities.  Strasburg has one other big advantage over Spencer, a lot more tourists to ride behind her.  That equals more cash.  I’m sure that has a lot to do with it.  I don’t live far from Spencer and I have seen 611  closeup but cold.  As you can see from the picture, there were no crowds around, just my wife taking the picture and another couple.

@mackb4 posted:

The 611 if the NS would allow , could be towed behind any PTC equipped loco.

The reason why diesels are attached behind steam excursions is for dynamic braking, not PTC. If 611 were to want to lead a mainline excursion it needs PTC. The reason for PTC so if the engine runs a red signal, it stops automatically. No diesel locomotive has enough power to stop the Big Boy, hence why there needed to be PTC in the cab of 4014.

Amtrak, and I am sure other railroads run into this problem, where the PTC computer system in the lead engine breaks down and they need to switch lead locomotives. A PTC control system needs to be located physically in the cab of the locomotive in order to lead.

Here is an article UP published about PTC in 4014.

@RJ I posted:

The reason why diesels are attached behind steam excursions is for dynamic braking, not PTC. If 611 were to want to lead a mainline excursion it needs PTC. The reason for PTC so if the engine runs a red signal, it stops automatically. No diesel locomotive has enough power to stop the Big Boy, hence why there needed to be PTC in the cab of 4014.

Amtrak, and I am sure other railroads run into this problem, where the PTC computer system in the lead engine breaks down and they need to switch lead locomotives. A PTC control system needs to be located physically in the cab of the locomotive in order to lead.

Here is an article UP published about PTC in 4014.

I fully understand how PTC operates since I use it as an Engineer for the NS on the Kenova District of the aaahhh hate to say , Blue Ridge Division . Still Pocahontas to me .

But my reference is what they could do to shuttle the 611 back and forth  on the mainline until they do install the system .

The NS told us in a company memo,each loco they had to add PTC to was around $80,000 , and that’s per loco to be up and operational.

@mackb4 posted:

The 611 if the NS would allow , could be towed behind any PTC equipped loco.

@RJ I posted:

The reason why diesels are attached behind steam excursions is for dynamic braking, not PTC. If 611 were to want to lead a mainline excursion it needs PTC. The reason for PTC so if the engine runs a red signal, it stops automatically. No diesel locomotive has enough power to stop the Big Boy, hence why there needed to be PTC in the cab of 4014.

Amtrak, and I am sure other railroads run into this problem, where the PTC computer system in the lead engine breaks down and they need to switch lead locomotives. A PTC control system needs to be located physically in the cab of the locomotive in order to lead.

Here is an article UP published about PTC in 4014.

R.J.,

@mackb4 said 611 placed behind the diesels, not in front of them, i.e. not leading the train.

Mike

Hope this doesn’t go too off topic

Since the topic of Steam PTC has been brought up is there a list of requirements  for steam locomotives. It might’ve been wishful thinking but I figured steam locomotives were going to get a pass on PTC. I would be very interested to learn how PTC is being implemented into steam locomotives. I understand PTC is a very complex and expensive system to install. I know it can give the engineer penalties for not obeying track speed limits but in the extreme scenario where the PTC system dumps the air, puts the train into emergency and shuts the throttle down. I find it very difficult to even think of a way to allow it to do that to a extremely expensive steam locomotive. That is what currently has be scratching my head.

I know 4014’s implementation of PTC is very minimal from what I see. The locomotive basically has a screen that duplicates the screen in the diesel following behind. This so far makes since, the PTC screen has a lot of useful information that it can display for the engineer. And all the brains of the operation are kept back in the diesel as they take up a lot of room are very expensive and I doubt they’d fair well in the cab of a steam locomotive.

maybe I misunderstood something but I hope to see everyone else’s thoughts on this.

@zhubl posted:

Hope this doesn’t go too off topic

Since the topic of Steam PTC has been brought up is there a list of requirements  for steam locomotives. It might’ve been wishful thinking but I figured steam locomotives were going to get a pass on PTC.

Absolutely NOT! Neither the FRA nor the railroads would allow that.

I would be very interested to learn how PTC is being implemented into steam locomotives. I understand PTC is a very complex and expensive system to install. I know it can give the engineer penalties for not obeying track speed limits but in the extreme scenario where the PTC system dumps the air, puts the train into emergency and shuts the throttle down.

The FRA eliminated the requirement to "shut the throttle down" on steam locomotives, after a number of meetings with some of the "big steam" operators. Once the FRA folks understood that closing the throttle on a moving steam locomotive eliminates all lubrication to the valves and cylinders, they subsequently back off that feature in PTC.

I find it very difficult to even think of a way to allow it to do that to a extremely expensive steam locomotive. That is what currently has be scratching my head.

I know 4014’s implementation of PTC is very minimal from what I see. The locomotive basically has a screen that duplicates the screen in the diesel following behind. This so far makes since, the PTC screen has a lot of useful information that it can display for the engineer. And all the brains of the operation are kept back in the diesel as they take up a lot of room are very expensive and I doubt they’d fair well in the cab of a steam locomotive.

Well, time will tell, as the next step is to have all the PTC equipment, including the antennas, mounted completely on the 4014, and/or any other steam locomotives.

maybe I misunderstood something but I hope to see everyone else’s thoughts on this.