Why Doesn't The "Mallard" Still Run?

Any damage that was done during the 126 run was fixed afterwards. And remember Mallard was operating in the 80’s after a restoration but is also a national treasure  

Essentially it boils down to that too much of it would need replacing for an overhaul and with it being “Mallard;” the museum thought it best to just keep it static and spend the money on another locomotive. Also I believe the last boiler for this type was/is already being used on another locomotive so there wont be one to just swap out with, like the brits like to do. 

Its boiler is out of ticket and its due an overhaul and there others of the same class in stream

PRR 7002 is an interesting locomotive to bring up for another reason (Or at least the locomotive that currently wears this number). The locomotive previous operated on the Strasburg Railroad on a lease from the museum until it was discovered that the locomotive had firebox issues that would have required significant repairs and replacing portions of the firebox. There are two issues with this that can be credited for taking the locomotive out of service, 1) Strasburg railroad would have had to pay for a locomotive's overhaul and 2) such repairs would mean that significantly less of the original PRR locomotive would still be on the locomotive. Some people might argue in this situation that Strasburg would only be changing parts like the PRR would have done, the museum did not see it that way. Both the 1223 and the 7002 were taken out of service and returned to display at the museum, while a former Canadian National 0-6-0 locomotive Strasburg also found issues with would receive repairs and operate again. The real question is what do you want to preserve? The experience of riding behind a steam locomotive? Or a specific locomotive as it was when it was retired from regular service as complete as possible?

Both of these aspects likely apply to Mallard, to restore this engine it would require repairs that would alter the what still exists from the record breaking engine, and the museum does not own a place for the locomotive to stretch her legs, so another group would be footing the bill of an engine they do not own. Historic fabric is a hot topic in railway preservation, I hope this abridged summary made sense and helped.

Mallard still runs under her own steam (well, in my garden):

Regards

Fred

Why doesn’t every steam engine in Pennsylvania operate? Like at Strasburg (RRMoPA) and Steamtown? Money? Unwillingness to ruin historical fabric? Both organizations are government run, state and federal, and we all know how government works. But then a lot of private groups don’t have a lot of money either.

SGP posted:

PRR 7002 is an interesting locomotive to bring up for another reason (Or at least the locomotive that currently wears this number). The locomotive previous operated on the Strasburg Railroad on a lease from the museum until it was discovered that the locomotive had firebox issues that would have required significant repairs and replacing portions of the firebox. There are two issues with this that can be credited for taking the locomotive out of service, 1) Strasburg railroad would have had to pay for a locomotive's overhaul and 2) such repairs would mean that significantly less of the original PRR locomotive would still be on the locomotive. Some people might argue in this situation that Strasburg would only be changing parts like the PRR would have done, the museum did not see it that way. Both the 1223 and the 7002 were taken out of service and returned to display at the museum, while a former Canadian National 0-6-0 locomotive Strasburg also found issues with would receive repairs and operate again. The real question is what do you want to preserve? The experience of riding behind a steam locomotive? Or a specific locomotive as it was when it was retired from regular service as complete as possible?

Both of these aspects likely apply to Mallard, to restore this engine it would require repairs that would alter the what still exists from the record breaking engine, and the museum does not own a place for the locomotive to stretch her legs, so another group would be footing the bill of an engine they do not own. Historic fabric is a hot topic in railway preservation, I hope this abridged summary made sense and helped.

I certainly understand your point.  And your point cuts right to the heart of the miserable failure to restore PRR K4 #1361.

For me, I care less about the authentic, down-to-the-millimeter aspects of the firebox or boiler.  I am of the opinion (perhaps a purist will disabuse me of that belief) that modern safety requirements regarding boilers are achievable while retaining the cosmetic appearance of a Pennsy Belpaire firebox.

George

With regard to the damage that Mallard sustained on her record breaking run....

The locomotive utilizes Gresley conjugated 3 cylinder valve gear to drive the middle piston valve using motion derived from the outer two sets of Walchearts valve gear. In 1938, when the speed record was broken, the valve gear was known to have small timing issues that were accentuated as the locomotive traveled faster. These timing issues manifested themselves through excessive wear on the machinery that drove the middle crank axle. When Mallard broke the record, she came to a quick stop (the record was broken during braking trials). When the locomotive was inspected, the bearing metal on the big end of the middle main rod was found to have actually MELTED. The locomotive was quietly towed away to the nearest loco shed and was quickly fixed and returned to service. The valve timing issues with the Gresley gear were later smoothed out, although by that time, the newest 3 cylinder locomotives were being delivered to LNER with 3 separate sets of Walchearts gear, instead of the Gresley conjugated type. An example of this system can be found on the Tornado Locomotive, which recently achieved 101.6 MPH WITHOUT melting any of her bearings. And as far as I know, the Tornado didn't need any special repairs after her 100+mph run. 

And a note on why Mallard isn't running today...

The question you have to ask is why would the National Railway Museum in Britain want to restore Mallard? There are a total of 5 other A4 type locomotives in the world, 3 of which were operating as of a few years ago. Why risk damaging a truly historic artifact like Mallard when you can have her sister locomotives take on that risk, as small a risk it may be? A4 Class no. 4464 Bittern looks identical to Mallard, and was regularly run on the main line for main line for years before being withdrawn for overhaul. A4 no.60007 Sir Nigel Gresley is also under overhaul (and maybe nearing completion?) at the NRM. I have ridden behind no. 60007, just as good as Mallard. Sorry guys, but Mallard can't really be compared to 1361. 1361 is not government owned, and does not hold any speed records. 1361 has more of a mandate to Run than Mallard does. It's the only K4 that has any hope of being restored, because of the RRMoPA's policy regarding "historic fabric". I think it will run again, but not in the hands of the Altoona Museum. Anyway, 1361 doesn't really have anything to do with this. Mallard may run again, but I don't think there's any real reason to restore her. Hope I could contribute meaningfully to this post. Happy Halloween all you spooky ferroequinologists!

Robert K posted:

Why doesn’t every steam engine in Pennsylvania operate? Like at Strasburg (RRMoPA) and Steamtown? Money? Unwillingness to ruin historical fabric? Both organizations are government run, state and federal, and we all know how government works. But then a lot of private groups don’t have a lot of money either.

Yes. MONEY!

That's what steam locomotives burn.

As far as "historical fabric" goes, ANY operating steam locomotive has to comply with today's regulations, not ones from the 1940's or whenever the locomotive was removed from service.  So therefore changes must be made to the locomotive to comply.

Rusty

SGP posted:

...such repairs would mean that significantly less of the original PRR locomotive would still be on the locomotive...

I will NEVER understand this so-called "preservation" mentality by the ivory-tower museum types. It makes absolutely no sense.

You cannot return an historic locomotive to service without replacing worn out parts and/or material. And what do you replace them with? NEW parts and material, of course! Either new parts freshly made from new steel or parts swapped from another, similar locomotive.

If the NKP 765 crew had this same attitude, the locomotive would still be parked under the pigeons in Lawton Park in Fort Wayne. 

OGR Webmaster posted:

I will NEVER understand this so-called "preservation" mentality by the ivory-tower museum types. It makes absolutely no sense.

 

Ditto.  What needs to be "preserved" is the public's interest in steam, and the best way to do that is to get these puppies up and running so people can experience them.  Would I travel all the way to wherever to see the Mallard on display?  No way.  Would I make a special trip to see one running?  Possibly.  Would I make a special trip to photo one running at night?  Probably!

Kent in SD

OGR Webmaster posted:

SGP posted:

...such repairs would mean that significantly less of the original PRR locomotive would still be on the locomotive...

I will NEVER understand this so-called "preservation" mentality by the ivory-tower museum types. It makes absolutely no sense.

You cannot return an historic locomotive to service without replacing worn out parts and/or material. And what do you replace them with? NEW parts and material, of course! Either new parts freshly made from new steel or parts swapped from another, similar locomotive.

If the NKP 765 crew had this same attitude, the locomotive would still be parked under the pigeons in Lawton Park in Fort Wayne. 

To add to Rich's on spot post, the crew of  SP 4449, and specifically Doyle McCormack, has/have been taken to task many, many, many times by the "professional preservationists" because the engine truck, trailing truck, and both tender trucks were up-graded to roller bearings.  Oh the sacrilege!!!!!!! 

I can even remember that back in 1981, when 4449 was returned to her post war red, orange and black paint & styling, for the grand opening of the California State Railroad Museum in Sacramento, quite a few of the experts" told us that the red and orange were "all wrong". The funny part about it was, an elderly gentleman from the SP Sacramento Locomotive Works Laboratory, had visited us a few days earlier while we were cleaning 4449 in preparation for entering the Museum. He had the ORIGINAL color cards, which had been kept in triple sealed black envelops since 1949. Upon comparing the ORIGINAL color cards to the red and the orange, the "elder gentleman" positively that we, and Dupont, had matched the famous SP red, orange and black PERFECTLY!!!!!  So much for the "expert railfans/modelers"!

Bandomnjr posted:

With regard to the damage that Mallard sustained on her record breaking run....

The locomotive utilizes Gresley conjugated 3 cylinder valve gear to drive the middle piston valve using motion derived from the outer two sets of Walchearts valve gear. In 1938, when the speed record was broken, the valve gear was known to have small timing issues that were accentuated as the locomotive traveled faster. These timing issues manifested themselves through excessive wear on the machinery that drove the middle crank axle. When Mallard broke the record, she came to a quick stop (the record was broken during braking trials). When the locomotive was inspected, the bearing metal on the big end of the middle main rod was found to have actually MELTED. The locomotive was quietly towed away to the nearest loco shed and was quickly fixed and returned to service. The valve timing issues with the Gresley gear were later smoothed out, although by that time, the newest 3 cylinder locomotives were being delivered to LNER with 3 separate sets of Walchearts gear, instead of the Gresley conjugated type. An example of this system can be found on the Tornado Locomotive, which recently achieved 101.6 MPH WITHOUT melting any of her bearings. And as far as I know, the Tornado didn't need any special repairs after her 100+mph run. 

And a note on why Mallard isn't running today...

The question you have to ask is why would the National Railway Museum in Britain want to restore Mallard? There are a total of 5 other A4 type locomotives in the world, 3 of which were operating as of a few years ago. Why risk damaging a truly historic artifact like Mallard when you can have her sister locomotives take on that risk, as small a risk it may be? A4 Class no. 4464 Bittern looks identical to Mallard, and was regularly run on the main line for main line for years before being withdrawn for overhaul. A4 no.60007 Sir Nigel Gresley is also under overhaul (and maybe nearing completion?) at the NRM. I have ridden behind no. 60007, just as good as Mallard. Sorry guys, but Mallard can't really be compared to 1361. 1361 is not government owned, and does not hold any speed records. 1361 has more of a mandate to Run than Mallard does. It's the only K4 that has any hope of being restored, because of the RRMoPA's policy regarding "historic fabric". I think it will run again, but not in the hands of the Altoona Museum. Anyway, 1361 doesn't really have anything to do with this. Mallard may run again, but I don't think there's any real reason to restore her. Hope I could contribute meaningfully to this post. Happy Halloween all you spooky ferroequinologists!

 

I would like to add that the focus of NRM  in recent has been getting A3 Class #4472 Flying Scotsman back in service. Mallard may be the all-time record-breaker but Flying Scotsman has that much more notoriety! With 3 A4s already in service, it makes much more sense to get the only A3 up and running.

Mallard was operated briefly in the 1980's before being sidelined.

OGR Webmaster posted:

SGP posted:

...such repairs would mean that significantly less of the original PRR locomotive would still be on the locomotive...

I will NEVER understand this so-called "preservation" mentality by the ivory-tower museum types. It makes absolutely no sense.

You cannot return an historic locomotive to service without replacing worn out parts and/or material. And what do you replace them with? NEW parts and material, of course! Either new parts freshly made from new steel or parts swapped from another, similar locomotive.

If the NKP 765 crew had this same attitude, the locomotive would still be parked under the pigeons in Lawton Park in Fort Wayne. 

You hit the nail right on the head Rich. I'm hopeful that when a new generation takes over the RR Museum of PA that either the 1223 or 7002 make their way back over across the street. 

Again, hopeful......

PennsyPride94 posted:

You hit the nail right on the head Rich. I'm hopeful that when a new generation takes over the RR Museum of PA that either the 1223 or 7002 make their way back over across the street. 

Again, hopeful......

But why would Strasburg want them? They have a large enough fleet for their operation and depending on how quickly funding is gathered they will add LIRR 39 to their roster.

Well, just opinion here, but there really should be one running K4, one D6, and one E-whatever 7002 is, plus a B6sb.  They are all classy locomotives with Pennsylvania connections, unlike the Canadian 0-6-0.

I am with Rich.  When we restore classic aircraft, we use new wood when it makes sense, and we always use Dacron fabric instead of the historically correct cotton.

I wouldn't go out of my way to see a rusty, beat-up steamer preserved with all original steel.  Give me a shiny restoration that runs any time.

Remember the doubleheaded excursions with #1223 and #7002 to Harrisburg and Philly in 1985 and 1986 with the steel open window coaches? Will never happen again because both locomotives are parked forever, the mainline railroads like Amtrak are more strict as to what equipment they allow on their tracks, and the steel coaches at Strasburg RR were sold off at the end of the 1980’s. Those were truly once in a lifetime trips. I didn’t ride any of them, but I went to Strasburg and stayed at the Red Caboose Motel in 1981, 1985, and 1986 I think. Not sure about 1982-1984. I must have been there at least 3-4 times in the early 1980’s. I went to the other railroad attractions as well, the museum of PA, Choo Choo Barn, Toy Train Museum, and went to Dutch Wonderland in 1985 I think. Oh, I got to see #1223 and #7002 in action. Not sure if I rode behind them. I did ride behind #31 and #90.

hullmat991 posted:

PennsyPride94 posted:

You hit the nail right on the head Rich. I'm hopeful that when a new generation takes over the RR Museum of PA that either the 1223 or 7002 make their way back over across the street. 

Again, hopeful......

But why would Strasburg want them? They have a large enough fleet for their operation and depending on how quickly funding is gathered they will add LIRR 39 to their roster.

Well, particularly in the case of the 1223 and not so much the 7002, the 1223 fits the SRC well in terms of her size and the train she can pull. 

In the end though its all speculation really. The likelihood of the 39 returning is as likely as the 1223 or 7002 being lent from the museum again, frankly. Last I checked the 39 still needs over 600,000 to start the restoration. 

I think HW came up with this for the AFT, but I would bet many Ivory Tower types had a cow over the MU control box on 4449.

PennsyPride94 posted:

hullmat991 posted:

PennsyPride94 posted:

You hit the nail right on the head Rich. I'm hopeful that when a new generation takes over the RR Museum of PA that either the 1223 or 7002 make their way back over across the street. 

Again, hopeful......

But why would Strasburg want them? They have a large enough fleet for their operation and depending on how quickly funding is gathered they will add LIRR 39 to their roster.

Well, particularly in the case of the 1223 and not so much the 7002, the 1223 fits the SRC well in terms of her size and the train she can pull. 

In the end though its all speculation really. The likelihood of the 39 returning is as likely as the 1223 or 7002 being lent from the museum again, frankly. Last I checked the 39 still needs over 600,000 to start the restoration. 

I would argue otherwise, Strasburg railroad trains have grown longer since the 7002 and 1223 were taken out of service. In the summer Strasburg's 2-10-0 number 90 would handle the hourly train and the 1223 or 7002 would take the shorter train running every half hour.  Lately it seems both trains can be comparable in length.

I greatly apologize for having shifted the topic of this conversation by mentioning the example of the Strasburg locomotives. If either locomotive ran tomorrow it would be the only operational PRR passenger locomotive and for that reason it would be a huge draw beyond the interest people have in them in particular. The same cannot be said for Mallard, not only  are there other LNER passenger locomotives operational but other operational A4 locomotives. And if someone really wanted to get a picture of an operational "Mallard" one could change the number and name plate on one of the operational A4 locomotives as has been done previously so that long since scraped locomotives can be represented.

SGP posted:

PennsyPride94 posted:

hullmat991 posted:

PennsyPride94 posted:

You hit the nail right on the head Rich. I'm hopeful that when a new generation takes over the RR Museum of PA that either the 1223 or 7002 make their way back over across the street. 

Again, hopeful......

But why would Strasburg want them? They have a large enough fleet for their operation and depending on how quickly funding is gathered they will add LIRR 39 to their roster.

Well, particularly in the case of the 1223 and not so much the 7002, the 1223 fits the SRC well in terms of her size and the train she can pull. 

In the end though its all speculation really. The likelihood of the 39 returning is as likely as the 1223 or 7002 being lent from the museum again, frankly. Last I checked the 39 still needs over 600,000 to start the restoration. 

I would argue otherwise, Strasburg railroad trains have grown longer since the 7002 and 1223 were taken out of service. In the summer Strasburg's 2-10-0 number 90 would handle the hourly train and the 1223 or 7002 would take the shorter train running every half hour.  Lately it seems both trains can be comparable in length.

I greatly apologize for having shifted the topic of this conversation by mentioning the example of the Strasburg locomotives. If either locomotive ran tomorrow it would be the only operational PRR passenger locomotive and for that reason it would be a huge draw beyond the interest people have in them in particular. The same cannot be said for Mallard, not only  are there other LNER passenger locomotives operational but other operational A4 locomotives. And if someone really wanted to get a picture of an operational "Mallard" one could change the number and name plate on one of the operational A4 locomotives as has been done previously so that long since scraped locomotives can be represented.

In the UK, they've sometimes done a nameplate switch or other cosmetic things to resemble another locomotive that was scrapped or for another paint scheme (like they've done with the Coronation-class LMS engines, or repainting an A4 to look like the original Silver Jubilee locos).

As for Strasburg, they really don't need another engine for the trains they run.  They have a rotation with 90, 475 and 89 at least, as needed.  1223 and 7002 are owned by the Museum, and when it got to the point where too many parts would be new and violate their status as being as close to original as possible, they were taken out of service and returned to the Museum.