2-10-0 SLSF 1630

2-10-0 SLSF 1630 in operation at the Illinois Railway Museum during the summer of 2004.

 

I found this one today.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=306763&nseq=72

When I was there in 1984 it was being working on and I have not seen it run.

Steve

 

Within the last few years I have read that Illinois Railway Museum (IRM) has been working of Frisco 1630 and recently have been just adding finishing touches to her.

I got my copy of Historic Trains Today in the mail last week and I was reading it. Starting on page 19 is a list of steam engines that are going to run in 2010. I was slowly reading seeing a lot of familiar engine names and numbers then I flipped the page to page 20 and looked under Illinois and there she was. Frisco 1630 is listed under engines to operate in 2010!

I wonder if she will leave IRM's trackage and do a bit of excursion work on BNSF?

I would love to see that Decapod come south on the A&M to Van Buren, AR. Maybe it will be possible now. As far as I know this is the only Frisco steam engine running, but some others are underway. It would be really cool to have a Frisco double-header. One can wish.

Dose anyone else on here know of the plans of where to operate the SLSF 1630?

Ship it on the Frisco!

Murphy Jenkins

 

Murphy,

The Federal Railroad Administration in the last few years has adopted very specific inspection and testing requirements for steam locomotives that will operate on common carrier railroads regulated by the FRA.

The certificate issued when everything has passed is good for a fixed number of operating days and once those have been used up, reinspection and testing is required. This tends to make restoration and continued operation very expensive if you want to operate on a regulated railroad.

I do not know, though I will try to find out, but I strongly suspect that SLSF 1630 is being overhauled to meet state boiler inspection requirements, but not to meet FRA requirements. Seeing it in Van Buren, AR would be nice indeed, but would only be possible if it were FRA-certified.

Fort Smith, AR was home to a single 1600 class locomotive, SLSF 1626. But she was an oil-burner and looked somewhat different by not having the air pump mounted on the pilot beam. My recollection is that SLSF 1626 exclusively worked coal off the Mansfield Branch because of the light rail found there.

She replaced the 4-6-0s, SLSF 630 and SLSF 709, that were both Fort Smith, AR engines that had formerly worked the branch.

Gordon

 

Thanks for the information Mr. Mott.

It is always cool to learn about the equipment that used to run around my hometown. I had figured that SLSF 1630 would be restricted to IRM's line. It would just be cool to see it tour as did SLSF 1522.

One reason I would like to see it on the A&M is it is local and they already have passenger cars. They are a Class III so it should not be as hard getting steam on there. Just getting SLSF 1630 from IRM to Arkansas would be fun to watch. Still dreaming here. It just would be cool to have one Frisco engine running though.

My dream would be to see Frisco 4003 run, but I do not have a million to spend fixing her up.

Thanks again.

Ship it on the Frisco!

Murphy Jenkins

 

Don

That is an interesting observation about the self-guarding frogs and one about which I had not given any thought.

Now I have to do a little digging and try to determine when it looks like self-guarding frogs came into general use in yards and terminals.

Anyone know off-hand?

Yes, IRM does have a nice operation and a very impressive collection, both transit and "steam railroad".

Incidentally, I asked one of their board members recently whether they had completed their work on SLSF 1630. He said no, that they had run into some problems that, while fairly minor, had delayed completion.

He was not sure whether it would actually operate this season or not.

Gordon

 

With regards to the SLSF 1630 model from Bachmann, it is correct except for the air compressor witch is mounted on the side, not the front of it.

I wish either they change the locomotive number or the position of the air compressor.

So do you agree or disagree?

 

There has been a flurry of activity on the yahoo IRM group on SLSF 1630.

Some of it has been useful. While I think that they are working on her and others, there are just to get something in steam running.

From what I read, if there is a steam up in 2010, it will not be this summer.

Steve

 

Gordon,

Just noticed your question regarding self guarded frogs, I will try my best to explain it.

As far as I know they are a relatively new feature and probably not something you would find on the Frisco. The main spotting feature is that they have no guard rails on either side of the frog, those short rails running parallel to the stock and diverging rails.

The frog itself is a large casting, typically magnesium, that has for lack of a better description, a curb cast on top of the frog above the rail plain. This curb runs parallel to both routes, setting on the outside edges of the frog. This guard catches the outside face of the wheel rather than restricting the flange as on a normal frog.

I wish I had a photograph of one, however the only place I have ever seen them in use was in a new rail yard in McAlester OK. I will see if I can find some kind of photograph.

Hope this sheds some light on the subject, I will see if I can find some kind of photograph.

Brad

 

Self -guarded frogs seem to have appeared during the post-war 1940s.

I do not see anything in the literature before then.

They seem to be the be the descendant of "easer" rails, which were placed on the frog wing rails to help wheels that have developed a false outside flange pass through without problem.

See attached illustration from Trautwine's The Civil Engineer's Pocketbook, 1919

 

I know that self-guarding frogs have been in wide-spread use since at least the late 1960s,.

I have to assume that the SLSF employed them pretty much the same as everyone else. But they would seem not to have been used in the early 1950s at the end of steam. I never recall seeing any restriction in timetable Special Instructions that prohibited movement of 1600s over them.

So the questions that are unlikely ever to be answered are these.

1) Did the SLSF consciously refrain from using self-guarding frogs until after the end of steam because of the issue with 1600s?

2) Was it just serendipitous that the SLSF did not have the urge to start using self-guarding frogs until after the 1600s were gone?

3) Were they actually in at least limited use in the areas where 1600s were assigned and limits on their movements were handled locally or even verbally?

I doubt seriously if we will ever know.

Gordon

 

Gordon,

The Frisco Standard Plans for Roadway Track and Structures book does not include self-guarded frogs.

It would appear that if the Frisco used them, the application was limited to ad hoc situations or the application was tried early, and then discontinued.

 

If you would like to see what they are up to with SLSF 1630, here you go.

http://irmsteamteam.com/

Steve

 

Learn something new everyday.

I assumed self guarded frogs where a recent invention.

As far as manganese, that was what I meant not what I wrote!

Brad

 

Karl,

When was your Trackwork Standard Plans book dated?

This has me curious as I know that self-guarding frogs were commonplace in the industry by the time I started working in the late 1960s.

So I am wondering if the Frisco was a holdout?

Gordon

 

It is dated September 1, 1980.

If you have Clemons' and Key's book on Birmingham look at page 111, which has a picture of East Thomas Yard.

Several self-guarded frogs are present, and some of the turnouts have guard rails guarding the self guarded frogs.

 

Thanks Karl!

You learn something every day.

I am really surprised that the Frisco was not using self-guarding frogs by 1980, but that would certainly be what the plan book is suggesting.

Gordon