D&RGW #168 Restoration?

[MQT1223]

Any fans of the Rio Grande narrow gauge out there? (including myself) I would like to see what you think about a proposed lease agreement with the City of Colorado Springs and the Cumbres and Toltec for the lease and operation of T-12 class 4-6-0 #168. She is an attractive narrow gauge 4-6-0, and would definitely mix things up between the 2-8-0's and 2-8-2's that operate on a regular basis. Only surviving Rio Grande 4-6-0 I can find that survives. Apparently there will be a town meeting tonight about the matter. I hope the lease is accepted. The large number of operating Rio Grande narrow gauge locomotives makes up for the D&RGW's efforts of preserving only ONE of standard gauge locomotive. Thoughts anyone?

[Bulby]

168's sister the 169 is sitting in Alamosa.

168 (and 169) are both weak little things compared to even the small K-27 463.

The C&TS only operates 2-8-2s.

[MQT1223]

168's sister the 169 is sitting in Alamosa.

168 (and 169) are both weak little things compared to even the small K-27 463.

The C&TS only operates 2-8-2s.

Well this is apparently legit. It would probably be operated on special occasions like 463 and traveling locomotive 315.

[EWRice]

I say if a group can afford it and has the ability to, restore as many as possible. The beauty of narrow gauge equipment is that you can move it around by truck easier. Even the K-37s were able to be trucked. Even if 168 is weak, it has to be better than the Eureka. What I would really like to see is a C-25 restored. I don't think any even exist anymore. I think the Rio Grande had one (375 maybe?)

[Bulby]

Back of envelope calculations say a T-12 class locomotive should be good for 70-80 tons on the 4% out of Chama.

Yes the D&RGW only had one C-25, #375. A.K.A. "Baby Mudhen", since she had near the power of a K-27 "Mudhen". She was cut up in June of 1949.

[MQT1223]

Back of envelope calculations say a T-12 class locomotive should be good for 70-80 tons on the 4% out of Chama.

Yes the D&RGW only had one C-25, #375. A.K.A. "Baby Mudhen", since she had near the power of a K-27 "Mudhen". She was cut up in June of 1949.

I think it would be a nice addition to the Rio Grande power operating out west. Plus it could go to the Durango and Silverton for special runs if desired like how 315 alternates. When 223 is running it will do the same thing. Which engine do you think is in better shape, 168 or 169? From what I have read they are both mechanically in fair shape considering they haven't ran since the 30's.

[Bulby]

Considering that 168 was chosen, I'd hazard a guess that 168 is in better shape.

In seriousness, the current head of the C&TS did a cosmetic restoration on it during the 1980s. He knows what condition it was in then, and has presumably looked at it before making the final call. John Bush knows what he is doing with steam power; he was CMO on the C&TS during the early to mid 90s and was responsible, along with t=his team of talented mechanics, for getting 6 locomotives operational at one time.

Reportedly, the 169 has a dent in the boiler and some problems with frame alignment. Nothing that can't be fixed, but it takes time and money to fix those kinds of problems.

I doubt that 168 would be a traveling locomotive, since its operator would be the Cumbres and Toltec, unlike 315 which is operated by the Durango Railroad Historical Society. Similarly, the 223 is not owned by the C&TS or the D&S, so it will probably travel freely.

[MQT1223]

Considering that 168 was chosen, I'd hazard a guess that 168 is in better shape.

In seriousness, the current head of the C&TS did a cosmetic restoration on it during the 1980s. He knows what condition it was in then, and has presumably looked at it before making the final call. John Bush knows what he is doing with steam power; he was CMO on the C&TS during the early to mid 90s and was responsible, along with t=his team of talented mechanics, for getting 6 locomotives operational at one time.

Reportedly, the 169 has a dent in the boiler and some problems with frame alignment. Nothing that can't be fixed, but it takes time and money to fix those kinds of problems.

I doubt that 168 would be a traveling locomotive, since its operator would be the Cumbres and Toltec, unlike 315 which is operated by the Durango Railroad Historical Society. Similarly, the 223 is not owned by the C&TS or the D&S, so it will probably travel freely.

Regardless 168 is a sharp little loco and would look great running again.

[Bulby]

I never said it wouldn't look great running.

I just want to see where the money is coming from, because the C&TS doesn't need another 1472 to pay for at the moment. 487 is dead on the clock, and 488 will go dead at the end of next season. I'm not sure what year 489 goes down.

[MQT1223]

I never said it wouldn't look great running.

I just want to see where the money is coming from, because the C&TS doesn't need another 1472 to pay for at the moment. 487 is dead on the clock, and 488 will go dead at the end of next season. I'm not sure what year 489 goes down.

489 came back in 08 or 09 if I remember correctly. But just because they get the locomotive doesn't mean that they work on it right away with the pair of 1472's. Get your operational locomotives back up to par and then work on the prized T-12.

[MQT1223]

Well its official. Trains Magazine has reported that Rio Grande 168 will be restored!

[railohio]

Fascinating.

[MQT1223]

It has not been said how long the restoration will take, but early estimates are looking just south of $750,000. I think that's pretty good for a locomotive that hasn't been on live rails since 1938.

Had a thorough cosmetic restoration in the 1980's that has held up VERY well in the hostile Colorado climate.

[Bulby]

It has not been said how long the restoration will take, but early estimates are looking just south of $750,000. I think that's pretty good for a locomotive that hasn't been on live rails since 1938.

John Bush has said barring the unforeseen issues, look for it at the end of 2017.

[MQT1223]

It has not been said how long the restoration will take, but early estimates are looking just south of $750,000. I think that's pretty good for a locomotive that hasn't been on live rails since 1938.

John Bush has said barring the unforeseen issues, look for it at the end of 2017.

Ahhh ok. Cool! Any clue when the move is? Trucking it should not be a huge ordeal given the size of it. I have seen people questioning whether it has a lap seam boiler that could make any boiler work on it a little more difficult. And I thought Iron Boilers were something to watch out for. Engine was built in 1883 so it could have some surprises knowing what they might've done back then. This locomotive did one time pull William Howard Taft for a tunnel opening, so at least it had the power to pull HIM and everyone else.

[Bulby]

It has not been said how long the restoration will take, but early estimates are looking just south of $750,000. I think that's pretty good for a locomotive that hasn't been on live rails since 1938.

John Bush has said barring the unforeseen issues, look for it at the end of 2017.

Ahhh ok. Cool! Any clue when the move is? Trucking it should not be a huge ordeal given the size of it. I have seen people questioning whether it has a lap seam boiler that could make any boiler work on it a little more difficult. And I thought Iron Boilers were something to watch out for. Engine was built in 1883 so it could have some surprises knowing what they might've done back then. This locomotive did one time pull William Howard Taft for a tunnel opening, so at least it had the power to pull HIM and everyone else.

No clue on move dates.

The boiler was replaced in the 1910s - 1920s I believe; the D&RG(W) had an extensive reboiling program about that time; almost all of the narrow gauge power was reboilered or cut up.