Talk:Cotton Belt 819

Thank you

Thank you, Terrycarroll, for fixing my references. I'd been trying to figure out how to make them work and then I see you fixed them. Thank you.

However, regarding someone else's update - I don't think the engine could be called "restored to operation" at the current time. For the last 4 years it has sat in the museum without its jacket and all the flues removed, while they ultrasound the boiler.

I am currently writing up the second part of 819's history to complete the article, but it is slow going. (Formerly SassyPony)

RustyPony 00:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Builder’s Plate vs In-Service Date

I corrected the build date and the in service date to what is shown in Joe Strapac's book Cotton Belt Locomotives. The last revenue service for the #819 was in the late Spring or early Summer of 1953. The 819 had been leased to the T&NO and when returned was laid up in Tyler. See pages 139-140 of Cotton Belt Locomotives by Joseph A. Strapac, Shade Tree Books, Huntington Beach, CA --SSW9389 (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a discrepancy between the builder’s plate for the 819 and its in-service date. The builder’s plate reads 1942 and the in-service date is February 8, 1943. Both of these facts are true, and sources disagree. Several sources were consulted to find out further how this could be.

Mr. Joseph Strapac wrote the excellent reference book Cotton Belt Locomotives (CBL) published in 1977. His Chapter 11 Northerns discusses all the L1 locomotives. On page 134 there is discussion of the final five L1 Northerns. According to CBL work began in the Pine Bluff Shops to construct the five L1 Northerns on Tuesday June 2, 1942. This would have been after the War Production Board (WPB) deferred Cotton Belt’s order for five EMD FT diesel freight locomotives.

The War Production Board itself was authorized by executive order on Friday January 16, 1942 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The War Production Board issued General Limitation Order Number 97 on Saturday April 4, 1942. This order required locomotive builders to obtain prior authorization from the WPB prior to committing to production. A Wednesday April 8, 1942 meeting between the Transportation Equipment Branch and the Railroad Industry Advisory Committee was conducted to develop a railroad equipment program for the remainder of 1942. The April 8th meeting determined which builders would build what type of equipment.

Author Strapac reports that the five new L1 locomotive boilers were built by the Baldwin Locomotive Works of Eddystone, Pennsylvania at a cost of $31,300 each. The five new boilers were shipped from Baldwin between Thursday November 5th and Saturday December 12th. The rail journey from the Philadelphia area to Pine Bluff took about five days. Using Strapac’s numbers the last boiler, presumably the one for the 819 arrived in Pine Bluff on Thursday December 17th. According to CBL on page 134 the Cotton Belt Shops took from five to six weeks to complete the assembly of an L1. On page 221 of CBL there is information on how the Cotton Belt Roster in the book was compiled. Primary Source documents in the form of the Cotton Belt Locomotive Ledger. This Ledger was compiled by the Cotton Belt to include the use of invoices. It is those invoices that likely were quoted by Author Strapac to document the cost of the boilers from Baldwin and very likely other associated costs in the construction of the L1s. It would also appear that the Locomotive Ledger was used by Author Strapac to establish the actual in service date of each new L1 locomotive.

On CBL page 236 the following in service dates are given for the five new L1 locomotives:

815 Friday December 11, 1942 816 Thursday December 24, 1942 817 Friday January 8, 1943 818 Saturday January 23, 1943 819 Monday February 8, 1943 Also on page 221 of CBL Author Strapac cites the Cotton Belt Public Relations Department roster as a secondary source for Cotton Belt steam locomotive roster information.

Railroad Magazine published a Cotton Belt Roster on pages 96-99 of the July 1953 issue. The information for the roster was furnished by Mr. Paul M. Bunting Director of the Cotton Belt Public Relations Department. The information in the roster in Railroad Magazine appears to be from the late first quarter of 1953. In this roster the build date for the last five L1 locomotives is given as 1942.

In The American Locomotive Company A Centennial Remembrance Author Richard Steinbrenner has a steam locomotive production table on page 198. In this table it gives the entire steam locomotive production for the year 1943. The table lists the St. Louis Southwestern Railway as having built three steam locomotives in 1943. It appears that Author Steinbrenner used WPB sources to develop his table.

Richard Percy’s Southern Pacific website gives the date of construction of the L1 locomotives as 1942.

The steamlocomotive.com website gives both 1942 and 1943 as dates for L1 locomotive construction, but makes no distinction as to which ones were built in which year.

One of the sources listed in the article is the Pine Bluff Commercial of Sunday February 7, 1943. The citation of this source was out of context with the text it was linked to so I moved it to the previous paragraph. The fact that the newspaper the day prior to the first day in service of the 819 is quoted is a clue to the importance of the article. The Pine Bluff Commercial is available on microfiche in the research area of the Pine Bluff Public Library.

The stamping of the 819s builders plate with the 1942 date may be a case of an over estimation of when the L1 locomotives would be completed at the Pine Bluff Shops. Certainly the components to build the L1s were being assembled at Pine Bluff starting in June 1942. But it appears the boilers were delayed by Baldwin and that may have slowed down the anticipated schedule of completion. It makes sense that all five builders plates were made at the same time.

And saying all of this what does build mean? Does it mean the start of manufacturing or the completion date of that manufacturing. Certainly the start of work on components of the 819 can be traced into 1942. But the actual completion date would be when the Pine Bluff Shops turned a completed and tested 819 to the Operating Department. And that date appears to be Monday February 8, 1943. --SSW9389 01:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

An exchange of emails with author Joe Strapac reveals that there were actually 10 builder plates for the last five L1 locomotives. One plate was affixed to each side of the boiler just above the walkway at the front of the boiler. There is a photo of one of L1 #818's plate on page 15 of Cotton Belt Locomotives. --SSW9389 20:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Article Context

One major edit done by me in this article was reverted. Not everything in the original text can be intact, because some words contradicts with Wikipedia's policies. Which changes led to the note accusing me of "ruining" the article? Ctempire (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Rusty Pony is a Pine Bluff friend and worked for the Cotton Belt for many years. Instead of incrementally changing the article you went all in on something you know little about. Those 16 endnotes at the bottom of the article came from hours of work at the Pine Bluff Public Library Special Collections on a microfiche machine. --SSW9389 15:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Article needs to have all the excursions from 1986-1993 documented to be complete. I can add the primary operating territory for the L1s, tonnage ratings, types and names of trains used on if necessary. There is quite a bit of operational history that just isn't in this article. There are several "new" 819 excursion videos that have just been released. Ken Ziegenbein put up his 1988 819 video on You tube and Steve Goen is releasing all his 819 video on DVD.--SSW9389 15:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

So then, I won't remove your hard-earned citations anymore, and I apologize for that mistake. I'm now down to just modifying the tone of the article, so it doesn't sound like a story positively supporting the engine. Wikipedia aims for a neutral point of view in its articles. Some questionable words in the article include "it took the better part of a year", "an almost carnival-like atmosphere", and "that looked like it had rolled right out of a storybook". Are you fine with the proposed edit? Ctempire (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The man who wrote the majority of this article was directly involved in restoring the 819. His point of view and lack of neutrality is showing, but his enthusiasm and knowledge of the work is also showing. Can you polish it to neutrality without dulling it? --SSW9389 18:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can carefully modify the article to a state that satisfies both of us, and hopefully him. I believe it should mean much less attitude from the article while preserving information of the engine and its history. I will be doing edits soon, but if my work on this article still conflicts, let me know in this discussion. Ctempire (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Source?

So this quote: "Also in 1993, the St. Louis Southwestern had been merged into the SP, which would later be merged into the UP, which has a policy where no foreign steam locomotives would be allowed to operate on their trackage.[19]" leads to a link of the Official Union Pacific steam page, which mentions no policies on banning foreign steam engines from UP rails. While I know most railfan circles have cited that UP bans "non-UP steam" do we have an actual source on that, or just foamer hearsay? I know foamers have said similar things about "there is a CSX steam ban" DESPITE NKP 765 having operated on CSX recently-ish and CSX's support of Kentucky Steam; so is there a possibility there is a similar case with UP and the "non-UP steam ban" is an old rumor twisted into fact via repetition? Or is there a better official source on the matter?--Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)