PORT ARTHUR, Texas — Preservationists, businesses, and members of the public have stepped up to offer material support and more than $23,000 to save Louisiana & Arkansas No. 503, a Baldwin 4-6-0 at risk of being scrapped. The displayed en...
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/02/19-emergency-fund-to-save-steam-locomotive-tops-20000-potential-home-emerges
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
Lost steam locomotives are like lost puppies in the snow, no-one wants to see them die.
The thing about these 10 Wheelers is that they are just the right size for a frequent excursion operation.
This one is an oil burner with 36,827 lbs tractive effort.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/47162644@N07/5916827714/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/47162644@N07/5916828496/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/47162644@N07/5916829062/in/photostream/
EDIT: I take back most of what I initially said. Part of the initial enthusiasm and recognition that went into the 'viral' campaign came about from the initial Newswire story back around the 17th. And it was not so much the RyPN community but certain members of it who organized the campaign, developed the alternatives, put the initial funding in place, and gotten through both to the recalcitrant and elusive city people and the wannabe scrappers. (I don't know if there was the groundswell of enthusiasm to make small donations here that there was on RyPN ... and now that things are so close, I encourage anyone reading this thread to make a donation of any size. (Note that almost all of the money so far raised has been given in $50 or lower increments!)
As I post this they are up to $34,600. Looks promising.
Good to know there are still some rail preservationists out there capable of pulling something like this off on such short notice.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeGood to know there are still some rail preservationists out there capable of pulling something like this off on such short notice.
Also serves as a warnign for any other engines under care of a municipal authority.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
If you are looking to the GoFundme site for 503, its located at the end of the original Trains News item http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/02/19-emergency-fund-to-save-steam-locomotive-tops-20000-potential-home-emerges
You will need to cut/paste the GoFundme URL into your browser.
As of near Mid-night 02/21, she is about $ 1,2000 left to go. Every $ 5 or $ 10 dollars count to save this grand old lady for generations to come.
Come one folks, we can get this done.
Thanks.
Saw on Facebook that the appeal had exceeded its $65K goal!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Huzzah!!!
Thank You.
Good catch. In the second picture was surprised the whistle was still on the steam dome. Check ebay and these whistle command $ 1K to 2K. Hope the builder plate shows up safe and sound.
The smokebox front will need some welding. This indicates 503's stake was open to the weather and water damage. If you see pictures from the steam era of stored locomotives, you note the stake is capped with a tin cap, or plate with the ends hammered down. Some had canvas traps tied down as well as the headlights.
Anyone know how much time the city is giving to have her moved?
As I understand it, the City's ownership of 503 was transferred to the environmental remediation company as partial (or full?) payment for the service of cleaning up and removing asbestos and oil on or around the locomotive; and for removing the locomotive from the site.
Obviously the locomotive has value as scrap or as an item to be restored for display or operation. Does the agreement for this remediation work place any requirements on the contractor regarding what is done with the locomotive other than removing it from the site? Is the agreement available for public examination?
My understanding is no, and no: the contractor received all right, title and interest and assumed all liability. Judging by the way the city management handled the decision, I'd be surprised if there is a public record, especially if there are other 'normal' services procurement requirements like multiple bid.
Jason et al. were smart enough to go to the scrapper and get that transfer of title and interest arranged ASAP. While there is probably some time restriction on removal, there should be little practical delay in arranging cranes or jacks, appropriate lowboy, and 'safe' slinging or pads.
The reason I ask is this notice posted elsewhere:
The Port Arthur, TX city council agenda for the meeting to be held at 2-27-2018 at 5:30 PM includes the following item:E. Discussion (1) To Discuss And Possibly Take Action Regarding The Abatement, Remediation And Related Matters As It Pertains To KCS Engine No. 503 Located In Bryan Park (Requested By Councilmember Doucet)https://cityhall.portarthur.net:444/WebLink/0/doc/146613/Page1.aspx
*********************************************************
I guess we will find out soon enough. Maybe "take action" just amounts to agreeing that the job has been completed satisfactorily.
It could be that they have to revoke their contract with the demolition firm and grant a permit for removal to the preservation group.
Depending on the location and the size of the truck, they may need police assistance with traffic to get it out of the park area, etc.
In most cities you can’t build a Lincoln Log house with your kid without a permit.
Based on my own personal experience with building construction and renovation, I am thinking it might be that kind of housekeeping.
Overmod My understanding is no, and no: the contractor received all right, title and interest and assumed all liability. Judging by the way the city management handled the decision, I'd be surprised if there is a public record, especially if there are other 'normal' services procurement requirements like multiple bid. Jason et al. were smart enough to go to the scrapper and get that transfer of title and interest arranged ASAP. While there is probably some time restriction on removal, there should be little practical delay in arranging cranes or jacks, appropriate lowboy, and 'safe' slinging or pads.
I did not watch the meeting tonight, but I understand from what has been posted on RPN that the City says they are the sole owner of the locomotive at this time, and that no decision has been made on what to do with the locomotive.
I had undstood that the ownership of the locomotive had been secured by the people conducting the fund raising, and that they had acqured ownership from the company that did the environmental remediation, and that that company had acquired ownership of the locomotive from the City. What's going on here?
Now that there is a known $65K plus on the table, watch the City demand its share of the pie?
Don't see how you could have scrappers on site with wrecking equipment, who then negotiated transfer of the 'asset' intact instead of destroying it in pieces, without at least an oral-contract transfer of ownership. The scrapper was certainly not acting as the agent of the City.
Get the popcorn; this will be interesting, and I have to worry that 503 may not be out of the woods if the secretive City management becomes vindictive...
OvermodGet the popcorn; this will be interesting, and I have to worry that 503 may not be out of the woods if the secretive City management becomes vindictive...
I'll say.
Amazing. The city wanted to be rid of 503 badly enough that they were willing to watch her be cut up, and now that someone else is willing to take the engine off their hands they are obstructing that.
I wonder what price the city sold/gave her to the scrapper for. Or did they PAY to have the engine removed? Perhaps someone fell into hot water at city hall after the $35,000 price was revealed.
I don't understand how either the asbestos and oil remediation, the scrapping of the locomotive, or the option to purchase the locomotive by Jason and the funding sponsors could go forward while the City retained full ownership of the locomotive and had not made a decision as to what they wanted to do with the locomotive. This needs to be explained.
Keep the updates coming please. Don't want to hear she was smahed up over night by the Public Works road crew.
I had a feeling that the meeting tonight might be the City reclaiming the locomotive ownership on the basis that the scrapper was not authorized to re-sell the locomotive intact. But then when I saw the preview today, it seemed like the City just wanted to tie up loose ends with the environmental regulators and close the deal with them. But this news is just mind boggling.
Last week's announcement of tonight's meeting seemed a bit ominous. But, I had ruled out any outcome like this because I concluded it would be just too radical.
EuclidAt the meeting last night, we now learn that the City claims they never made any agreement to scrap the locomotive or to even sell it.
So let me get this straight: they secretly arranged for people to start 'remediating' the site with heavy equipment present ... but never put anything potentially painful on record if the environmental people happened to notice?
Little else fits.
Perhaps state or Federal charges regarding this attempted abuse of environmental protection will be filed for the weasels concerned? It will be interesting to find who said what to whom to produce the truck roll and subsequent dwell on City property in full view of City officials...
Over on Rail Preservation News they have photos of the demolition equipment all staged and ready to go prior to the GoFundMe effort:
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41678&start=15
Scroll down a bit for the pictures.
OvermodSo let me get this straight: they secretly arranged for people to start 'remediating' the site with heavy equipment present ... but never put anything potentially painful on record if the environmental people happened to notice?
As I understand it, the scrapper did perform the work of remvoing the asbestos and oil from the locomotive. I assume the City hired and paid the scrapper to do that work.
I assume that the City had a contract that covered the performance and payment for this work. I assume that only because that work had been witnessed to have been done.
Unless somebody can produce a copy of the contract calling for further work that has not yet been done; inlcuding scrapping the locomotive, re-selling it, or permanently removing it from the site for some other purpose; I cannot conclude that any such plan ever existed.
Clearly the City says they never intended to dispose of the locomotive, and they are still the sole owner of it. Apparently the City did not convey ownership of the locomotive to the scrapper as partial payment for his remediation work. If they had done that, they would no longer be the owner of the locomotive.
How do people have all this information about these plans if nowbody has ever seen the contract between the City and the scrapper?
Throughout the process of rescuing the locomtotive, I seem to recall that there was said to be a purchase agreement in place to acquire the locomotive ownership from the scrapper. I understood that the purchase agreement was only contingent upon the fundraising to reach the establised price for the locomotive. Apparently, there never was such a purshase agreement.
It seems now that the fundraising was only intended to raise enough money to purchase the locomotive if it happened to be offered for sale.
The situation is changing, perhaps as some people play fast and loose with truth.
I have very, very little doubt that the locomotive was about to be broken and cut into conveniently removable sections by the equipment so visible in the pictures. There is no need for that equipment to remediate asbestos, oil, or the other 'environmental issues'.
I trust Jason in particular in saying he was told firsthand that the scrapper was about to demolish the locomotive, and that a promise of cash kept the scrapper from doing so.
Do I think the City arranged for the locomotive to be done in and removed as a fair accompli before annoying little questions about environmental permitting or the like could be asked? Well, the combination of secrecy and almost indecent haste surely points at something, and the most convenient something that fits would be expediency.
It will be highly interesting to see how this practically develops, as I expect the Texas DEQ to be involved in this, probably with a bunch of subpoenas, rather quickly. I do expect Jason et al. to have made contact with City representatives by now but will be unable to check until I get back on a proper computer.
OvermodI have very, very little doubt that the locomotive was about to be broken and cut into conveniently removable sections by the equipment so visible in the pictures. There is no need for that equipment to remediate asbestos, oil, or the other 'environmental issues'.
That may be true, but I cannot come to any sure conclusion about what was planned by the various players in this drama. I can see a variety of possible interests and motives. I can see potential strategies including bluffs and deceit. I have no idea whether they were used. Overall, what I conclude at this point is that the sum of what we have been told does not seem to add up.
I would not conclude that the scrapper was about to scrap the locomotive simply because he had a track hoe excavator and demolition ball on the site. While the excavator is a common demolition tool, that ball to me is suspcious, and may be telling. What it does well is tell the world that demolition is about to take place. What it is nearly worthless for is breaking a steam locomotive into small pieces.
If there were really an intent to break up the locomotive, I would expect to see a hydraulic shear assoicated with the track hoe. Certainly the track hoe would be essential for the excavation of soil which was the next step in the remediation, but I suspect the wrecking ball may have been a theatrical prop.
Having now looked carefully at the relevant thread on RyPN (to which I see you have contributed) I think it is becoming much clearer what the situation is, almost to the point where timelines can be assigned to the 'hidden' negotiations.
In my opinion, Councilman Doucet's demeanor is not either honest or truthful, and his attempt at alleging the only 'closed-door meeting' concerning the abatement effort involved oil runoff to adjacent properties cannot possibly be truthful except in the worst sophistic sense. Certain parties know, and by now know well, that they were caught trying to pull a swiftie -- whether or not it was in the 'best interests' of a cash-strapped Port Arthur to get rid of the problem at minimum expense and then make pious expressions of grievance once the artifact was irretrievably damaged.
There is little doubt that the trackhoe was intended for removing the contaminated soil under the locomotive, just as was discussed in the Council meeting for the 'panel track' alternative, but it would have been utilized all the more easily and cheaply once the locomotive and track had been removed piecemeal from the site first. I completely fail to see any point to having a wrecking ball on site for any other purpose whatsoever, and I am waiting for someone to propose one. "Theatrical prop" to anyone familiar with remediation contracts involving rented equipment and a lowball price is not credible. I take it you have not actually been to the Inland Environmental Web site and seen what it is they do; direct scrapping does not appear to be part of their distinctive competence. Presumably Jed et al. would have called in folks with hydraulic shears and other paraphernalia if and when their homemade demolition approaches failed to have the full effect... by which point it would have been too late to save the engine as other than twisted components.
It will be interesting to see if the meeting on the 6th goes the way I expect it will, having been carefully set up not to be a true 'open meeting' but a special meeting at which debate or discussion can be arbitrarily restricted or terminated, and where Council decisions need take no account of public commentary that does not serve Council's own perceived interests.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.