I doubt the locals are going to want "their" engine taken by a couple of outsiders and moved out of state. Sorry, but I think this tale is done. It's one I've seen a few times with other small towns (mine included). At least it wasn't turned into scrap last week. A small victory is still a victory. Probably best to return the money and find a new mission.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
In my not-so-humble opinion:
Jason has to cancel the full gofundme and restore funds to all the donors. He has already indicated, I think, that he will do that. He will probably 'eat' the cost of all the travel, accommodations, etc.
Port Arthur now has a perfect model of how to run a gofundme campaign for this locomotive, including (if they were to ask politely) a list of all the groups and people who were 'virally' contacted to make the magic happen. They should get their crowdfunding campaign to preserve "their" locomotive going. However, thieves and liars of that particular stripe not being particularly respected by the general crowdfunding community, they may have some trouble.
Jason needs to reiterate an offer like the one I proposed on RyPN: the City gets binding offers from three parties, then Jason offers $1000 over the highest one. With free permitting to access city property to remove the locomotive, and a 'pass' from TCEQ to move the locomotive out of the confines of the state of Texas cocooned as necessary to avoid casual environmental contamination. That gets the locomotive saved and gives Port Arthur considerably more than they themselves contracted to 'receive'.
I'll be happy to volunteer time to stabilize the locomotive, start restoring (or at least encapsulating) it ... but I will not contribute a dime until Port Arthur votes those incompetent weasels out, and I suspect most everyone else involved will do likewise. Democracy has a purpose, and if 'people elect the democracy they deserve' (as someone said famously of Germany in the early '30s) it becomes time to show that expediency can be its own reward.
Where is Paul Harvey to ferret out 'The Rest of The Story'?
Sounds like smokey room shinaggains by the City and City Council with someone in the smoke likely to find their bank account increasing..
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Just got an e-mail from the go fund 503 and he is asking every body to e-mail all the city council members about saving the 503. council said at the meeting they eard from no one. The go fund me has a list of all the members So lets flood them with e-mails.
As Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly come tap-dancing in from stage left!
Thanks for the update!
Actually, Jason was asked by the City Council if he would apply his raised funds to the preservation of the locomotive in Port Arther. He said he cannot do that according to the terms of Go-Fund-Me.
On the face of it, Jason's effort was derailed by Port Arthur citizens wanting to keep 503 in their city. He might counter their argument by saying that 503 was about to be scrapped by the City. But I think what really killed Jason's effort was the fact that he made his deal with Inland without consulting with the City. Apparently Jason was led to believe that Inland's contract with the City had made Inland the owner of 503, so Jason dealt with them, thinking that the City had no interest in the locomotive. Apparently, at the time of the deal, Inland was not yet the owner of 503.
Since the City had arranged this scrapping to be done quickly without raising much notice, they were blindsided by the sudden emergence of Jason's funding drive to save 503. This news put the whole story on the front page. And it made the City look bad because the fundraising premise was to rescue the locomotive from immediate scrapping by an uncaring City that failed to see the historical value of the locomotive.
This really put the city on the spot, and last week, the Council began damage control through a torturous argument that they never made any decisions regarding the disposition of the locomotive. But that is hard to accept when you inspect the three different competing bids to scrap 503, and realise that one of those had been accepted and the project was underway.
In yesterday's meeting, the City Council seemed to offer a new reason why they never approved the scrapping or any decision about removing 503. That reason is that, because of the health and safety status of the issue, scrapping was able to be approved by the City without the knowledge of the City Council. It is a little hard to follow in the video, but I think that is what they concluded.
So even though the scrapping was imminent, it almost seems as if that was not the case in this strange new turn of reasoning.
Using the donated funds to help preserve 503 in Port Arthur would a nice gesture providing that the donors approve. I think that approval would need to be sought for each donor, giving them to option to have their donation returned or to use it for preserving 503.
At this point, I would not draw any conclusions as to the fate of 503. This has been a very comlex drama that has lead to this point, and I suspect it is not over yet.
The important thing about this whole ordeal is that the locomotive will no longer be scrapped (unless the City is stalling and waiting for the heat to die down).
One user on RYPN suggested that at least some of the Go-Fund-Me money be used to help properly restore 503 cosmetically. Giving her a roof of some sort would help even more.
Thoughts?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
The Council decided to keep the locomotive in Port Arthur, so the deal for saving it with the funding drive is off. I don't find any video live link for the meeting, but I understand that about six people spoke about wanting to keep the engine in Port Arthur because it is their history. And while the deal for selling the engine to Jason is off, it is not clear that preserving the engine in Port Arthur is a sure thing as it depends on the cost and the willingness to pay that cost.
EuclidI guess the council will have to choose whether to let the engine go at the least cost to them or to hang onto it in order to make it look like they never intended to get rid of it.
The principal thing I am worried about is a kind of 'third' alternative: where the council asserts its 'ownership' right to have the locomotive summarily scrapped as the 'least cost' option (perhaps pointing at the TCEQ and making pious hand-washing motions) and at the same time starts slapping Jason and Nick and Rick with all sorts of Mickey Mouse documentation and permitting requirements for doing business with the city, then getting permits for the cranes and damage to the ground, etc., then requiring large performance bonds (it does not help here that they're 'individuals' doing the work). The fact that nowhere was the GoFundMe campaign or its principals even mentioned, whereas 'professional' railroad sources were, is a more than usual ominous sign.
One very interesting thing I want to see -- eventually -- is exactly what sort of documentation Mr. Landrey provided to Jason et al. over the course of the early 'negotiations' (including the revised "scrap" price). A problem that may rear its head is that now I believe Jason has been essentially living down there and now has to make arrangements to be present before and during the 'special session' while not fully attending to his company business. Is it fair for him to use some of the money from the GoFundMe campaign for those expenses especially if the delays and 'gotchas' become more protracted and prevalent?
As mentioned on the RyPN thread: there would be a great advantage in having the Port Arthur people on the side of preserving the locomotive correctly, and in being uniformly positive and proactive in commenting on forums where opinions might be observed. I think I will refrain from commenting much further until all the options that come up on and just after the meeting on the 6th have been explored, to give the team a better chance at achieving the 'best' outcome in the long run.
Overmod 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.
A theatrical prop would have had the effect of raising hysteria about time running short to save the engine, and thus drive up the fundraising along the prospect raising the price for the locomotive. I only see it as a viable possible explanation for a wrecking ball which otherwise seems to be inexplicable. Although, you may be right in speculating that Inland did not realize that the ball would not work.
In any case, I am wide open to the possiblity that the City has acted in bad faith at various levels of the process, including the last Council meeting. I think you make excellent points in your last post on RPN. I guess the council will have to choose whether to let the engine go at the least cost to them or to hang onto it in order to make it look like they never intended to get rid of it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Keep the updates coming please. Don't want to hear she was smahed up over night by the Public Works road crew.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.