Bucyrus So what is the latest word on moving the engine to Minneapolis? What are they waiting for?
So what is the latest word on moving the engine to Minneapolis?
What are they waiting for?
Money
Paul,
Do you know that they are waiting for funding, or are you just speculating? If they are waiting for funding, is the whole project simply on hold until it is fully funded? I thought they had stated that some funding had already been secured.
My guess is that the engine will never leave Topeka, but that is just a hunch.
Let's hope so. This thing is a pipe dream. They don't have enough money even if all funding comes through. They will get it torn down, scattered everywhere and announce that it is not feasible . A historic artifact will be lost and where the money went, who knows?
IF they were knowledgeable in this field and IF they were serious they would start from scratch with everything purpose built and and have a reasonable budget to do it. This "Give us a few million and we'll turn this thing into the savior of the planet" is ridiculous.
The engineering and design for that locomotive project is perhaps larger than the metalwork. I would have thought they would have started engineering and design already, since they claimed to have some funding in place. If they had started that work, they might have something to show us by now.
But just on the very surface, they did offer some engineering perspective when they compared steam to diesel in their claim that steam will out accelerate diesel. If that misperception is any indication of their expertise, I would say they are not up to the task.
But the big question is what happens to the locomotive when it does not leave Topeka? If the city, county, and Great Overland Station were convinced that the engine is a dangerous eyesore, what are they going to do when the deal to get rid of it falls through?
I wonder if GOS stipulated a deadline to move the engine.
Bucyrus: I live in Topeka and have a family connection to the 3463. To answer a couple questions I have read here :
1. 3463 does in fact still have her nickel steel boiler as she was set for display before she could have it replaced.
2. Yes there is supposedly a deadline for moving its November of 2012.
3. She will be pulled on rail sections to a spur track and then to the Santa Fe shops and then disconnected from her tender, Loaded on flat cars and taken to Minn.
Also what I don't understand is the 3463 was a OIL fired locomotive not coal nor has she ever burned coal that means even in the minor detail that the tender is useless also. I truly believe that this is just a tragic case of big dreams from little people of which a valuable and historic piece of history will be lost to a torch.
Could you possibly point me in the direction of the group of folks trying to save her here so as I may become one of them.
Thanks
Jerry
It strikes me that if they really are serious about this project it would make more sense to acquire a newer locomotive i.e one built in China. There are still QJ class 2-10-2s for sale (not cheap though) as well as a couple of different classes of 2-8-2. these were built in the seventies and eighties..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 It strikes me that if they really are serious about this project it would make more sense to acquire a newer locomotive i.e one built in China. There are still QJ class 2-10-2s for sale (not cheap though) as well as a couple of different classes of 2-8-2. these were built in the seventies and eighties.. Good thought, the 2-82's would be too small for the high speed pass. service they are proposing. If they are going to make a new boiler and changes in the running and valve gear, why not start from the ground up? Wouldn't it be easer to build it the way it needs to be rather than fudge it together to fit with what you have? Not a design engineer, but it makes sense to me. And you wouldn't be destroying history for maybe nothing. Tim
There is nothing inherently wrong with the frame and drive/gear, just the way they are powered. One could argue that a reciprocating gear is not the way to go, but if lightweight modern composites and balancing and bearings are used, the problems can be largely overcome for high-speed operation...I'm pretty sure. Cost...now that's another matter altogether.
If they design a new drive mechanism, say a turbine, that will be in need of some serious coinage.
Crandell
Rikers Yard If they are going to make a new boiler and changes in the running and valve gear, why not start from the ground up? Wouldn't it be easer to build it the way it needs to be rather than fudge it together to fit with what you have? Not a design engineer, but it makes sense to me. And you wouldn't be destroying history for maybe nothing. Tim
It makes sense to me too. From reading their various news releases, this is what I gather they intend to do:
Design and build a new boiler and steam delivery circuit. I suspect that might require a new throttle assembly, superheater, and at least some modification to the cylinder assembly.
Design and build a gas producer firebox for the boiler. This would require a different grate system, steam cooling jets under the grate, and secondary combustion air inlets that penetrate both walls of the firebox, and let air in above the fire.
Design and produce new drivers, rods, and counterbalancing design.
Superinsulate the boiler, cylinders, and all steam piping.
Design and build a new exhaust nozzel system.
Possible modification of lead and trailing trucks, tender trucks, bearings, and all suspension systems including springs, equalizers, etc.
Design and build an entirely new fuel delivery system.
Design and build an automatic firing system that enables one-man operation. This would probably include completely new montioring and control system for fuel and water delivery.
Design and build a streamlining shroud for the locomotive.
They have estimated $3-million for this work.
carnej1 It strikes me that if they really are serious about this project it would make more sense to acquire a newer locomotive i.e one built in China. There are still QJ class 2-10-2s for sale (not cheap though) as well as a couple of different classes of 2-8-2. these were built in the seventies and eighties..
Also, the Chinese used 4-6-2 Pacific types for passenger service. Whether any are left at this point isn't known to me, but if someone wanted a place to start for a high-speed locomotive experiment a Chinese Pacific might be a good choice.
Why look for another locomotive instead of using #3463? They are going to replace at least 75% of used locomotive anyway.
info on the move from CSR:
Thank you for your interest in Locomotive 3463. CSR is currently planning of moving the locomotive in the spring of 2013. More details will become public in the beginning of the new year. With luck you may be able to see her fired once again!
Thanks again,
Jacob A. Cogger
Director of Communications
The thing that bothers me most is the last sentence, Not even their director of communications believes in them.
I am sorry this offended. Please feel free to let us all know the CSR stand point on this. Again I am sorry.
Bucyrus Rikers Yard If they are going to make a new boiler and changes in the running and valve gear, why not start from the ground up? Wouldn't it be easer to build it the way it needs to be rather than fudge it together to fit with what you have? Not a design engineer, but it makes sense to me. And you wouldn't be destroying history for maybe nothing. Tim It makes sense to me too. From reading their various news releases, this is what I gather they intend to do: Design and build a new boiler and steam delivery circuit. I suspect that might require a new throttle assembly, superheater, and at least some modification to the cylinder assembly. Design and build a gas producer firebox for the boiler. This would require a different grate system, steam cooling jets under the grate, and secondary combustion air inlets that penetrate both walls of the firebox, and let air in above the fire. Design and produce new drivers, rods, and counterbalancing design. Superinsulate the boiler, cylinders, and all steam piping. Design and build a new exhaust nozzel system. Possible modification of lead and trailing trucks, tender trucks, bearings, and all suspension systems including springs, equalizers, etc. Design and build an entirely new fuel delivery system. Design and build an automatic firing system that enables one-man operation. This would probably include completely new montioring and control system for fuel and water delivery. Design and build a streamlining shroud for the locomotive. They have estimated $3-million for this work.
LOL on their estimate of $3 million for all that engineering work.
GE has invested $600 million on the latest GEVO version.
These guys have no idea what it takes to get a new locomotive design operational in this country.
Hi everybody
Reading the list of new construction it occurred to me it missed one point : " design new frames or engine bed " which would be the one left to complete circle for a fully new construction . Following this , next question might be : why use a 4-6-4 wheel arrangement and then again why dismantle a historic locomotive ? To be sure - a fully new built steam locomotive of classic concept - i e reciprocating direct drive engine - can offer a great opportunity for advancements , provided it will be well designed on profound knowledge and planned with an accurate aim and will not be charged with overly ambitious expectations .
Speeding classic steam - it had been questioned if any RR would lend track to make an attempt . Just the point of attempting 130 mph - demanding about 'metric diameter speed' or over 530 rpm ! - may leave you with some questions . If the rpm could be managed - it could be done , then high axle load remains prohibitive with that speed - let alone the combination of axles in a rigid frame plus high load !
Earlier I had commented on how schemes of allegedly 'carbon-oxide neutral' burning of 'bio-fuel' are not really caron-oxide neutral , if you just consider one very simple fact : all those plantations are being raised where there had alredy been plants growing - there is no extra area of plant growth ! Yet , in contrast to natural forest these are plants to be harvested when hardly grown - so they never get to the phase of life when producing most oxigen ! Quite in contrast to natuaral woods : the natural forests holds high densities of tall grown plants , in full bloom of producing oxigen . You could as well call combustion of a certain quantity of natural oil or coal 'carbon-oxide neutral' if you declare a certain area of natural forest reserved to compensate for it . Some calculations on amount of energy consumption will quickly show there isn't enough area of land on earth to compensate for all the carbon-oxide producing combustion processes of transport and industry of today to be based on 'bio-fuel' ! It can't or else in those hundreds of millions of years before the 'industrial revolution' there would not have been balance between plants producing and animals consuming oxigen - it should have been a world with an extremely oxigene saturated atmosphere ! It wasn't : plants produced pretty well exactly as much as animals consumed ...
A classic concept reciprocating steam loco *could* well become the best working and the best looking example of the fleet - yet should never be expected anything near beating electric traction - technically , economically , environmentally or the like for sure . If I was offered a chance to realize one design of mine , I'd choose ... .. But that's another story .
Regards
Juniatha
About the only specification that this project is going to retain from the original design, is the distance between the rails. I think that this is an new educational theory that the student learns more from their mistakes rather than learning how to do it right the first time. After all that's what was already done anyway.
Juniatha Hi everybody Reading the list of new construction it occurred to me it missed one point : " design new frames or engine bed " which would be the one left to complete circle for a fully new construction .
Reading the list of new construction it occurred to me it missed one point : " design new frames or engine bed " which would be the one left to complete circle for a fully new construction .
I have heard this kind of work described as "jacking up the whistle and building a new engine under it."
Bucyrus Juniatha Hi everybody Reading the list of new construction it occurred to me it missed one point :" design new frames or engine bed "which would be the one left to complete circle for a fully new construction . I have heard this kind of work described as "jacking up the whistle and building a new engine under it."
Juniatha Hi everybody Reading the list of new construction it occurred to me it missed one point :" design new frames or engine bed "which would be the one left to complete circle for a fully new construction .
Reading the list of new construction it occurred to me it missed one point :" design new frames or engine bed "which would be the one left to complete circle for a fully new construction .
Another version: "The locomotive design and construction will be free, but restoring the same whistle to it will be $12M.
A quick update from Topeka. I spoke with a couple people from the Friends of 3463 and it appears there are a lot of grey areas to the ownership. They are planning a public meeting soon here in Topeka for an attempt to save the 3463. From what I heard I think it is very possible this will end soon.
jpetrel A quick update from Topeka. I spoke with a couple people from the Friends of 3463 and it appears there are a lot of grey areas to the ownership. They are planning a public meeting soon here in Topeka for an attempt to save the 3463. From what I heard I think it is very possible this will end soon.
Bump. I have a great deal to say about this project, but won't post unless there is continued interest.
The 'ongoing' commercial high-speed passenger locomotives would almost certainly not be reciprocating. The Project 130 with rebuilt 3463 is, as was indicated with wrongly pejorative language a few posts back, a publicity exercise: even were the engine extensively rebuilt it would still be clearly identifiable as a Steam Locomotive.
Principal reason to use 3463 is the 84" drivers, comparatively short stroke, and (despite the great potential problems with streamlining the large frontal area) the large convection section. A very, very, very large amount of development money would be needed to replicate the frame, drivers, and so forth in new material, to say nothing of potential trouble that might ensue (Meiningen, anybody? ;-})
Any material removed from the locomotive will be preserved under cover -- the only potential exception being ordinarily-scrapped replaceable components such as boiler tubes. Dimensions will be taken and confirmed before any systems on the locomotive are modified, and wherever possible the new construction will be adapted to fit the existing structure (instead of the other way round). Funding for the move to Minneapolis, including reserve for contingencies, will be BANKED before any work on the move is started; likewise, a reserve amount equal to what would be required to 'de-modify' 3463 to historic appearance will also be established before any work begins. You've already read that after the 'project' is complete, a part of the plan is that 3463 will receive permanent sheltered storage -- "inside" was the specific word used. I won't give any Topeka-based preservation much consideration until they have ante'd up enough for a similar guarantee.
Assume that the engine and trailing trucks won't be used 'in kind' (and will be preserved intact as a result). Likewise, the valves and passages as built are woefully inadequate for any sort of high speed -- their normal 'fastest' on ATSF was at best supposed to be in the low 100s before choking set in, considerably lower, imho, than what the 3776 and even heavier 2900s would reach. "Easiest" way to address this might be to double up the piston valves a la Wardale. Look for both firebox and chamber size (probably length) to be increased, perhaps substantially, but again this would be comparatively easy to make reversible.
Don't expect the streamlining to look like the Blue Goose. It will have to be considerably more radical. (On the other hand, none of it couldn't be more-or-less easily removed afterward...)
The 'arguments' about where the record would be attempted seem to be largely puerile or self-evident. I know of nowhere outside portions of the Northeast Corridor where this sort of speed would even be possible... and the idea of running reciprocating steam, no matter HOW well balanced, on that trackage at that speed would be completely irresponsible. Testing would be done on the Pueblo high-speed loop (and a waiver for 130mph operation secured based on tech examination). I can see the jokes now about 'Indy-car' optimization in the direction the locomotive is curving...
RME
Streamlining
With the talk of high-speed rail, it seems to me people are missing a very big point. If you're selling rail travel of any sort it's not so much speed you should be selling as much as reliability, i.e. WILL the train leave when it's supposed to leave, WILL it arrive when it's supposed to arrive, "on the advertised" as they used to say.
Therefore, a good reliable 75 miles an hour is a lot more realistic than say a hoped-for 100 to 150 miles an hour, especially on roads that aren't really built for it, or would need extensive rebuilding to make those high speeds safe and practical.
Anyone who's in a rush and has to be somewhere "yesterday" is going to fly, irregardless of the airport headaches and hassles, and that's not going to change. People who aren't in a rush, THERE'S your rail passenger pool. And they'll buy the tickets if they know the train's going to do what it's expected to do. If it can't, if it's got to play "dodge 'em" with freight trains all the way, if it MIGHT get there within two to three hours of the schedule, that's not good enough. No-ones going to ride. They'll fly or they'll drive. That's all there is to it.
My personal opinion is that this grandiose plan is a pipe dream. The locomotive will never leave Topeka. There are legal ownership questions that cast doubt on the legitimacy of giving the locomotive to the CSR group.
If they plan to move the locomotive from Topeka to Minneapolis, they had better budget the necessary funds to return it to Topeka just in case it is determined that they don't own it.
Firelock76 With the talk of high-speed rail, it seems to me people are missing a very big point. If you're selling rail travel of any sort it's not so much speed you should be selling as much as reliability, i.e. WILL the train leave when it's supposed to leave, WILL it arrive when it's supposed to arrive, "on the advertised" as they used to say.
This is true for a fairly wide range of service, and has certainly turned out to be true for almost every form of rail freight service (remember the Super C? the Apollos? the Genesis units tested by UPS?) but I don't think it's exactly true as a 'blanket' statement for passenger. It is definitely 'so' for long-distance trains, and I'll return to that point in a bit. But there are clearly places where high speed and high schedule reliability are BOTH important.
a good reliable 75 miles an hour...
Humor me and say "79 miles an hour"...
...is a lot more realistic than say a hoped-for 100 to 150 miles an hour, especially on roads that aren't really built for it, or would need extensive rebuilding to make those high speeds safe and practical.
Let's predicate this by noting that in almost all places, the 'sweet spot' for sensible maximum speed is not the 186mph/300kph of European systems. Nor, I suspect, is there any particular route (outside parts of the Northeast Corridor) where an investment in passenger-only mains capable of that speed would be economically justified... and while it's arguable that equipment built for the higher speed may be practically implemented on routes where only part of the track is built to, say, LGV standards, I don't think we're quite ready to pay the full cost of all that when the time comes to actually address investors or taxpayers. IMHO, the design speed is perfectly adequate for most American services at 110mph, and there are at least two track structures under research that can accommodate heavy axle load while maintaining appropriate track geometry to permit that speed (admittedly not 'both with the same train', but passenger coexisting with stack and mineral trains).
A number of corridors have been identified as supporting operation with that maximum speed, up to about 400 miles. This has been discussed over and over in Trains Magazine -- and I hope it will be again, over and over. THAT is your target for American high-speed rail, in my opinion.
Anyone who's in a rush and has to be somewhere "yesterday" is going to fly, irregardless of the airport headaches and hassles, and that's not going to change.
Security and access considerations alone make flying for distances under about 250 miles less competitive with light rail, and that includes flying under the 'new' FAA feeder airport system (where you'll eventually have over 4,000 regional turbine-engine-capable airports that will serve as primary access to the 'general network' of passenger flight). Both the logistics and, in different ways, the economics were worked out in Europe long before our current security blitz. (And, I might add, your reliability and avoidance-of-unnecessary-delay issues were worked out with the TEE system...)
Note that this specifically applies to trips where you need to be somewhere promptly -- on time, and I'll address that very valid point of yours in a moment -- but you don't want the hassle of driving or parking the car. A cognate point is that 'commuter' service into many locations is greatly facilitated... and the overall attractiveness of using that mode greatly increased... when higher speed with reasonable timekeeping is available.
A little point about high speed is that in many cases a higher 'dash capacity' will be necessary to achieve even moderate average speed, particularly if there are delays or known slow orders in part of the trip. This is not necessarily the same thing as high acceleration (which is needed for commuter trains), BUT if a lack of acceleration, as in the early stages with an AEM-7, begins to affect overall segment time, you'll need a higher peak speed somewhere to compensate.
People who aren't in a rush, THERE'S your rail passenger pool....
No, that's your BEV pool. And, less sarcastically, your automobile pool. If you'd said 'people who aren't in a rush and don't want to be in a traffic jam' that might be closer. But we're getting off the 'high speed' aspect here, and getting into the 'how do I get from where I live to the train, and more importantly, how do I get around when I get where I'm going' sort of questions. Rental cars at the end of a train ride aren't something I see advertised much. There are reasons for that completely outside traffic density...
And we're getting effective self-driving cars soon, and in many respect that'll make being in traffic jams, or driving previously-tedious distances, little different from riding a typical train. You'll be able to get 'work' done with the suite of equipment in your own car, with much better assurance of security. And of course it's private, and more familiar to you... and you can easily carpool or take family along with little additional cost.
There are two things missing from the discussion, and they can roughly be subsumed into "20th Century Limited" and "California Zephyr" characteristics. If the EFFECTIVE trip time is no greater for air travel than for train travel... particularly if your ability to actually do something at the destination is enhanced by some characteristic of train travel... then it's still effectively competitive. And this is precisely what could be achieved in at least some traffic lanes by high-speed sleeper travel.
The killing part being inability to recover all the stranded cost inherent in the equipment and service for sleeper travel... but why not outsource some of the capital buildout, and the support, to something like Motel 6 or Holiday Inn Express, since the overall cost of providing services is comparable to that in a fixed hotel location... I could go on, but I think you can run the numbers if you want. Might even have 'competition' between hospitality providers on a room-by-room, customer-by-customer basis when making up particular rooms, with different price points...)
California Zephyr; cruise trains in general... less emphasis on Getting There than on the ride. And this ties into your previous point about 'JIT delivery' -- you run the train gently, or at least not savagely, with just enough speed to get between 'scenic' parts of the trip, and even dawdle at the prettiest spots. Nobody makes any pretense about immense transcontinental speed, but... if you want to recover reasonable ground-transportation average speed, you run faster to compensate for the places where you were running slowly. So for your 'average' 75mph, or for 'average' freight delay, you might well need some high-speed dash capability, both in the equipment and in the civil engineering. (This begging the question somewhat about why long-distance trains don't see more 'conference' traffic... events where you're expected to attend multiple sessions over a couple of days, while the spouse and kids watch scenery... for which pure speed might be no more significant than it is for dinner trains...)
And they'll buy the tickets if they know the train's going to do what it's expected to do. If it can't, if it's got to play "dodge 'em" with freight trains all the way, if it MIGHT get there within two to three hours of the schedule, that's not good enough. No-ones going to ride. They'll fly or they'll drive.
As indeed they presently do. One way to address the problem might be to work out dispatch and schedules so the passenger train has a good chance of being on time, which might be somewhat less of an issue if 110mph-capable track also permits higher fleet speed and hence better net track capacity for those windows where passenger trains will be operating. I do not think this is an insurmountable difficulty for the particular corridors where high-speed service is currently being considered. Long-distance trains: that's where your point is most valid. Leave enough slack in the schedule to tolerate traffic delays, provided they are known and time-delimited delays. But be sure you can run somewhat over average speed to make up any 'slip' in the scheduling...
That's all there is to it.
Well no, there's more, quite a bit more, having to do with welfare economics, various kinds of externalities, and so forth. But we can take those up individually, and discuss the extent to which they might depend upon, perhaps even benefit from, higher-speed equipment and infrastructure.
Where are the discussions of the current 'state of play' regarding ownership? Or statements by or for the groups in Topeka that are concerned? This isn't some issue of preservation where museums have to keep financial details or access details under their hats until agreement is reached!
Where is a hard source of knowledge on the 'legal ownership' questions -- I haven't even seen this on RyPN, where I'd expect it to be more relevant and meaningful than on a general forum.
And more importantly, where are the non-grandiose, non-pipe-dream plans for what is going to be done when the locomotive stays in Topeka? Going back to benign neglect is a worthless option. I haven't heard anything from the group that was 'supposed' to be trying to 'restore' the locomotive before the CSR/SRI people got into the picture -- c'mon, boys, give us a shout about the exact details, schedule, and financing you have to do that work, including the reserve and organization to keep the locomotive preserved afterward.
Hello Overmod I am glad you have taken interest in this issue. The group that originally was doing the restoration is the group that is attempting to give it away. As for the hard source of knowledge of ownership there is paperwork held by The friends of 3463 that establishes ownership and I am sure that there are probably legal reasons that they have not released this info yet.
As for schedules those will be released when they become available. The benign neglect you speak of was the result of any attempt to do any work on the locomotive being blocked by the group that thought they owned it. In the next few months alot will become clear about this group and what the goals are. I am deliberately leaving names out of this post as I don't believe that a need exists to smear any groups at this time. When the Locomotive stays in Topeka I can tell you there are plans for it's preservation and the man power to carry them out.
I'm glad to hear all this.
Up to now, all I've been able to hear is the discussion on RyPN and Trainorders, which has been somewhat lacking in hard, determinate fact. The general consensus seemed to be that the entity that gave CSR/SRI the locomotive was the Great Overland Station or whatever it was called, and the group that was trying to do restoration had been (perhaps repeatedly) frustrated in some way by the admin people there. Is there a definitive timeline of these entities, or somewhere I can access the original deed of trust or whatever that ATSF used in giving the locomotive to Topeka?
Seemed pretty clear to me that the 'original intent' was to give it to the children of Topeka, and the city administration was going to be the entity that ensured it was available to the children of Topeka (who else would it be?). The question I had was how Great Overland Station thought it had rights or title to the locomotive. Did the City give it to them? Did the City just quietly let them take it over to avoid problems with attractive nuisance or whatever? (I note that the official GOS site now says "Topeka's 3463" page is 'under construction'...) I for one would be interested to see whether adverse-possession law might apply in this case.
Is there a case number assigned to this, and some record of where it's being argued or who counsel is?
To Overmod: WOW! I was wondering if anyone noticed what I had to say.
Overmod: You are correct that it was the great overland station and the restoration group was in fact Topeka Railroad days which became The great overland station when UP gave them the station. at which time GOS told the restoration crew to stop all work on the Locomotive and that lead to the shabby look of the Locomotive. When another crew approached GOS about fixing it they were told no. The Locomotive was held by a private company not any government entity. Thats about all I am willing to discuss at this time I do know that the Friends of 3463 have people looking into the legality of the whole thing.
Just a quick note to something you said before, The entire deal between GOS and CSR WAS under the table and not spoken about until the deal was done so it is my opinion that the GOS knew they had no clear ownership of the Locomotive.
Please feel free to contact me via E-mail @ jpetrel1@cox.net if you are interested in the Friends of 3463
jpetrel... The entire deal between GOS and CSR WAS under the table and not spoken about until the deal was done so it is my opinion that the GOS knew they had no clear ownership of the Locomotive.
Yes, going back and reviewing some details, I noted something I thought was peculiar. In some of the writeups, the date of "acquision" by CSR/SRI was given as 'November 2011'. No mention of this was made until the formal announcement in May.
Be interesting to know why there was such a delay... or how the business stayed off the steam and preservation "radar" so long. Surely there were negotiations or discussions leading up to November, too. While I recognize that a certain degree of stealth is in order when doing business acquisitions, I find it odd that negotiations over a somewhat deteriorated passenger locomotive were kept quiet so long.
There were two or three very comprehensive threads on #3463 on RPN. But they were ultimately locked because some members entered the discussion and insulted the participants for “beating a dead horse.”
Overmod jpetrel...",,, The entire deal between GOS and CSR WAS under the table and not spoken about until the deal was done so it is my opinion that the GOS knew they had no clear ownership of the Locomotive. Yes, going back and reviewing some details, I noted something I thought was peculiar. In some of the writeups, the date of "acquision" by CSR/SRI was given as 'November 2011'. No mention of this was made until the formal announcement in May..." Be interesting to know why there was such a delay... or how the business stayed off the steam and preservation "radar" so long. Surely there were negotiations or discussions leading up to November, too. While I recognize that a certain degree of stealth is in order when doing business acquisitions, I find it odd that negotiations over a somewhat deteriorated passenger locomotive were kept quiet so long.
jpetrel...",,, The entire deal between GOS and CSR WAS under the table and not spoken about until the deal was done so it is my opinion that the GOS knew they had no clear ownership of the Locomotive.
Yes, going back and reviewing some details, I noted something I thought was peculiar. In some of the writeups, the date of "acquision" by CSR/SRI was given as 'November 2011'. No mention of this was made until the formal announcement in May..."
I am a little hesitant to jump into this Thread at this time. I don't want to see it locked by the 'Model Railroaders' seeming willingness to lock threads. I have followed this Thread since it was posted in May of last year. Apparently the Project was conceived in 2007 (/) by the Academics in Minnesota (UofM). They have yet to nail down anything solid financially, Their figures seem to be about as far reaching as an afternoon discussion in the Teacher's Lounge
As the AT&SFRR was thinning out its stable of Steam Engines in the 1950's and 60's. Hey managed to 'seed them around Kansas. I know of four right off the top. Coffeyville,Chanute,Wellington. They have each got one of the lighter ( Branchline?) steamers. Wichita was given a big 'Northern' 4-8-4 #3768 ( was assigned to passenger train service between LaJunta,Co. and California).
It was given to the Great Plains Transportation Museum. It was donated in 1960's. They do seem to keep it painted. The 3768 was originally donated and placed at Friend's University. It was moved to its current location where it is displayed over a large overpass and major city street. I have been told that in many cases the AT&SF gave (sold?) the locomotives to an interested community for a$1.00 ) There was a Bill of Sale to show that transaction. I would guess it was done similarly, in Topeka(?). ( Also the location of major Railroad Shops Facility).
I would suspect that subsequent changes in the "Custody" of the Locomotive would have clouded the 'ownership and an attendant loss of the original Bill of Sale(?). Which events have lead to the problems with ATSF 3463 and possible clouded ownership. It may have been done by a Community entity whose budget was responsible for upkeep, and a controling organization who say the chance to get rid of a problem for their maintenance budget(?). Hence a somewhat 'shady appearing' sale to the Uof M Project 301. Which deal is still wallowing around and remains incomplete. #3463 is still a resident in Topeka.
It would seem that the people at the GOC have been flim-flamed ? The victims of a bunch of Academic Bird-Seed Salesmen ( who hatched what sounded like a real idea, but short on funding and the ability to carry their project to completion.
The shame of it is, that #3463 will be the center-piece of a public custody battle, A now unwanted step-child,and big eye-wrenching problem. The politicians will get tired of the drama, and if no one steps in to save it. # 3463 will become a child of the scraper, and then not a problem for GOC. And the Academics will sit in their Teacher's Lounge lamenting that they had a really good "Green Idea" and those rubes in Kansas screwed them. Any of the monies collected for the project 301 will disappear like at Late Spring snowfall.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.