Trains.com

Who's To Blame?

10167 views
43 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:15 AM

Hi John!

Yeah, I can't forgive "Big Al"  Perlman for that one either, although I do consider him one of the great railroaders. 

It's incomprehensable to me that a 'road like the New York Central which had expressed so much pride in its Hudsons, Niagaras, and Mohawks didn't think to save at least one of each.  It wouldn't have affected the bottom line all that much, scrap values for these engines was pennies on the pound.  Possibly a prreservation agreement with ALCO could have been reached.  Who knows?

But, that's what I mean when I say when an original's gone it's gone forever, no power on Earth can bring it back.  So if you've got an "original" of anything historic, you better be careful with it!

PS:  I just remembered there's a Mohawk still in existance.  It's at the New York Central Historic Society museum in Elkhart, Indiana.

Wayne

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Saturday, April 20, 2013 7:39 PM

Firelock76
got to be ready for the rage of some people, the same as if he scrapped a B-17, or an M-4 Sherman, or tore down a house General Washington slept in.   Steam engines, B-17's, Sherman tanks, or 18th Century houses, they ain't makin' 'em anymore and once they're gone, that's it brother!

Wayne,  

I was actually thinking of Alfred Perlman who scrapped a lot of the New York Central's steam engines including some famous ones.  To this day there are people who cannot forgive him. 

John

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, April 20, 2013 7:16 PM

John WR

tomikawaTT
Any machine, whether it be a 125 year old steam loco of great historical value or a 19 year old Toyota pickup of no historical significance, is subject to wear and tear and requires regular maintenance.

If I own a 19 year old Toyota that needs major repairs and I decide that the truck simply isn't worth it so I decide to sell it to the junk yard for scrap no one would question my right to do so.  So why do we raise any question if the owner of a steam locomotive makes the same decision?

That's a good question John, maybe I've got an answer.  First, there's no shortage of Toyotas around, the same can't be said for steam engines.  They're still making Toyotas.  The same can't be said for steam engines.  The "Tornado" over in Britain and David Klokes  4-4-0's are the exception, not the rule.  A 19 year old Toyota isn't likely to be a historic artifact, but a surviving steam engine just by virtue of it's age cetainly is an historic artifact.  I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

Certainly the owner of a steam engine has the right to do with it whatever he wants, but if he scraps it he's got to be ready for the rage of some people, the same as if he scrapped a B-17, or an M-4 Sherman, or tore down a house General Washington slept in.   Steam engines, B-17's, Sherman tanks, or 18th Century houses, they ain't makin' 'em anymore and once they're gone, that's it brother!

Wayne

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Saturday, April 20, 2013 6:36 PM

tomikawaTT
Any machine, whether it be a 125 year old steam loco of great historical value or a 19 year old Toyota pickup of no historical significance, is subject to wear and tear and requires regular maintenance.

If I own a 19 year old Toyota that needs major repairs and I decide that the truck simply isn't worth it so I decide to sell it to the junk yard for scrap no one would question my right to do so.  So why do we raise any question if the owner of a steam locomotive makes the same decision?

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Southwest US
  • 12,914 posts
Posted by tomikawaTT on Saturday, April 20, 2013 5:59 PM

Any machine, whether it be a 125 year old steam loco of great historical value or a 19 year old Toyota pickup of no historical significance, is subject to wear and tear and requires regular maintenance.  The steamer is also subject to more, and more stringent, regulations in this context.  Also, even the least complex repairs on a steamer are costly, and the $$$ have to either come out of operating revenues or be raised by other means.

So, who's responsible?  The owner of record.

As for blame, lawyers, politicians and media types worry about placing it,accenting who.  Maintenance technicians would rather spend that time/effort/money keeping the equipment in top condition and repairing it when it isn't.  Part of the latter involves determining what failed, and why.  Two very different mindsets.

Chuck (Retired aircraft maintenance tech)

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:09 AM

As my boss likes to say, "Operating steam is easy. Just open the firebox doors and shovel in dollar bills!" Steam is an expensive proposition. There are good reasons why we don't use them in the main anymore. It is that very rare operation that can operate steam and cover all their costs. It is also a fickle business. Just because you made money this year doesn't mean you will cover your costs next year.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 426 posts
Posted by Dr D on Monday, April 15, 2013 11:06 PM

This post really explores the seldom seen forces behind fielding a steam locomotive repair. 

Hats off! to Union Pacific Railroad and they should be proud to be such great Americans.  Here is a 4-8-4 that is backed by a corporation, funded and operated by the best talent.  It has an entire fleet of equipment to pull, and an entire Class 1 railroad to run on.  Doesn't get better than this! - and yes, we are still wondering why you put 4023 4-8-8-4 out to pasture in the park where I can't be gotten in for repair.  And yes we all want to see you restore the drag era UP 2-10-2 the engine #5511 that you have.  This is entirely what steam railroading was about for most of its history.  I want to see Willy Guthry singing from one of those boxcars as it goes by me.  A truely historic if un heroic engine but oh so necessary to American history!  We all need to see her hauling a drag load of boxcars with caboose.  You have her right there in your backshop.  Don't sell her! never! tomorrow's railroaders and film makers need her.

Unfortunately most steam locomotive are not so nearly fortunate as UP844.  NW611 lived through such an era with the Claytors.  Still there is no excuse for what has become of the PRR K4s in Pennsylvania would we allow this to happen to a NYC hudson?  Strasburg RR should have been the first choice contact for K4 repairs and it would have been done long ago.  And of course how could we have let Rio Grande narrow gauge come to what it has.  It was an entire railroad system with backshops miles of track - historic beyond measure.  It should never have gone to scrap the way it did.  And the state of Pennsylvania - East Broad Top narrow gauge is an equal treasure!  Are we ever going to figure that out?

Actually any machine has a history written into its parts.  Examination of any machine can tell you how well it was cared for.  Who repaired it and did they have any tallent.  Crudness of repair - broken bolts hammer and chisel witness marks.  Broken parts - damaged parts - missing parts all tell the story of who did what where and why.  I remember when we were restoring PM1225 back in the 1980s and had the journal plate off of the bottom of the axle journal of the trailing truck.  We brought up a front-end-loader and tried to move the engine by pushing on the truck.  And we sprung it our of alignment because the bearing plate was removed.  How ya going to unspring a cast steel truck of tons weight?  And yes the rear truck bearing blocks are missing from GTW 5632 pacific in Durand, MI cause years ago Richard Jensen got town permission to borrow the brasses for extras on GTW 5629 - wonder where they went? 

I loved the report on the boiler explosion of Gettysburg Railroad.  The water glass of the boiler was entirely clogged and the lifting injector did not work as it had the wrong valve disc in it.  Wow a boiler explosion! 

Whenever I buy a used car I always go by the motto - "Built by engineers, repaired by God knows who!  Guess it is amazing we have what great steam that survives here!  Its just a boiler on wheels, thats all!  Hats off to Union Pacific RR!

Dr. D 

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:32 PM

Reminds me of a You Tube video I watched of the Nevada State Railroad Musem's  "Inyo"  being run.  Just an simple  "excursion"  around the museum tracks at slow speed, but everyone was having a ball.

In the "Comments"  some wiseacre said, in effect,  "BFD!  They only run it on light steam and never faster than a crawl!"   Well you know, good for them!   They're treating an irreplaceable historic artifact with the respect it deserves, not acting like a bunch of yahoos with a hot rod. 

 

  • Member since
    May 2007
  • From: North Myrtle Beach, SC
  • 995 posts
Posted by Beach Bill on Saturday, April 13, 2013 11:11 AM

I'm not sure why one would look to place "blame".   Clearly, if a historical artifact was subjected to abuse when the caretaker had the means to preserve it better, one could point out that deficiency.  The maintenance standards that require boiler maintenance or similar work were developed to keep everyone safe.  Should we "blame" the legislature for giving such regulatory authority to a Department of Transportation or other agency?   Should we blame entropy?  Should we blame rust?    What have we done individually to contribute to our hobby by supporting the museums with our finances to allow them to continue the needed maintenance?      Things get old and become inoperable (including human bodies), and those processes aren't always something that is a matter of "blame".

Bill

With reasonable men, I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost. William Lloyd Garrison
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, April 13, 2013 10:19 AM

Can we PLEASE stop showing our ignorance by spelling it 'Truo'? The locomotive is sigificant enough that we should at least get her name right:  City of TRURO.

Almost anything 'damaged' on an operable locomotive can be restored... with enough funding.  These are machines, not art 'pieces', for the most part, and (as I noted) after many years of running and maintenance, not much of the 'original' locomotive material when it was constructed may still be there.  Al Staufer specifically mentioned the 'grandfather's hatchet' argument (sometimes essayed as an Irish slur) -- this is my grandfather's hatchet -- it's had three new heads and five new handles, and it's as good as ever -- specifically in reference to some of the NYC Hudsons.  (You will find it in Thoroughbreds, better expressed than I could paraphrase.

Where I would 'peg' this argument is not so much rebuilding historic artifacts for operation, but those cases where (intentionally or unintentionally) the restoration process is corrupted.  I will not mention 1361 except in passing, and 3463 less, as I don't want political aspects to dominate, but the Australian 38 class rebuild with the deflicted Meiningen boiler follies is fairer game.  There are intermediate examples where this is not so bad -- consider 1218 being put back to a displayable state -- but I'd still rather have had all the internals and mechanicals put back...

In some cases, accommodations have to be made to keep a locomotive 'operating' even with damage, a good example being the British 2-6-2 that operated for years at reduced pressure because the cylinder block was cracked.  Frankly, I admired them for it, because in my opinion steam locomotives are best admired when 'alive and breathing' rather than sitting cold.  

The take-home point, perhaps, is that it's the owner's or the owning entity's call what to do.  We saw this vividly with 1522.  Why should it be different with NRM?  (I also feel personally that it's a shame not to run Mallard, but I understand that risking an iconic national treasure is perceived as too great a breach of proper stewardship.)  It is always possible that with enough will, and enough funding, City of Truro can be made to run again... and I for one would welcome the day.  In the meantime, she'll be safe and stable.  

  • Member since
    September 2012
  • 7 posts
Posted by Railroadbeats21 on Saturday, April 13, 2013 8:13 AM

No one would pay every time the engine is used. They probably do it when the engine is in for repairs or for restoration work. The museum would have to pay for all the inspections, and if it's costly, then they'll probably do it when the engine is being fixed.I do see your point, Sir Madog.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 12, 2013 11:09 PM

I am afraid you are not completely correct with your statement - for a couple of reasons.

First, all steam locos (just like any other loco) are subject to a rigid schedule of maintenance and inspection. Once the loco is up for inspection, it will go out of service automatically until it has passed the inspection, for which the cost can easily run up to several hundred thousands of $. This has nothing to do with the state of repair the loco is in.

Second, we are talking about locos which have an age of anything between 70 to 125 years or even older. What´s OK today, can break tomorrow, for no apparent reason. There is no way to find that out ahead of time, other than doing a full inspection each time you run the engine. Who is going to pay for that?

  • Member since
    September 2012
  • 7 posts
Posted by Railroadbeats21 on Friday, April 12, 2013 10:30 PM

That's what I'm trying to say. Because when I posted about City of Truo being taken out of service, one of the users said that it just runs until it can't run anymore. Which I agree with you on things being junk, but not everyone gets that, that's all I'm saying. I'm just throwing what I believe out there due to seeing this one user being that way. I didn't mean to judge it on one user here, but maybe there are some who think that when really it's the "Alco Doctor's" way.

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Friday, April 12, 2013 8:11 PM

As Don Colangelo, the "Alco Doctor"  of the Delaware-Lackawanna railroad says:

"Anything's a piece of junk if you don't take care of it!"

  • Member since
    September 2012
  • 7 posts
Who's To Blame?
Posted by Railroadbeats21 on Friday, April 12, 2013 6:10 PM

I'm not trying to be mean to anyone who believes in the fact that steam locomotives run until they stop working properly. But I think we should rethink this over, for I believe that it's not the loco, it's the owners or the museum who owns the engine who is responsible. What about we look into what was recently reported of British steam locomotive "Flying Scotsman."

The brand-new news in the report talks about how "Flying Scotsman" won't be running until 2014, according to "Rail.co.uk," who also talks about why she's not running until middle or the end of next year. And who does it say as the one who is to blame? The National Railway Museum in York, the current owner of the engine. It's the NRM's fault of over-working Flying Scotsman. It's their fault, for messing up an alingment on one of her cylinders.

So do you see what I'm trying to say? The owner is the one to blame if a steam locomotive is taken out of service, or has a very long overhaul. Here's one more example, this time with City of Truo. She has been taken of service, but maybe, at some point before she stopped running so fine, the NRM might have messed up during a repair or an overhaul.

So what do I believe? I believe that steam locomotives can be seen running in the future, but if the owner isn't careful, and the mistake is costly to the engine, then they are to blame. It's  not like they are bad. They just weren't careful at that time, and made a big problem a lot bigger.

So the next time a steam locomotive is taken out of service for repairs or restoration, I would be careful with the owner if I were you.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy