RME,
I completely agree with your overall assessment of the #3463 revival in your last post above. You have explained it well.
I wish I could get back the 79 Mustang Indy Pace Car, 302/4 speed that I sold in March of 1990. The buyers in Omaha Nebraska would be disappointed.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
I think the original claims about reciprocating locomotives superior to current Amtrak power have been 'walked back' more than a bit; I don't think there was ever much doubt that a modern 'steam locomotive' for high-speed passenger service would not be a 2-cylinder simple reciprocating locomotive, let alone something based on a 3460 class. On the other hand, it would be about as romantic to the general public as any contemporary locomotive -- might even be "styled" by the ineffable Cesar Vergara or studio talent for that 21st-Century spin on the obnoxious diesel=wannabe vibe that 'inspired' the ACE 3000.
The conversion of 3460 was pure romance, really; I suspect in part it was undertaken with a somewhat credulous belief that many of the contemporary stories about magical 84"-drivered locomotives reaching incredible speeds were true, and a lack of understanding of a number of requirements, such as wheelset instrumentation, that would be required for the attempt to be actually made on a physical track or test facility. What was certainly true was that the achievement of a legitimate 130mph from a legacy steam locomotive was likely to garner significant interest and appreciation from a large number of people in the general population, for a variety of reasons, which would (obviously to me) not likely be there for any 'modern' design. And being able to re-use large pre-existing components such as the cast frame, existing roller-bearing-equipped Baldwin disc drivers, boiler shell, etc. vastly reduced both the overall cost and the amount of new engineering required to produce a locomotive that would show what the potential of 1930s design could do.
I don't think it occurred to the CSR/SRI people that there was anyone in Topeka who particularly cared even about fixing 3463 up -- there was certainly pathetically little that the 'outside world' saw actually done to the locomotive through the period that we now know the wacky politics and cavalier ownership transfers were going on. I do know there was a fairly tremendous howl in the 'serious preservationist' community about cutting up the last Ripley Hudson, for a variety of reasons, and I think that was when the promises of complete cosmetic or operable restoration to original appearance, etc. were formally made.
Personally I do not think anything you quoted 'in blue' is particularly wrong, with the exception that even if all that is so it would still be 'cheaper' (at the time) to do adaptive re-use of the existing fabric as a 'renaissance' of Fabulous Lost Steam Technology than to do, say, an acceleration and follow-on to the T1 Trust project to get a much more likely high-speed design (probably similar to the '5551' that was being discussed for a while) in the anticipated timeframe. At this point the T1 group has done much more work, and realized so many of its objectives, that a 'clean sheet of paper' design is becoming a real alternative to the modification of 3463 if a salable modern reciprocating locomotive is the goal of the effort. As I said previously, I don't think it is, and all the work and possible uncertainties that CSR would face in doing that can still be bypassed in large part through 'adaptive reuse' of 3463.
If the boiler were to turn out to be better 'replicated' in modern alloys with welded shell construction (oh, how I wish one of those shells for 3460s had been preserved!) then the alternative of using one of the 'neglected' 2900s (which are almost demonstrably faster locomotives historically than 3460s) becomes much more attractive. The big issue then becomes that 130mph threshold -- something that conventional wisdom in the Thirties clearly thought, even on ATSF, would require duplex-drive power, and that almost certainly would need good poppet valves or equivalent to reach with any remote approximation of decent water rate. I do think an 80" drivered 8-coupled can be built that can reach that speed, but it's much more of a crapshoot involving much more technology and engineering than adapting an 84"-drivered design. (And no, I don't have any hesitation in saying a conjugated duplex can be made to reach that speed.)
I do think that technological objections are misplaced in this thread, which is about the legal issues associated with CSR/SRI even getting authority to control what happens with the locomotive. I think the best course is to wait out the decisions that are upcoming in that case, some of which I believe will not be long in forthcoming, and then see who actually steps up to the plate with the dollars and the enthusiasm to do something with 3463 other than the dog-in-the-manger ignorance that has typified so much of her life -- three times, in fact, the entire time she ran in service.
That sounds fairly extensive. Here is my general interpretation of the modifications anticipated, which I posted in a thread a couple years ago here. It is based on what I read on their website at the time. It is somewhat speculative as to the details of the areas said to require change, but I want to include those changes as possible. I conclude with a comment questioning the cost-effectiveness of redesigning #3463 rather than starting from scratch:
The Minneapolis group who have been given the AT&SF 4-6-4 as a test bed say they are confident that they can create a higher-speed passenger rail locomotive that is cleaner, quicker, and cheaper than any locomotive on the market today.
The stated mission, coupled with its implications, suggests that the #3463 will be very extensively modified. My interpretation is that it will require new piping, jacketing, cylinders, valves, drivers, rods, and exhaust nozzle. Perhaps it will require new bearings of an improved design on all axles of the engine and tender as well. Jacketing of the boiler, steam pipes, and cylinders will be superinsulated. A streamlined shroud will be added.
It may require a whole new boiler, but if not, it will at least require conversion to a gas producer firebox, which is said to be part of the plan. This will require a different grate system plus the installation of many overfire secondary air inlets. Each of these amounts to creating a small air tunnel piercing both walls of the firebox through the pressure vessel. A GP firebox also needs a nozzle grid of steam distribution under the firebox to cool the fire.
They intend to redesign the steam circuit, so this may require a new design for the throttle and the superheater. Valves and valve passages are part of the steam circuit, but it is not clear what will be done to those details.
It will require a new firing system for the pellets, and possibly a new feed water system. This will be an automatic firing system controlled by the engineer. I am guessing that there will be a lot of computerization applied to the controls, firing, and combustion process. Overall, it seems likely that there will be extensive revision to the entire array of backhead controls.
Also included will be a newly designed and built HEP generator for electrical power for a passenger train. This will be powered by either a steam reciprocating engine or a turbine, and probably be mounted on the tender. Such units may run around 500 horsepower, and this power has to come from the locomotive boiler.
And with all this cutting, welding, machining, and re-designing, there will be bound to be limitations and compromises imposed by the fact that this is a remodel rather than starting with a clean sheet of paper. When you spend this incredible amount of money on the new stuff, why on earth would you want even the slightest bit of compromise forced upon it by working around the remnants of the antique locomotive? I find it most difficult to believe that it would not be cheaper to start with a clean sheet of paper than to hack up this antique locomotive and convert it.
EuclidCan you post a link that design information? I have not checked recently, but when this proposal first came out, it sounded like they were modifying almost everything about the locomotive.
Part of this was a bit of what might charitably have been called freewheeling rhetoric from Davidson Ward. Part of this, also, might be my own fault for interpolating things that would need to be done to the locomotive for it to reach the target speed, on an actual track with an actual train, with anything near acceptable safety.
Although what I saw on their site only listed the various systems that would be modified, but did not show the actual modifications in engineering drawings.
To my knowledge there are comparatively few actual 'detail drawings' released, and I would not expect to see extensive physical design, let alone 'freezes' in the designs for the physical systems, before Shaun and his team have gone much more exhaustively into what is required, including multiphysics modeling and simulations.
My opinion is that there will need to be fairly extensive design revision, berhaps several rounds, before the engine gets to a form capable of sustaining the desired speed. And that no small part of the trouble will involve the speed increase from the low 120s up to 130.
I will see if I can find the list of systems to be modified.
This has gone forward and backward a few times, both in discussions and in the somewhat skimpy 'collateral' on the CSR and SRI sites. (There may be more on Facebook, but I don't care.)
In practice, the big initial issue is that the valves and passages are grossly inadequate. Expect whole new chests and 'all that implies' to be required. None of this is at all novel; PRR patented all you'd need to know before 1950, and techniques of keyhole welding have been vastly improved since.
Front end design needs revision; fuel changes, front-end ash separation, tolerance for extreme-speed drafting and gas pattern through the chamber and tubes/flues. Won't be anything remotely like what is there now; I'd assume the 'historic fabric' to be removed by taking the whole smokebox and its pipes off in one piece and preserving them.
Rods and bearings will be all new; so, probably, will the crankpins and fits. I expect the fits in the drivers to be bored and reamed oversize, and bushings machined and installed in these to restore the existing rods. We will see what gets changed with the valve gear attach points and controls; this is one of the things I expect to be altered multiple times with no advance 'warning'. I doubt there will be any visible change in the driver castings even with full high-speed dynamic balance right down to anticipated (and then 'actual' when determined) piston-thrust effects.
At this speed it might be necessary to go to very low or even zero overbalance to reduce vertical augment. Expect much better compliance between the trailing truck and the locomotive frame, perhaps with active elements; I strongly suspect the leading truck will have to be changed out and its pivot and equalization arrangements changed, even though the existing design is a very good Batz design. There is ample precedent for an inside-bearing truck on a true high-speed locomotive; the Milwaukee As, which Alfred Bruce of Alco said would track at 128mph, had one arguably not as well designed as the Batz truck. But I'd be happier with outside frames, a very wide outside secondary suspension, and modern roller and thrust bearings.
Firebox area according to CSR's present thinking won't need much modification; they were diligent enough to discover that the Ripley Hudson specification was made to be compatible with solid-fuel firing and I believe they so state.
Assume a considerable amount of molded-to-fit add-on streamlining, which will come off when the record attempts are over. It will likely NOT AT ALL resemble that Blue Goose/Mae West thing ... exciting though it might have been to the adolescent.
They show only minimal alteration to the tender (for the 'obvious' bunker profile changes). I suspect a different tender will be used, on different (and much more high-speed-stable) truck arrangements. It will be difficult to 'tour' many places with this locomotive, even moving on its own wheels, so there might be some limits on where it can go for 'publicity touring'.
I have no idea how they plan to address the instrumented-wheelset issue, but most of the instrumentation and control modalities have become almost easy to implement with one of the standard control buses, so this might actually be less of a problem than currently assumed. It will not run fast, anywhere, until the instrumentation is fully provided and reasonably tested.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Euclid I would not worry about losing the historical artifact by trying to set the speed record. The locomotive will be so modified by that point that it will have long ceased being the historical artifact. But don't worry. CSR assures us that their modifications will be reversible. Actually externally it won't be that modified from original design and almost anyone would know if they had bothered to look at the specs on CSR's website, it used to show in detail all the modifications necessary for their project and most of the modifications were internal, with minimal external changes to the engine so that it would easily be able to be returned to pre-testing condition(I'll bet in better shape then before though).
Euclid I would not worry about losing the historical artifact by trying to set the speed record. The locomotive will be so modified by that point that it will have long ceased being the historical artifact. But don't worry. CSR assures us that their modifications will be reversible.
I would not worry about losing the historical artifact by trying to set the speed record. The locomotive will be so modified by that point that it will have long ceased being the historical artifact. But don't worry. CSR assures us that their modifications will be reversible.
Actually externally it won't be that modified from original design and almost anyone would know if they had bothered to look at the specs on CSR's website, it used to show in detail all the modifications necessary for their project and most of the modifications were internal, with minimal external changes to the engine so that it would easily be able to be returned to pre-testing condition(I'll bet in better shape then before though).
Can you post a link that design information? I have not checked recently, but when this proposal first came out, it sounded like they were modifying almost everything about the locomotive. Although what I saw on their site only listed the various systems that would be modified, but did not show the actual modifications in engineering drawings. I will see if I can find the list of systems to be modified.
EuclidThe locomotive will be so modified by that point that it will have long ceased being the historical artifact. But don't worry. CSR assures us that their modifications will be reversible.
How many times have we heard these schemes about engines? Usually fizzle out pretty fast.
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
I'm still trying to understand how CSR might still acquire ownership of the locomotive. I did not know that they are, or might be, continuing the legal battle to gain ownership. I had assumed that the only way they would obtain ownership at this point is to purchase the engine from the City of Topeka.
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I don't like it either when World War Two fighter aircraft are heavily modified for the "Unlimited" category of air racing either, but I also realize that since I don't own the airplanes or pay for their upkeep I've got no right to tell the owners what they should or shouldn't do with them, even if that involves modifying them almost beyond recognition and getting themselves killed in them. Been known to happen.
As I said, I'm just leery of the idea.
Look, it used to be the "Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe", but they don't go anywhere near Atchinson anymore so why would I assume they go near Topeka? Not being a Mid-West or Western railfan I'm not totally up on just who goes where. Not a BNSF fan either, although I know they're out there and every once in a while I see one of their "pumpkins" come through Richmond as run-through power, which IS kinda cool.
PS: I hope Ross lives that long. I had the pleasure of riding behind C&O 614 as it zipped through the Hackensack Meadows at 70MPH. WHEEEEE!!!!!!
MiningmanSounds as if there is a special requirement for a very competent engineer at the throttle who can handle this baby.
Likely the need for substantial instrumentation, and automated systems that think and act far faster than any trained engineer.
This is going into the 'undiscovered country' where few engineers even 'back in the day' of required high competence could go.
Contrariwise, 'peak' at 79 and average probably around 40 requires little skill the existing cohorts of engineers don't have, or can teach effectively. Just get them out of the idea that you yank the throttle out as quick as you can and start winding up the reverse ASAP. Even an unmodified 3460 class will run all day and then some at 80mph -- iianm, this was the class that very famously first went over 2000 miles straight with only running maintenance.
Just as a peripheral note: Ross Rowland has reserved throttle time on 5550, Fast Loop time if possible, and I have the goggles ready for him.
Firelock76Of course if it ends up in the hands of the group who wants to do the experimentation with it that's another matter, but as I understand it it's more for experimentation with torrified mass as a fuel source than as a speed queen.
The only thing that is definitively required of the rebuilt 3463 is that it be capable of [safely] attaining 130mph, or getting close enough to it to get folks to notice and remember.
The real experiment with torrefied fuel was going to involve the service APU system far more than the locomotive itself; I have my doubts that even co-firing with torrefied wood and coal will completely get them there -- but that's a matter that really only concerns the kind of spin that ultimately gets spun. Those that have disparaged the Project 130 as an excuse to play with trains are probably closer to the right interpretation than those who think it is a science experiment 'all about the wood'.
Personally, I'm a little leery of pushing historic artifacts to the max. If the proverbial "something happens" and it's wrecked or ruined it's gone for good
See Balt's post. You couldn't wreck it hard enough to destroy it as a display piece. You couldn't wreck it hard enough that you couldn't 'restore' it with the same cubic dollars needed for a replica ... probably with far less, as you have much of the existing fabric for patterns and rework. This is one of the most substantial locomotives ever built, not something like a 300SL where a 30mph collision causes the effect of a million dollars in damages.
I might add that I expect stuff would break during the testing. Perhaps a lot of stuff. John Carmack of Doom fame figured out 'along the way' that his rear axle shaft torsional strength became inadequate with too much boost and nitrous ... you fix it with some more cubic dollars and move on. If it looks like your simulations are unstable, you either fix the causes or ... stop and get whatever publicity you can, restore the locomotive as agreed, and do your publicity some other way.
I didn't know BNSF had a presence in the Topeka area ...
You didn't associate the "SF" part of the name with Topeka Shops? the T part of a certain precursor road's name???
Wow.
Yes of course, 79mph. I knew that, just rounded to 80 for the sake of the conversation, but it's important to stay within the speed allowable.
We could certainly do with some Hudson's out there that's for sure.
Sounds as if there is a special requirenment for a very competent engineer at the throttle who can handle this baby.
Got my T1 print from the guys at 5550 framed up, which of course costs 3X the print itself, and it looks great. Everyone asks, I relate the story. Never tire of it.
No doubt Balt, but raising the money can be a killer! Look at the East Broad Top or the T1 Trust. The T1 guys don't expect to have it built and running for another 15 years, if they can even manage that, and the EBT is in limbo right now, neither totally dead or totally alive.
Not too many railfan "sugar-daddys" out there that I know of, at least any who want their names known.
Firelock76Absolutely! Seriously though, I see very little reason to push it past 80MPH in a restored "as built" condition. Fantrip and excursion run riders would like a good high-speed run, but at the same time they'd like the ride to last. A speed in the 60 to 70MPH range would be good enough. Of course if it ends up in the hands of the group who wants to do the experimentation with it that's another matter, but as I understand it it's more for experimentation with torrified mass as a fuel source than as a speed queen. Personally, I'm a little leery of pushing historic artifacts to the max. If the proverbial "something happens" and it's wrecked or ruined it's gone for good. Hey, I've got two original muskets, one Revolutionary War and one Civil War, I've shot them, but not with the original loads of 100 grains of black powder, considering what they are I kept it conservative.
Seriously though, I see very little reason to push it past 80MPH in a restored "as built" condition. Fantrip and excursion run riders would like a good high-speed run, but at the same time they'd like the ride to last. A speed in the 60 to 70MPH range would be good enough.
Of course if it ends up in the hands of the group who wants to do the experimentation with it that's another matter, but as I understand it it's more for experimentation with torrified mass as a fuel source than as a speed queen.
Personally, I'm a little leery of pushing historic artifacts to the max. If the proverbial "something happens" and it's wrecked or ruined it's gone for good. Hey, I've got two original muskets, one Revolutionary War and one Civil War, I've shot them, but not with the original loads of 100 grains of black powder, considering what they are I kept it conservative.
If it was once made by man, it can be remade if wrecked - it is only a matter of $$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Absolutely!
And Sam that's interesting, I didn't know BNSF had a presence in the Topeka area, it'd be interesting to know if they're casting an eye (irritated maybe?) on the various goings-on.
[quote user="Firelock76"]
Thanks for those shots Wanswheel, that's one hell of a "sows ear!"
And kgb, your suppositions are a "consummation devoutly to be wished!"
But of course, my original idea would depend on whether BNSF even knows or cares about what's going on with the 3463 circus.
[/quote]
Firelock 76: As to your point, about BNSF having any knowledge of the 'circus' around # 3463 ? Topeka is home to The AT&SF/BN/ BNSF 'Shops', and current domicile of their Business Car Fleet.
I would imagine that there would be some level of corporate interest (or at least some 'interested' individuals in the Local managers and employees). But not being around there, interest is hard to gauge.
AT&SF has 'gifted' a number of steam engines around the State..#3768 a Northern is displayed here in Wichita @ Great Plains Museum.
There are several preserved in the Topeka, even three that would up in the Kaw River in the 1950's. Folliowing is a link to a list of engines on display in Ks. @http://www.steamlocomotive.com/lists/searchdb.php?country=USA&state=KS
and some photos @ https://www.google.com/search?q=AT%26SF+Steam+engines+displayed+in+Kansas?&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_jqywpf_TAhWs34MKHaeGBz4Q7AkIOQ&biw=1680&bih=915
As to yoursecond question about settling the matter of who 'owns' #3463....I would suspect it would come down to the actual wording of the document that consumated the original 'gifting' to whomever 'received it'. took custody, and made space for the display?
And a tip of the Kromer Capt to Mike (wanswheel) as well! His resourcefulness is amazing.
MiningmanZipping across the prairie or desert or into Denver at 79mph [fixed that for you]is more than suitable for fantrips. No way you will want to go faster than that anyway.
Yes, but you have a wretchedly slippery thing with the combination of stroke, pressure, and high drivers, only partially helped with elephantine weight on drivers, for something that a locomotive like 2926 can do better, faster, with far more cars and with better aesthetics ... oh yes, and 2926 is already done nearly to perfection.
Now, if you want something that can be tweaked to go 130mph with a train, the 84" drivers start to be significant, as does the shorter stroke. Perhaps even over the T1 with 'stock' valve arrangement which is starting to have trouble by that speed. But lord! there's a lot more to going that fast than shoving enough mass flow through the throttle.
Probably the main contribution at 85mph is lower machinery speed, but remember that with piston thrust being applied close to the middle of a shorter effective wheelbase you're inducing more yaw to be compensated out ... somehow. (And with a colossal relative polar moment of inertia to augment a developing resonance due to yaw or coupled effects like hunting. You'd better rebalance, perhaps dramatically, to run a 3460 class on a modern ROW, and that makes the yaw situation even worse.
In spite of that ... of course it's worth re-steaming her. Of course.
Q? Why is that important. Zipping across the prairie or desert or into Denver at 80mph is more than suitable for fantrips. No way you will want to go faster than that anyway.
The hot rod or Porsche will be the T1 ...where you run it at sustained high speeds is another matter. I'm sure the group has something in mind.
Firelock76 that's one hell of a "sows ear!"
It was a beautiful locomotive (and will be again). But a short-stroke 300psi 84"-drivered locomotive that can barely make it past 100mph is no silk purse no matter how you can doll it up.
Easy to fix with even relatively slight passage, valve, and front-end changes, perhaps. But not the equal of contemporary designs, some of greater dbhp, including one family of ATSF locomotives.
Here is one personal opinion that will never happen, but one could hope.
In a perfect world, BNSF would step in and take back ownership of the locomotive, then lease it for $1 annually to the Friends of the 261 (of which I am a member and support financially to the best of my ability). They would have an opportunity to fund raise for the overhaul of the locomotive over a period of years, with the objective of having it ready when 261 next needs to go in for its 15 year overhaul. BNSF periodically runs Employee Appreciation Specials. 3463 is brawny enough to haul substantial consists in the upper Midwest.
BNSF tends to support and utilize 4449 in the Northwest, and 3751 in southern CA. 261 is supported and occasionally used by BNSF in the Upper Midwest. Perhaps 2926 will eventually be able to be utiized in New Mexico, Texas and Colorado. But an oil burning 3463 would be an ideal locomotive for any support in the Upper Midwest and in to Missouri and Oklahoma. An operable 4-6-4 in the US would really be great to have.
In the meantime, it is great to have 261 around in the Upper Midwest and to be able to contribute to its continued operation.
http://www.kansasmemory.org/item/display.php?item_id=212315&f
Firelock76Wouldn't it be interesting if BNSF, the corporate successor to the Santa Fe, came out and said "The hell with all this chaos and confusion, it's OUR locomotive, and we're taking it back!
I believe this possibility was specifically referenced in the decision, in the discussion of possible recourse to the clear breach of the requirement to keep the locomotive in good condition. While the successor-in-interest to the donor may have no right to enforce conditions 'pursuant to a breach' (since no recourse for that breach, indeed no recourse method for addressing amelioration or subsequent action in case of breach, is found in the deed of gift) it would seem quite clear that if a breach invalidates the document ... and there is no language establishing severability of conditions, either ... the gift might be voided and right, title, and possession of the locomotive return to the donor or its successor-in-interest.
That may well be an essential step in determining present ownership under the evident circumstances so far, so I wouldn't wish for something unless you're prepared to get it.
The question then becomes what BNSF would do with the thing. I doubt they would sell it outright to CSR,or establish a corporate partnership or JV in some way with the torrefied-fuel development, but that's surely a possibility. My guess is that they would work up a slightly-revised contract, perhaps naming a specific representative or organization 'on behalf of the children of Topeka' this time, and be very caredul to assure that title, risk, and any other issues connected with the locomotive were fully addressed ... forewarned is forearmed in this particuoar case, and there is a long history to consult for the forewarning part. This has the almost seductive attraction of stopping the entire wacky legal situation almost in its tracks in a simple, almost two-step process that might take a couple of lawyers a couple of days to craft, with the advantage that there are now known entities with an interest in preserving the engine from utter destruction.
No, I don't see BNSF making a heritage locomotive out of what is esentially something of a sow's ear, and in any case there are far, far better 'representative' locomotives for them to support - I can think of a couple of very significant and successful 4-8-4s immediately.
On the other hand, it would be fully possible for BNSF to codify and then demand EXACTLY what CSR could do with the locomotive, and what remediations or restoration would be needed after Project 130 reaches whatever completion it gets to, as well as specify the amount to be put in escrow, etc. to reasonably ensure that. I have my own feelings on what that should be (and have bored everyone with them too often to repeat here); the important thing is that BNSF, unlike any of tghe current 'players', would retain the absolute right to determine those conditions in making its 'new' deed of gift.
RMEThe issue with CSR's purchase is an issue for further action at law ... which is ongoing; it's yet to be decided in a trial whether there is some issue of contract, for example, or adverse possession, or breach of explicit covenant, that might leave CSR in "possession" of the locomotive.
Are you saying that there is presently court action underway to sort out these issues and decide whether CSR’s purchase was actually valid, and they own the locomotive? Is it firmly established that Great Overland Station never owned the locomotive, and that CSR’s attempt to purchase it involved only an agreement to purchase it from GOS?
If so, how might it be found in court that CSR owns the locomotive? What would be some specific examples of the details of an issue of contract, adverse possession, or breach of explicit covenant that might result in CSR being the owner of the locomotive?
Not likely to happen, but...
Wouldn't it be interesting if BNSF, the corporate successor to the Santa Fe, came out and said "The hell with all this chaos and confusion, it's OUR locomotive, and we're taking it back! Topeka didn't live up to it's obligations, so there!"
Not likely to happen, but it WOULD be interesting. Hey, Warren Buffett's a railfan, maybe he'd like his own personal steam locomotive?
In the interest of fair disclosure, I would also make the following SPECULATION (which is partially impelled by similar abuse of the justice system regarding Bostian's criminal charges in Philadelphia):
I got the very strong impression, at multiple points in the decision, that the judge was making fun of the relative incopetence of Petrel's legal "representation", which as we know from previous threads was not provided by members of the 'legal establishment'. Now I have repeatedly observed certain classes of lawyer use language, hairsplitting interpretation, etc. to make them indispensable even when demonstrably incompetent -- for example, with respect to real-estate law and neighborhood covenants. I wouldn't at all be surprised to find that at east some of Petrel's problem is not so much the legal arguments as the perceived standing of the people who made them and then tried to argue with their 'betters' through the court system.
Perhaps he will learn something from this, if only in how to 'win friends and influence people'. Or be more careful of the various toes involved if there is a next time for something he wants.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.