It is currently Sun May 19, 2024 6:25 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 1923 MLW 2-6-2 in BC sidelined pending a safety review
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:48 am 

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:55 pm
Posts: 2320
Concerns over the age and increasing maintenance costs of 2-6-2 No. 1077, built in 1923 by Montreal Locomotive Works for Vancouver Island logging operations, have led Fort Steele Heritage Town, near Cranbrook, B.C., to halt train operations pending an outside review: https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... ty-review/


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1923 MLW 2-6-2 in BC sidelined pending a safety review
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 12:44 pm 

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:33 am
Posts: 56
I have a real soft spot for 1077. Back about 1968 a friend and I chanced onto here switching out loads for interchange with the E&N at a place called the "diamond", which had an occupied tower to control the crossing of the lines. The crew invited us to ride from there up to Naniamo Lakes and return. With 17 empties, she was down to about 3 miles an hour on the 3+% grade. The crew joked that you could get off, take a leak, and catch up easily!

Attachment:
1077 diamond vanc isle ready to leave sbt.jpg


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1923 MLW 2-6-2 in BC sidelined pending a safety review
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:10 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 11531
Location: Somewhere east of Prescott, AZ along the old Santa Fe "Prescott & Eastern"
From the Trains NewsWire item:

Quote:
Weaver told the news site the park’s insurance agent pointed out a clause in the facility’s policy “that basically says if there’s a chance of a serious incident occurring and we don’t do everything reasonably possible to address the risk, our policy won’t cover us, and the board members will be personally liable.” That led to the decision to park the train, he said.


That sounds like an "out" big enough to ram a train through:

"Oh? You actually invited the public onto your property? You had big pieces of machinery in motion rather than sitting still? And the one was HOT?!?!?!? Sorry, no way we can cover your claim, and you're retroactively canceled......."

I'd better stay indoors all day today and evermore. There's a chance a piece of space junk or plane ice might fall from the sky and kill me. And NO WAY should I dare to get in a CAR or cross the %#*&@! STREET, fer cryin' out loud!!!!!!! Too big a risk!!!!!!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1923 MLW 2-6-2 in BC sidelined pending a safety review
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 5:17 pm 

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:52 am
Posts: 2576
Location: Strasburg, PA
Quote:
the review was set in motion when the park’s railway manager voiced concern that “the 1077 was nearing the end of its working life and it will be increasingly difficult and costly to maintain.
From Trains

I didn't know that steam locomotives in preservation had a finite working life (Better not tell RGS #20 that). I get the impression from that quote that Fort Steele is looking for an excuse to stop running steam.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1923 MLW 2-6-2 in BC sidelined pending a safety review
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 6:03 pm 

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:23 am
Posts: 440
Location: Sheboygan County, Wisconsin
I too, rode 1077 in 1968. That would have been in August.
Regular engineer was Pete McGovern, fireman was Fred Lawes and the brakie was Jack McAdam.

1077 was the spare engine on the woods operation. Bigger 2-8-2T 1055 was getting some work done in the Chemainus shop at that time.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1923 MLW 2-6-2 in BC sidelined pending a safety review
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 7:15 pm 

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:42 pm
Posts: 2884
Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:
"Oh? You actually invited the public onto your property? You had big pieces of machinery in motion rather than sitting still? And the one was HOT?!?!?!? Sorry, no way we can cover your claim, and you're retroactively canceled......."


I was told by a local park train operator that their insurance company was totally horrified by the idea of their 2 foot gauge Crowns. So you've got a steam pressure vessel, with a fire under it, no automated controls, and there's a propane tank in the car directly behind the fire? And it's mobile and you give people rides on this? "That's extra... Lots extra..."

They not so affectionately called it a "bomb" and rumor has it they were rather pleased when the switch was made to steam outline trains.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1923 MLW 2-6-2 in BC sidelined pending a safety review
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 7:34 pm 

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 3:20 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Vancouver Island
Thanks for the beautiful picture of 1077 at Diamond, I fondly remember 1077 when it was working the Museum Trains on the island in the 70's. Unfortunately we have a regulatory nightmare in BC now, with the demise of the BC Rail steam program there was no longer an operator who held any political sway, and the 1948 Provincial Steam Locomotive Code was superseded by the Stationary Boiler Act. As it stands right now there is no equivalent code for mechanical or maintenance standards (other than the boiler), and it is up to the railway / owner to inspect and maintain the locomotive, and the provincial railway inspectors audit the railways paperwork to ensure compliance. This is a far cry from working under the 1948 code when an inspector actually inspected the whole locomotive, and signed the cab card themselves. Working under the stationary boiler act is also problematic, for example safety valves must have operating handles, a higher blowdown percentage than is desirable on a locomotive, and cannot be set or adjusted on the locomotive. Also pressure components can only be worked on by a licensed shop; a power engineer, or even a red seal boilermaker is no longer allowed to do this kind of work based upon their own experience. Individual boiler inspectors in the province also vary widely on how they apply the code. All this is to say that any steam locomotive operator in BC is facing a very difficult and expensive future. The lack of a code to work to for the mechanical (non boiler) parts of the locomotive makes it difficult for any board to ensure they are doing their due diligence.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1923 MLW 2-6-2 in BC sidelined pending a safety review
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 8:58 pm 

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:52 am
Posts: 2576
Location: Strasburg, PA
Bobharbison wrote:
They not so affectionately called it a "bomb" and rumor has it they were rather pleased when the switch was made to steam outline trains.
When I hear those kind of statements, I like to point out to people that the gas tank in their car is also a bomb, that they don't think twice about strapping it to their ass.

E&N6004 wrote:
Unfortunately we have a regulatory nightmare in BC now,
I recall that from talking to the few customers we had north of the border. We had to jump through all sorts of hoops over supplying a second injector starting valve to an operation in Canada. We had supplied one previously that was installed and working satisfactorily. When the starting valve on the other side of the same engine wore out, they ordered another from us to replace it. In the time in-between, their inspector retired, and the new one absolutely wasn't going to allow them to install that uncertified piece of junk on their engine. The identical valve on the other side wasn't a problem because it was already on and in service. This was going to be a new installation, and even though it was identical to the historic starting valve that was being replaced (which also had never been certified), there was no way he was signing off on installing it. That took four or five months to unsnarl, and it was over nothing.

I can see why there are so few steam locomotives running in Canada, and it's a damn shame. Steam railroaders in the US should be counting their blessings every day.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1923 MLW 2-6-2 in BC sidelined pending a safety review
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:12 pm 

Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:08 pm
Posts: 23
That's actually incorrect.
Technical Safety BC is legally required to adopt and adhere to all federally mandated rules and regulations pertaining to railways. This includes, but is not limited to: Canadian Railway Operating Rules, Duty Rest Period Rules, SMS Regs, etc. This also includes the M3 Steam Locomotive Inspection Safety Rules (virtually identical to FRA Steam Locomotive Rules with two exceptions: ditch lights and double water glasses). Unfortunately too many operators do not understand how the Provincial regulatory system actually works, which allows boiler inspectors to push familiar stationary boiler rules rather than the applicable M3. On the flip side it also allows certain operators to potentially get away with not doing a 1472 day inspection for 40+ years....

Re. Kelly's comment.
BC is the only province that uses the federal Steam locomotive regs, the other province's use modern stationary boiler regs which are insane.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1923 MLW 2-6-2 in BC sidelined pending a safety review
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 11:19 pm 

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:33 am
Posts: 56
Somehow, in trying to add another photo, I lost the post about riding 1077. Here are a couple photos of that experience. I was using my first "real" camera, a Yashica 44, which was a copy of a baby Rollie. It shot 127 film and these made large square negs and slides which fit in a 35mm projecter.

Tom, I suspect we were a bit earlier in the year. They sure did keep her pretty!


Attachments:
1077 diamond vanc isle ready to leave sbt.jpg
1077 diamond vanc isle ready to leave sbt.jpg [ 98.08 KiB | Viewed 1991 times ]
1077 at diamond vanc isle sbt.jpg
1077 at diamond vanc isle sbt.jpg [ 201.91 KiB | Viewed 1991 times ]
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1923 MLW 2-6-2 in BC sidelined pending a safety review
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 11:34 pm 

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:55 pm
Posts: 2320
whitworth wrote:
On the flip side it also allows certain operators to potentially get away with not doing a 1472 day inspection for 40+ years....

Speaking of bombs...


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1923 MLW 2-6-2 in BC sidelined pending a safety review
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 12:57 pm 

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:42 pm
Posts: 2884
Kelly Anderson wrote:
Bobharbison wrote:
They not so affectionately called it a "bomb" and rumor has it they were rather pleased when the switch was made to steam outline trains.
When I hear those kind of statements, I like to point out to people that the gas tank in their car is also a bomb, that they don't think twice about strapping it to their ass.


Correct, and how often do you see a mental midget in the gas station smoking a cigarette. However, I think we can both agree there are more potential failure modes on a locomotive boiler than on an automobile. Exposing the crown sheet can lead to a bad day, and propane must be used properly and handled with care.

The park train operator liked the change for the same reason, they used to have to hire and train people who understood steam locomotives. Now, any kid on the farm who can drive a tractor (almost all of them) can be trained to operate it in a day. It appears that the vast majority of the public either didn't notice or doesn't care, even though having a real steam train was a strong selling point for years.

This is an amusement park type setting, not a railroad museum, so the goals are different. If they want to ride a real steam train, there's one just down the road that operates about once a month.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], LVRR2095 and 59 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: