Kudos to the owners of the LS&I 22 to not just let her sit in pieces when the rules of the game changed. It looks like they've done very nice work and it'll make a great interpretive display piece at the museum.

Any work going to be happening on the Saginaw this winter, or will progress happen this spring?

As mentioned on page 1 the ST No. 2 will have its firebox temporarily secured to the frame and the firebox riveted to the boiler, hopefully, by the end of November. The owner expects to make the 29 fitted tapered bolts over the winter for the final connection in the spring. Since there will be no heat in the engine house over the winter, work will be very slow. However, it is expected that plumbing for the FRA steam test will be done over the winter.

Will continue till the weather stops us. Plan on riveting smoke box to boiler this next week. Depends too when the locomotive is kicked out of the engine house too. No heat is one thing but WI winters limit you at times when it gets colder and your working outside in the elements. We can and have worked outside in winter before but if the wind kicks up or the temp gets to cold you some times say the heck with it. We jacked the frame up and removed the wheels in a foot of snow once, but it wasn't real cold either. Will be doing what we can and when we can.

This is a private restoration and MC puts two of it's diesel locomotives in the engine house during winter months. In the recent past they do not plow snow so you can get to the engine house till special events take place. That too hinders progress.

Regards, John.

A different thread on Saginaw Timber 2-8-2 #2, has been locked by the moderator. I agree that any speculation of what might happen with the current Mid-Continent Board of Directors, or what might eventually happen with MCRM itself, is uncalled for. However, I DO believe that it is an important story and the rail preservation community needs to be kept informed. Hopefully RyPN will be able to somehow do that without the finger pointing.

My two cents.

Les

Below are some facts from Mid-Continent's website. Whether these are true facts or "alternative facts" I cannot say, but this seems a logical place to start for information in this regard. Additional facts (rather than sheer speculation and attacks by the completely uninformed, as in the locked thread) could advance the discussion, if available.

Feb. 10, 2017: "The Board of Directors released the following update on Saginaw Timber Company #2:

At Mid‑Continent’s Board of Directors meeting held on December 10, 2016, after a long discussion, a majority of the Board voted, pursuant to the terms of the lease, not to run the Saginaw #2 as a part of its steam program. The Board of Directors’ primary concern is the potential large financial liability in running the Saginaw #2 as the Museum is immediately responsible for all repairs to the engine during the term of the lease. The lease does not require the Lessor to give any warranties on the workmanship of repairs made to the engine. In addition the Board of Directors is committed to running Museum owned engines, not privately owned engines, and at the present time does not believe, with the high cost of maintaining and running steam locomotives, that two engines can be run at the same time.

One director explains, 'This was not an easy decision to make. It was not a black-and-white situation and there are several issues that had to be considered. All options were looked at. In the best interest of the museum, the financial liabilities had to take priority. Lease costs with the obligation of fifteen years for maintenance and with no warranties whatsoever was the main reason that made the decision necessary.' "

From the locomotive's roster entry on Mid-Continent's website:

"Number 2 was built by Baldwin in December 1912, for logging service in the state of Washington for the Saginaw Timber Company. Her 44-inch diameter drivers produce great pulling power and flangeless center drivers allow for operation on tight curves found on logging railroads. #2 is an oil-burner, a preferred fuel for logging engines to eliminate hot cinders that could pose a fire hazard. #2 served several lumber companies (Northwest Lumber Co., mid-to-late 1920s-1939; Polson Brothers Lumber Co., 1939-1948; Rayonier, 1948-1962) before going to the Cadillac & Lake City in 1962, a freight and tourist hauling short line in Michigan."

From a history of the locomotive linked to said roster entry:

"After the tenure on the C&LC, the #2 was purchased by Carl Ulrich. The locomotive was then shipped across Lake Michigan by ferry and transported to North Lake, WI where it would be repaired and later operate on the now-defunct Kettle Moraine Scenic Railway. This continued until Ulrich and Richard Hinebaugh, Kettle Moraine Scenic Railway’s owner, had a disagreement and use of the #2 came to an end.

Ulrich then sold the #2 to Stewart Kuyper, president of Pella Windows corporation in July 1979. It is worth brief mention that Ulrich would immediately regret his decision to sell his locomotive and within a matter of weeks purchased Warren & Ouachita Valley Railroad #1 from two members of Mid-Continent. Kuyper’s plans included operating #2 from Pella to Des Moines, Iowa. The locomotive was moved to the Illinois Railway Museum (IRM) in Union, Illinois for re-working under the supervision of Dave Conrad. Instead of repairs taking place, Conrad instead advised Kuyper to find a different engine altogether. Kuyper would not have a chance to follow through on Conrad’s suggestion. In all the ownership changes to date, this would be the shortest as Stewart Kuyper tragically passed away in 1980. Upon his death, Kuyper’s family donated the #2 to IRM.

Illinois Railway Museum would not hold on to the locomotive very long. IRM approached Mid-Continent Railway Museum soon after, seeking to trade the #2 in return for Chicago Burlington & Quincy #4960 (now owned by Grand Canyon Railway), but no deal was reached. Later, seeking funds to build a car barn to move additional displays indoors, IRM placed the #2 up for auction on October 23, 1982.

A group of Mid-Continent members consisting of Skip Lichter, John Hucksdorf, John Berman, Frank Bartusek, Phil Hastings, and Harley Vodak pooled their resources to buy the locomotive, bringing it to North Freedom where it has remained since arriving a month later on November 22, 1982. After repairs were made to make the #2 operational it began being leased to Mid-Continent where it was frequently found in train service in its original Saginaw Timber Company #2 appearance."

From the foregoing information, and that posted elsewhere, it appears that Mid-Continent was involved in a lease arrangement with #2's owner(s) requiring the museum to fund current repairs in exchange for past use, up to a limit of $200,000. A court mediation process then seems to have determined that Mid-Continent's required "contribution" reached that amount. Again, further clarification would be useful.

Some points worth considering and discussing:

1.) Is this not an object lesson to railroad museums as to the true costs of providing an active steam locomotive, taking into account future repairs as opposed to the "use it up, put it aside, and worry about it later" business plan which some operations began with in the '60s and '70s, and a smaller number have successfully moved on from?

2.) While applicable state statutes may vary in details, is not the decision of the MCRM's Board of Directors to act "in the best interest of the museum" an example of the directors of a museum following their legal duty, as opposed to satiating the demands of persons, such as a kid in central Massachusetts, that this museum should operate a private individual's steam locomotive?

3.) Having "gotten out from under" their pre-existing legal and financial obligations in regard to this privately-owned locomotive with no pre-preservation connection with Wisconsin or even anywhere remotely "mid-continent," should not the MCRM Board of Directors be applauded for devoting the museum's resources, henceforth, to locomotives owned by the museum and having a historical connection to the history of the region the museum purports to portray?

It could be that the time to have considered the appropriateness of operating a "foreign" locomotive, and legally committing to support it and maintain it, was before making the original commitment in the first place. If that is the case, then the consideration of determining "what's best for the museum" would also include the costs of braking the agreement or otherwise failing to live up to that agreement. An organization I am affiliated with decided a couple years ago to invest a lot of resources in moving in rolling stock that was accepted (no process like accessioning has even been done) and building track to hold it, despite much of it having nothing to do with either the interpretive mission or the operating need of the organization. So, yes, it helps to see into the future and to make decisions also by considering the impact of the commitments made in the past. "Best" is not an unalterable concept.

Just out of curiousity, does anyone know when the FRA clock started ticking on the #2's boiler? On the museum's website under the Saginaw #2 update for 12/31/11, there is a photo of the boiler at the museum after it had been returned from the boiler shop. The photo is dated July 10, 2010.

It's my understanding that FRA mandates that the 15 year boiler clock begins one year after the first tube is placed or first fire, whichever comes first.

From the museum's website, it appears the flue installation happened some time between April 2009 and July 2010. So that would be the start date to use, since first fire up appears to have been October 10th 2014.

Brian

I'm failing to envision the first fire up preceeding the tubes being in.....

How about to cover the possibility that first fire up is less that one year from the first tube installation?

Brian

OK, so let me get this straight..... you fire it up before you install the tubes, so the result is warped steel in the firebox, to prevent people from finding out that you will start installing tubes in less than one year?

Well we definitely just found a serious flaw in the FRA regulation... That is of course assuming that it is worded that way.

If you never light a fire the 15 year clock starts one year after the first tube is installed. If you complete a form 4 with all tubes rolled and your hydro satisfies the FRA man sooner than 1 year since the first tube was rolled, and you decide to light a fire in the firebox the clock starts then. The wording isn't about lighting a fire before installing flues. Think of it as service days, clock starts on the first service day if you can complete the work and operate in less than a year. If you can't complete and operate in a year you get less than 15 years of operation. Of course this is assuming the wording is that way and I haven't checked to see if it is.

Per the CFR:In the case of a new locomotive or a locomotive being brought out of retirement, the initial 15 year period shall begin on the day that the locomotive is placed in service or 365 calendar days after the first flue tube is installed in the locomotive, whichever comes first.

Please bookmark this link to the current CFR49 part 200:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c77cd8bd04bcce76777d94597f1e5f01&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfrv4_02.tpl#0

Mike Tillger