It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:49 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:03 am 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:19 am
Posts: 5508
Location: southeastern USA
What I'm reading seems like a report not on a finished project, but an interim report - perhaps done between different succeeding contractors - that has pointed out things that are in process. It's a good thing to have red flags covered in process when it's easy to finish repairs properly than to find out you should have done something differently a few years before when you want to start running and it's all together again.

_________________
Santayana: "He who does not remember the past is condemned to repeat it."
Corollary: "He who does is doomed to watch those who don't repeat it anyway."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:53 pm 

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:56 pm
Posts: 8
BSFSRYFAN wrote:
In April 2016, the FRA conducted a two day inspection of the 14 and found several issues. They issued two inspection reports, which are attached. Photographs were also taken by the FRA inspectors. These are public records, available to anyone who requests them from the FRA, so there is no harm in them being shared here. Of course, this was the state of the 14 two years ago, I don' t know if any of the issues were corrected, or if any other work was performed. If not, it would make the basis for the lawsuit understandable from the perspective of the locomotive's owner.


Wasatch RR Cont wrote:
It appears that I, again am being censored. To the moderators, please do not post any of my notes. I will again leave the page rather than feel that I have no rights to comment without censorship.


I'd be interested to hear WRC's individual responses to these findings by the FRA. It seems they could easily be addressed, however, according to Rimmasch's publicist, he thinks he's being censored. Do any of the moderators care to comment on that statement?

I noted that in each of the findings, not one recommended notification of the FRA for remedial action nor charge of a violation. The response by Rimmasch and the threatened legal action against the individual who posted pictures of the K&T 14 here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=37925&p=230842#p230842 would suggest harsher penalty was imposed by the FRA. I could be wrong, but couldn't help make that observation.

Jeff


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:02 pm 

Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:30 pm
Posts: 663
Location: Bucks County, PA
Jeffrey Fefferlyn wrote:
BSFSRYFAN wrote:
In April 2016, the FRA conducted a two day inspection of the 14 and found several issues. They issued two inspection reports, which are attached. Photographs were also taken by the FRA inspectors. These are public records, available to anyone who requests them from the FRA, so there is no harm in them being shared here. Of course, this was the state of the 14 two years ago, I don' t know if any of the issues were corrected, or if any other work was performed. If not, it would make the basis for the lawsuit understandable from the perspective of the locomotive's owner.


Wasatch RR Cont wrote:
It appears that I, again am being censored. To the moderators, please do not post any of my notes. I will again leave the page rather than feel that I have no rights to comment without censorship.


I'd be interested to hear WRC's individual responses to these findings by the FRA. It seems they could easily be addressed, however, according to Rimmasch's publicist, he thinks he's being censored. Do any of the moderators care to comment on that statement?


I personally saw no post edits on what he posted, and other than a public "hey don't post anything that might get you into trouble" (not censoring, actually trying to be helpful), I saw no censorship taking place myself. Unless something happened via PM...

_________________
Big Jim Video Productions
Morrisville, PA

http://www.bigjimvideo.com/home.html
http://www.youtube.com/user/bigjim4life


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:33 pm 

Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:32 pm
Posts: 10
For the record;

I am being censored by RYPN Moderators. Though I appreciate the kind and seemingly sincere note above, there are a few moderators who have been very vocal about making sure that I am censored. I have made three attempts to answer questions, all of my posts have been deleted or are under censorship and have not been released or posted as of this date. There are three missing posts from me. Unfortunate.

I love the freedoms I enjoy in the United States of America. I love the right I have to own and operate a business. I love the freedom of speech and press that I have (so far as it is not censored as it is here). I love the open and transparent nature of our government. I love the fact that all parties are afforded equal and fair representation. I am grateful for a country that has laws that protect both a business and consumer. We live in a great country.

My responses to posts have included notes to Kelly and Alexander and others. I will answer the most recent questions and hope that this message is indeed posted. More than anything, I am personally hurt that I am censored when so many others are seemingly not censored, yet say whatever they want about who/what ever they want. I also feel that Wasatch is an open target on this page. Be that as it may;

FRA did inspect the locomotive while we were in the process of restoration and indeed, none of the items are defects, they were notations and, in November of 2016, I personally had resolved all of these with the FRA (some of which were not even our work). A note about FRA; Did you all know that FRA really should NOT be inspecting OUT OF SERVICE locomotives? The K&T restoration and the inspection was performed OUT OF SERVICE. The reason for 49 CFR Part 230 is to help us create a locomotive that when IN SERVICE is compliant.

The Burg is a sacred cow of RYPN. Nobody can say a negative word about the Burg. They do great work and I admire all of them and Kelly and all the rest, I really do. Just a case in point. If FRA showed up at the Burg and inspected locomotive XXXXX that was in the shop, torn down, under restoration and Mr. FRA said, lets take a look this defect in this boiler. Kelly says, “Yes, we are aware and we are fixing it.” Mr. FRA says, “I'm writing it up anyway.” Well, okay, but it is under restoration and until it is “IN SERVICE” it really isn't a defect. TRUE. Would we have heard about this situation on RYPN? No. But do we hear about it with Wasatch? Yes. Burg=sacred cow. Wasatch= dart board, play at will, as large a dart as you will as many throws as you want, no rules and if the target complains, we will just shut him up....hurry throw another dart!

The same has happened here. FRA showed up and inspected an item under restoration and though allowed to make comments and suggestions, none of it is a defect, none of it is IN SERVICE. Locomotive is still OUT OF SERVICE.

For the record, my legal team is watching RYPN. I am not upset at the thread or the posts. I have had many of you tell me to speak up and too many of you tell me to shut up. Between being told to shut up and being censored by the moderators, I really do not have a voice anyway. No matter. To some I talk to much, to others I talk too little and for myself, my voice isn't heard anyway, so have at me. I really do not care.

If any of you care, I was served legal notice of action last week. I can not talk about what our next move is, suffice to say, my legal team is preparing both our response and our counter claim as we speak. All of which will be posted for the public record. Sit back, pop the popcorn, grab a Coke and enjoy the show. I won't say much, I am not allowed to anyway and even if I do, you probably will never see it. Feel free to contact me personally if you really want the truth....or at least my side of the story.

info@wrrc.us

Posted by me, John E. Rimmasch (the silent dart board and un-sacred cow of RYPN)

:-)

_________________
Wasatch Railroad Contractors
Cheyenne, Wyoming


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:28 pm 

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:56 pm
Posts: 10
John,

Thanks for responding! Are you directly using the account now for WRRC?

Wasatch RR Cont wrote:
FRA did inspect the locomotive while we were in the process of restoration and indeed, none of the items are defects, they were notations and, in November of 2016, I personally had resolved all of these with the FRA (some of which were not even our work). A note about FRA; Did you all know that FRA really should NOT be inspecting OUT OF SERVICE locomotives? The K&T restoration and the inspection was performed OUT OF SERVICE. The reason for 49 CFR Part 230 is to help us create a locomotive that when IN SERVICE is compliant.



Just to be clear, as I think it's important to get your side of the story out there, but you personally remediated all of the identified issues in the April 2016 inspection reports to the satisfaction of the FRA? That would mean that if we went to look at the locomotive today, none of those identified issues would be present?

If the April 2016 report was conducted when the locomotive was out of service, were repairs still in progress?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:35 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:19 am
Posts: 5508
Location: southeastern USA
Thanks, John.

_________________
Santayana: "He who does not remember the past is condemned to repeat it."
Corollary: "He who does is doomed to watch those who don't repeat it anyway."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:33 pm 

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:41 pm
Posts: 452
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Well, I m just a volunteer who has worked on a couple of steam locomotives over the last 10 years. I quickly realized that CFR49 Part 230 was essential reading If I wanted to know anything about what needed to be done. EVERYONE who works on a steam loco needs to be intimately acquainted with Part 230. That said, I just finished reading the FRA reports that BSFRYFAN so kindly linked in. The first thing that literally jumped out at me out was that whoever did these "repairs" knew NOTHING of the Part 230 requirements. The "repairs" described sound like repairs made prior to the publication of Part 230 that may have been adequate to pass the state inspection that was then required. Many steam locomotives in tourist service operated into the 2000's with repairs like these.

From the descriptions, these faults are so egregious that they simply cannot be the work of a professional boilermaker familiar with Part 230; certainly not a company with the experience that Wasatch has.

As far as I have ever experienced, the FRA does not typically inspect out of service equipment unless they are asked to do it as part of a "normal" inspection visit. If you have a good relationship with your FRA person, he (or she) MIGHT make a special visit but that would be unusual. The report, since the locomotive is out of service, is simply an as-is statement of condition and should not be taken as anything but that unless these specific items were included in the scope of a repair contract.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:48 pm 

Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:45 pm
Posts: 143
"As far as I have ever experienced, the FRA does not typically inspect out of service equipment unless they are asked to do it as part of a "normal" inspection visit."

You are generally correct on that. However, there are a large number of parties that can make that request. According to the FRA, the first request that they will respond to is a request from a federal government official. This can be a safety request, or an investigative request based upon a funding grant or application. This is quite common for track or bridge grant requests.

The second major category of such inspections are based upon complaints or reports of unsafe conditions. This can be from another FRA employee (a track person can ask for such an inspection by a mechanical person, for example) should they feel that there is a need. It can also come from an employee or a member of the general public, generally based upon at least some basic information.

Another cause of such a request can come from another government agency at almost any level. This could be because of local funding, an investigative agency needing expert help, etc.

From there, these inspections generally come about due to patterns of problems by a carrier, manager or employee. They can also happen should the company ask for it, although the FRA hesitates to do this as a special trip as they consider it as a service, unless there is a good safety reason.

This is somewhat generalized as the full details would take pages, but understand that there are a large number of reasons an inspection could take place of equipment, track and any other railroad item, even if it is out of service. In fact, the FRA is known for making some inspections before an activity happens to ensure that the carrier will be in compliance before operations begin. This also can be used to show that a carrier has knowledge, or should have knowledge, about a lack of compliance which greatly increases the fines, and possibly moves it to a criminal activity.

Bart


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:08 am 

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:40 pm
Posts: 793
Help me understand this:

1. The locomotive in question was retired in the mid-1970s, after having operated for a number of years on an isolated amusement-type railroad that was not under ICC or FRA jurisdiction.

2. It never ran again after being retired.

3. It passed through several hands after retirement, but was not "unretired."

4. It has not yet been unretired or been an active locomotive. Thus, it is still not under FRA jursidiction. Yet.

5. There was a contractor/contractors that began work on this locomotive sometime in the 1990s to eventually put it into service, presumably under FRA once it has been formally unretired.

6. The first contractor/contractors did not complete the job they were hired to do, meaning that when they left, the locomotive was not completed nor had it been fired up or "unretired."

7. Years later, another contractor was engaged to complete the work.

8. That contractor left the job due to alleged non-payment by the owners.

9. Certain other person or persons, possibly with an axe to grind, began claiming that the work was substandard. Whether it was the first contractor or the second one was never revealed. This was also brought to the attention of FRA.

10. FRA inspected the locomotive and tender, neither of which were completed nor in service yet. They still remain retired for FRA purposes.

11. This locomotive and tender were/are thus not yet under FRA jurisdiction.

12. Everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else. This includes, as is usually the case, a certain number of self-appointed experts who have never owned, operated, restored, repaired or maintained a steam locomotive of any size. This includes some household names who have been involved in one way or another with several restorations, none of which has yet to produce an operable locomotive.

Just want to make certain I have this info all straight.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:32 am 

Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:49 pm
Posts: 36
Lincoln Penn wrote:
Help me understand this:

1. The locomotive in question was retired in the mid-1970s, after having operated for a number of years on an isolated amusement-type railroad that was not under ICC or FRA jurisdiction.

2. It never ran again after being retired.

3. It passed through several hands after retirement, but was not "unretired."

4. It has not yet been unretired or been an active locomotive. Thus, it is still not under FRA jursidiction. Yet.

5. There was a contractor/contractors that began work on this locomotive sometime in the 1990s to eventually put it into service, presumably under FRA once it has been formally unretired.

6. The first contractor/contractors did not complete the job they were hired to do, meaning that when they left, the locomotive was not completed nor had it been fired up or "unretired."

7. Years later, another contractor was engaged to complete the work.

8. That contractor left the job due to alleged non-payment by the owners.

9. Certain other person or persons, possibly with an axe to grind, began claiming that the work was substandard. Whether it was the first contractor or the second one was never revealed. This was also brought to the attention of FRA.

10. FRA inspected the locomotive and tender, neither of which were completed nor in service yet. They still remain retired for FRA purposes.

11. This locomotive and tender were/are thus not yet under FRA jurisdiction.

12. Everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else. This includes, as is usually the case, a certain number of self-appointed experts who have never owned, operated, restored, repaired or maintained a steam locomotive of any size. This includes some household names who have been involved in one way or another with several restorations, none of which has yet to produce an operable locomotive.

Just want to make certain I have this info all straight.



When the most recent contractor picked up the project the boiler was dismantled. It is my understanding (from several involved) that the people at that railroad over in Big South Fork requested the FRA to inspect the locomotive after the contractor walked, following payment some $80,000 in excess of the awarded bid price.

Anytime the FRA is requested by the owner of an eventually to be regulated locomotive, they have authority to inspect it and issue a report.

Read the report the work is not claimed to be substandard, the FRA states it is. Since the boiler was an empty shell the first contractor certainly cannot be blamed for any of the new work involving the assembly.

The FRA would not issue a report on a piece of equipment they have no authority over. However, they cannot issue fines or violations because it is not in service. Fingers seem to only be pointed in one direction.

John


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:37 am 

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:56 pm
Posts: 10
First of all, thanks to everyone for keeping this a civil conversation, Mr. Rimmasch, Mr. Penn, and everyone else. I think it speaks volumes.

What really confuses me about all of this is that if the boiler was still "under repair" and that WRRC was trying to correct poor repairs done by prior contractors, as of the April 2016 inspection, then why did WRRC do a hydro of the boiler in 2015, with the FRA present? There is an inspection report, which I have attached, that if true, would seem to indicate to me that WRRC was trying to put the boiler into service, ten months before they were trying to allegedly correct repairs.

According to the lawsuit, WRRC was awarded the contract in 2012, and between then and the April 2016 inspections, I doubt any other contractor was working on the thing. So the 2015 hydro fits within the timeline WRRC was working on it.


Attachments:
Responsive Record 1 - Inspection Report.pdf [12.3 KiB]
Downloaded 152 times
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:52 am 

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 40
Location: Owosso
Because of this whole thing and nobody is talking about is that the FRA is putting in new rules to part 230 that will require anyone that is going to restore a locomotive that has not had a 1472 under the new part 230 to contact the FRA so they can do a pre-inspection before any work is done on that locomotive.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:59 am 

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:18 am
Posts: 523
Location: Wall, NJ
Seems to me a hydro is the best way to know where you stand. And having the FRA there gives the test some teeth from a contractual stand point. I see nothing unusual here.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:32 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 555
Correct me if I am wrong-

You can only hydro a completed boiler.

To complete a boiler, you have to have the tubes/flues installed.

Once you've loaded your first flue/tube, the clock is running. It would depend on your anticipated operating schedule, if you know you will hit the 1472(?) operating days long before your 15 years is up, some delay wouldn't matter so much. If you KNOW you won't run out of operational days before you hit your 15 year flue life, you would be wise to time things so that you can get the loco fully operational ASAP once the 15 year clock starts. Look at it this way-the budget was $750k. 750/15=$50k a year to keep it in operation. If you goof off for a year, you wasted $50k. This engine was Hydro'd about 3 years ago, so that factor alone means $150k is down the drain, forever.

Crazy, sad situation here.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Disagrement over steam repairs
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:48 pm 

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:41 pm
Posts: 452
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Pegasuspinto wrote:
Once you've loaded your first flue/tube, the clock is running.


Part 230 actually provides TWO clocks. The first clock is the "complete the overhaul" clock and the second clock is the 1472 Service Day/15 year clock. The first clock provides one year from installation of the first tube/flue until the 1472 day clock starts. This time is provided to complete the boiler and mechanical repairs, pass the hydro, reassemble the locomotive and pass the steam test. If the reassembly takes less than a year, the 1472 day clock starts when the locomotive passes its inspection. If it is not completed in a year, that is bad because the 1472 day clock starts regardless of the status of the locomotive. The one year clock is provided because the 1472 day clock is based on service days which are impossible until the locomotive is steamed and passes its final inspection. BOTH clocks reset if the tubes/flues are removed from the boiler.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Kelly Anderson and 56 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: