It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:06 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 9:39 pm 

Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:08 am
Posts: 238
Mark Z. Yerkes wrote:
What style lettering will be done on the tender?


My recollection is that the recommended restoration period is 1945-1953. The correct tender lettering for that period would be "Speed Lettering", the stylized Boston and Maine herald, which was applied to 3713 around 1943. I believe this is upper and lower case italicized serif lettering with an outline shadow. I also believe the lettering itself is a Korinna typeface in Delux Gold but I am not certain. A line bordering the tender sides is in the same color (red?) as the shadowing on the lettering.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:09 pm 

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:10 am
Posts: 2332
Mark Z. Yerkes wrote:
Ok, now that all that trivial stuff has been discussed...

What style lettering will be done on the tender?

(runs and hides)



Hi Mark,

The plan has been to use the shadow "speed" lettering which she wore in her later years. There's photographic evidence that suggests she wore three different versions of this lettering (two in service and one in preservation). She was delivered in the B&M black and white scheme with the 1927-era logo.

Of the five surviving B&M steam locomotives, she is the only one that sported the shadow lettering.

We have pictures of #3713 in both schemes at http://project3713.com/wp/?page_id=304

Her appearance changed dramatically over the years with the different paint schemes, not to mention her early years with smoke lifters and the skyline casing. At all stages of her life, she has been an aesthetically pleasing locomotive, not surprising for a Lima. She'll be a beautiful beast when the restoration is done.

All the best,

Rob

PS: Things can change, so don't take this as the gospel truth. Look at how #26's paint evolved (for the better, in my personal opinion) as information surfaced.

_________________
The long memory is the most radical idea in this country. It is the loss of that long memory which deprives our people of that connective flow of thoughts and events that clarifies our vision, not of where we're going, but where we want to go. B. Phillips


Last edited by robertjohndavis on Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:16 am 

Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 475
robertjohndavis wrote:
Mark Z. Yerkes wrote:
Ok, now that all that trivial stuff has been discussed...

What style lettering will be done on the tender?

(runs and hides)



Hi Mark,

The plan has been to use the shadow lettering which she wore in her later years. There's photographic evidence that suggests she wore three different versions of this lettering (two in service and one in preservation). She was delivered in the B&M black and white scheme with the 1927-era logo.

Of the five surviving B&M steam locomotives, she is the only one that sported the shadow lettering.

We have pictures of #3713 in both schemes at http://project3713.com/wp/?page_id=304

Her appearance changed dramatically over the years with the different paint schemes, not to mention her early years with smoke lifters and the skyline casing. At all stages of her life, she has been an aesthetically pleasing locomotive, not surprising for a Lima. She'll be a beautiful beast when the restoration is done.

All the best,

Rob

PS: Things can change, so don't take this as the gospel truth. Look at how #26's paint evolved (for the better, in my personal opinion) as information surfaced.


I was joking, but all the same, thank you for the information :)

_________________
Mark Z. Yerkes
Amateur Rail Historian


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 3:45 pm 

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:10 am
Posts: 2332
RYPN Community,

With RailFest around the corner, we have updated the Project 3713 website with an extensive FAQ (frequently asked questions) section.

The FAQ can be found here: http://project3713.com/wp/?page_id=496

We're looking forward to seeing many of you at RailFest (Labor Day weekend at Steamtown). The Project 3713 team will be there. The locomotive, of course, will be there. We'll have some fundraising news to announce, too.

As always, if you have any questions about the project, you can reach us via the contact page of the website at http://project3713.com/wp/?page_id=325 or via email to project3713@project3713.com

All the best,

Rob


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:03 am 

Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:05 am
Posts: 399
Reading the job specs harkens back to a meeting I had with the California State RR museum contracting officer when the NEW boiler for the Sierra RR #3 was in the conceptual stages. He told me the plan was to have SIX boiler companies come and inspect the boiler and each give an estimate to repair the existing boiler and price to build a new boiler. Between the six repair quotes and the six new build quotes, they would decide the "BEST" value for the museum and award the contract accordingly. Replacing a steam locomotive boiler is no different than getting a parking lot paved right?

RYPN search will reveal that debacle.

The unnamed "previous contractor" has 30+ years of hammering boiler boiler plate in past and current projects, many under steam today.

With the nebulous scope of work presented, why will the NPS expect better results? In ONLY 5 months?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 1:53 pm 

Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:08 am
Posts: 238
Regarding the latest RFP issued in connection with the 3713 restoration project, Mr. Austin asks, “With the nebulous scope of work presented, why will the NPS expect better results? In ONLY 5 months?”

This is a very compelling question from a preservation project management perspective and is one that would be useful to explore with specific regard to the 3713 restoration program as a way of discussing some suggestions for best practices.

“robertjohndavis” signs off many of his posts with this quote: “The long memory is the most radical idea in this country. It is the loss of that long memory which deprives our people of that connective flow of thoughts and events that clarifies our vision, not of where we're going, but where we want to go.” - B. Phillips

With that in mind, it may be useful to first outline some of the major turning points in this project. If my memory is incorrect as to any of the facts in this brief project synopsis, please correct me and accept my apologies in advance.

My recollection is that the initial agreement between the Lackawanna and Wyoming Valley Railroad Historical Society and the National Park Service for the operational restoration of 3713 was signed in 1995, asbestos abatement was undertaken, and shop work began in 1998. Unlike the recently signed agreement, this initial agreement had the LWVRHS taking responsibility for the entire project, that is both the performance and supervision of the shop work as well as the fundraising and financial management.

At the time, the main source of information for this project was the LWVRHS newsletter, the “Laurel Lines”. It seemed that an appreciable portion of the work highlighted during this period concentrated on firebox (firebox #1) work. A lot was done to identify thin areas of the sheets, cracks emanating from the staybolt holes, and other defects. Much time was spent weld repairing firebox #1, pad welding the thinned areas, and redrilling and tapping the staybolt holes to uniform diameters. Work seemed to be proceeding apace.

Fresh off his extremely important contribution to the work on the K4, Mike Tillger was hired by the LWVRHS as a consultant on the 3713 project and he immediately ran the numbers on 3713’s boiler, finding that firebox #1 as designed and built did not meet the required factor of safety. This was in 2008.

In light of Mr. Tillger’s discovery, it was decided to rip out firebox #1 and replace it (firebox #2). Based on Mr. Tillger’s analysis, the Park Service’s preservation specialists designed a staybolt pattern that would meet the required factor of safety while being as historically consistent with the original layout as possible. A blueprint showing the revised staybolt pattern was made to document the needed modifications. The firebox #1 replacement work was then contracted out. The resulting firebox (firebox #2) is the one that I have posted about previously.

The recently issued RFP confirms that the misalignment of the staybolt holes and/or the nonconformance of the staybolt pattern to the revised historically representative staybolt layout devised by the Park Service will require that 3713’s firebox (firebox #2) be, once again, scrapped and rebuilt (firebox #3).

Looking at this from a restoration and preservation project management perspective, it is noteworthy that an engineering analysis such as the one performed by Mr. Tillger was only performed after about ten years of shop work and not as part of the initial evaluation of this restoration-to-operation project. It appears possible that the Park Service may not have enforced strict adherence to its own well-established preservation protocols. The copy of the Historic Structure Report for 3713 that I acquired in 2010 includes a Part 1 (a history of Lima, the B&M, and the physical appearance of B&M motive power) and Part 2 (an ownership history of 3713). This document was completed by Park Service Historian Patrick McKnight and is dated December 10, 2003, approximately five years after the shop work had begun and eight years after the agreement to restore 3713 had been signed. While the document calls for the addition of engineering data, as of 2010, none had been included.

The 3713 Historic Structure Report is essentially a Historic Data section of an HSR with no Engineering Data section, and so, with the exception of the recommendations as to lettering and paint, was of extremely limited use as a restoration project planning document. Proper assessment (including engineering) and related project planning upfront is an integral part of the preservation standards. One cannot know everything before getting into a project like this, but there are some fundamental things a proper assessment should have found, and project planning (and subsequent management), with contingencies, should have followed.

As to the latest RFP and Mr. Austin’s question, one should add that besides, “30+ years of hammering boiler plate in past and current projects, many under steam today”, I believe this same contractor also very satisfactorily performed important work on many of the locomotives during the Park Service’s asbestos abatement program in Scranton a few years ago. This contractor has a proven ability to successfully complete tasks while working at the Park Service’s facility. With regard to the 3713 restoration, it appears possible that neither the Park Service nor the LWVRHS had a technically competent person closely supervising the third party contractor on a regular (daily) basis while the contractor was in the shop. If the staybolt holes were not in the pattern on the blueprint to the satisfaction of the organization managing the project and/or the owner of the locomotive, the sheets should have never been welded in. Once the sheets were tacked in, no further welding should have taken place if the alignment of the staybolt holes between the inner and outer sheets did not meet the expectations of the project manager and/or the locomotive owner.

The take away from all of this should be to always have at least one “go to” person on the project that is either technically knowledgeable or technically adept with a background that will allow them to learn what they need to as the project proceeds. This person should be the Responsible person in a RACI project management structure, should be available to closely monitor the work on a regular basis, and should have complete go/no go authority.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 3:02 pm 

Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:54 pm
Posts: 61
Besides all the problems with 3713 boiler no one seems to mention that 3713 driver axles and crown brass will most likely all need replaced. When I was the project manager getting 3713 out of the Museum at Boston as part of the Steamtown move in the 1980s the first time we removed the driver box cellars all the Hennessy cellars were covered in bronze power a result of the locomotive being burned up when moved from Steamtown to Boston in the 1960s. After doing our best to prep the axles and Hennessy Cellars for movement to Scranton the locomotive would not move even at 20 MPH without running very hot. David Conrad was in charge of getting the locomotive to Scranton and had to convert the cellars to grease block style using mostly Texaco Hot Box Sticks in place of block grease just to get it home. So now axles are checked and over heated and I am sure the crown brasses are also scrap. So another expensive project. Its been so long I don't remember how the rest of the locomotive's running gear condition was but nothing stands out as being poor.
Seems to me after the K4 problems and now 3713 problems twice Steamtown has problems with project management and technical decision making. ' Nuff Said!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:10 pm 

Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 475
Dennis Daugherty wrote:
Besides all the problems with 3713 boiler no one seems to mention that 3713 driver axles and crown brass will most likely all need replaced. When I was the project manager getting 3713 out of the Museum at Boston as part of the Steamtown move in the 1980s the first time we removed the driver box cellars all the Hennessy cellars were covered in bronze power a result of the locomotive being burned up when moved from Steamtown to Boston in the 1960s. After doing our best to prep the axles and Hennessy Cellars for movement to Scranton the locomotive would not move even at 20 MPH without running very hot. David Conrad was in charge of getting the locomotive to Scranton and had to convert the cellars to grease block style using mostly Texaco Hot Box Sticks in place of block grease just to get it home. So now axles are checked and over heated and I am sure the crown brasses are also scrap. So another expensive project. Its been so long I don't remember how the rest of the locomotive's running gear condition was but nothing stands out as being poor.
Seems to me after the K4 problems and now 3713 problems twice Steamtown has problems with project management and technical decision making. ' Nuff Said!


It shouldn't really be necessary to point this out anymore, but I guess it still is. 1361 was not a Steamtown project. It was worked on at Steamtown using third party contractors. The locomotive has never been in the ownership of Steamtown. The locomotive is owned by the Railroader Memorial Museum in Altoona. So, for the last time, stop blaming the 1361 debacle on Steamtown.

Moving on, I'm sure the necessary axle work and whatnot has been, or will be, taken into account in due course.

_________________
Mark Z. Yerkes
Amateur Rail Historian


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:10 am 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1604
Location: Pottstown,Pa.
Truth is both projects are excellent real life examples of the old maxim......too many chefs spoil the broth.

The K4 project was "managed" by 2 individuals in Altoona who knew just enough to be dangerous and " managed" it right into the ground. Steamtown does own some of the disaster as its then CMO played an important role in certain decisions made during its protracted stay in Scranton.

The 3713 project has likewise suffered from too many cooks and from a long drawn out fund raising effort that has made progress very difficult.

The main lesson both projects teach us is if your objective is to restore a steam locomotive to mainline service you need to do 2 things.....1. Raise or have sufficient funds on hand to finance the job ....and 2. Hire a professional with a proven record of success and STAY OUT OF THE WAY !!!

Sad but true.

Ross Rowland


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 6:26 am 

Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:05 am
Posts: 399
Quality Assurance and Quality Control are two separate systems and philosophies in the real heavy industry world.

From the Scope of Work, this describes a QA Test and Inspection Plan:

"Steamtown NHS shall establish quality check points when work will be checked. Work shall be approved at these check points before work progresses."

In the real world, the T&I Plan is generated by the contractor and approved before ANY work is started. If the NPS chooses to create the T&I Plan, it should and must be in the contract specifications. No contractor experienced enough to complete this contract as written would accept these conditions.


This is the official Quality Assurance requirements in the "Scope of Work" and has nothing to do with QA:

"QUALITY ASSURANCE

· Comply with contract clauses entitled "Accident Prevention" and "Permits and Responsibilities".
In case of conflicts between federal, state, and local safety and health requirements, the most stringent shall apply.
· All equipment and tools shall meet all applicable OSHA requirements. Equipment or tools not meeting OSHA requirements will not be allowed on the project sites.
· Failure to comply with the requirements of this section and related sections may result in suspension of work.
· Safety Supervisor: Contractor shall designate a responsible supervisor to oversee and carry out the safety program. Safety Supervisor shall have a minimum of three (3) years’ experience overseeing project safety on similar projects. Submit the following information:
a) Company name;
b) Employee name and telephone numbers (landline and mobile)
c) Proof of Experience: Provide contact information for Owner of a minimum of three (3)
projects, performed in the last three (3) years for which this individual performed
safety supervision tasks. Provide the following:
1) Project name and address;
2) Owner’s name and telephone number"


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:10 pm 

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:10 am
Posts: 2332
We are sorry to confirm that the Scranton - Binghamton steam excursions have been cancelled. Information on refunds may be found here, along with the official notice: http://project3713.com/wp/?p=507

Rob Davis


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:20 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm
Posts: 1733
Too bad. 765 would have looked grand heading North along Rt. 11

And yet, I'm glad that the culprit and cause were named-there's no reason for any of the dedicated groups to take heat for this.

"yet due to insurmountable insurance obstacles placed in front of us by Canadian Pacific Railway, the outgoing operator of the trackage to operated over, we could not reach their requirements."

It's too bad the property transfer to NS has not been completed, and I look forward to its completion. Having been personally involved in the preparation of CP 2816 when it was prepared for transport to Canada, I regret and publicly apologize for my involvement in that action.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:31 pm 

Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:08 am
Posts: 238
Yes, this is very disappointing. It would have been great to see the excitement that occurred in the Gorge last weekend repeated up to Binghamton. Perhaps next year after the aforementioned transfer of control from CP to NS takes place.

The 3713 public relations release states that, "This nearly sold-out weekend of trains was wildly supported by our customers, yet due to insurmountable insurance obstacles placed in front of us by Canadian Pacific Railway, the outgoing operator of the trackage to operated over, we could not reach their requirements. The excursion committee exerted all efforts to rearrange insurance for the riders’ safety, yet could not come to agreeable terms with the railroad."

Being totally unfamiliar with excursion operations, I am a bit confused as to what occurred here. I can only think of three possible scenarios:

1. CP and the operating entities had a contract for the operation of these excursions over CP trackage which included agreement on the material term of the type and amount of insurance required to be obtained by the operating entities for these excursions and then CP required an increased amount of insurance and/or required a more onerous type of insurance at the last minute. Not likely as this would put CP in breach.
2. CP and the operating entities had a contract for the operation of this excursion over CP trackage which included agreement on the material term of the type and amount of insurance required to be obtained by the operating entities for these excursions and then the operating entities realized at the last minute that they could not meet the terms they had agreed to with regards to the required insurance. This seems like a possibility based on the second sentence as quoted above.
3. CP and the operating entities had an agreement in principle to allow the operating entities to run these excursions but a completed contract, which included the material term outlining the required insurance, had not been executed and then negotiations regarding insurance requirements fell through. This also seems like a possibility based on the second sentence as quoted above.

It would be great if some clarification as to this unfortunate situation could be provided.

While very disappointing, it is not surprising that a corporation such as CP would follow a strategy of minimizing their risk of liability exposure with regards to this property, especially since they are in the waning time of their ownership. Since they are in the process of liquidating this asset, they have decided to play it safe.

Since all of the equipment is now available for that weekend, are there any thoughts to try to put together an alternate trip over trackage that has already been largely scouted?

As an aside, and not to hijack this thread away from the topic of the 3713 restoration, two questions for Superheater:

1. Why do you regret the movement of 2816? While it is in a place where it can not be readily seen by as many people as would be able to see it in Scranton, it has been restored to operation and is in a much better state of preservation than it would have ever been under the the care of the Park Service. Like many, I never got to see it operate, but the Imax movie that was made, "Rocky Mountain Express", gave many more people a chance to see 2816 in action than would have seen it in Scranton.
2. Since you have some familiarity with the 2816 transaction, do you know if the Park Service had the forethought to put in any requirements in the transfer agreement such that, if CP did not operate or otherwise make the locomotive available to the public, it had to be returned? Or if CP decided to liquidate or transfer the locomotive to another organization, the Park Service had a right of first refusal?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:02 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm
Posts: 1733
"1. Why do you regret the movement of 2816? While it is in a place where it can not be readily seen by as many people as would be able to see it in Scranton, it has been restored to operation and is in a much better state of preservation than it would have ever been under the the care of the Park Service. Like many, I never got to see it operate, but the Imax movie that was made, "Rocky Mountain Express", gave many more people a chance to see 2816 in action than would have seen it in Scranton.

2. Since you have some familiarity with the 2816 transaction, do you know if the Park Service had the forethought to put in any requirements in the transfer agreement such that, if CP did not operate or otherwise make the locomotive available to the public, it had to be returned? Or if CP decided to liquidate or transfer the locomotive to another organization, the Park Service had a right of first refusal?"

Whatever condition it WAS in, it is inoperable now.

I don't have details on the transaction, but when we were prepping the 2816, it was with the implicit idea the repatriation of CP 2816 was an exchange transaction. CPR was supposed to provide something of value in return, perhaps favorable moves or diesel locomotives.

As far as I know, nothing and certainly nothing approaching equivalent value was ever received or delivered to Steamtown by CPR. I'd be happy to be corrected if I am in error.

That means one of two things:

1.) The transfer was affected without adequate security for the receipt of the contractual consideration.

2.) There was no (significant) contractual consideration for the locomotive. It was a "giveaway" to a private foreign corporation.


Either way, it would be an inexcusable misappropriation of government (taxpayer) property by individuals charged with their protection and preservation. The subsequent use and display of the locomotive doesn't affect the permissibility or advisability of the transaction.


Full Disclosure: I am an NS stockholder.


As an aside- is THIS what delayed the transfer of assets? Riffen? I made a joke about it with FWRHS staff on the train Saturday, the answer was yes- I thought the response was a joke.

Whatever happened to the idea of a vexatious litigant?


https://stb.dot.gov/FILINGS/all.nsf/d6e ... 238855.pdf


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&M #3713 Restoration Thread Part 2
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 10:21 pm 

Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:08 am
Posts: 238
Superheater - Thanks for providing some of the details re: the 2816 deal. If the situation is as you describe, and CP is in breach, it would be very interesting to get a copy of that contract, especially to see if there are any stipulations as to the return of the locomotive, under what conditions, on whose dime, and on whose railroad.

Unfortunately, I do not believe the Park Service generally values Canadian equipment as historic artifacts, so, even if the Park Service could somehow repatriate 2816, it would most likely not. Given the lack of storage in Scranton, perhaps 2816 is better off under cover in Canada. I'd hate to see it rusting away like CPR 2929, the "Jubilee".

Anyway, in deference to the OP, back to 3713.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 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: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Reading 900, Yahoo [Bot] and 44 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: