"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"."


If the locomotive wasn't accessioned or was de-accessioned, that may have allowed disposition without impediment-however-there are still laws and regulations that require taxpayer property to be disposed of for fair market value, and while the market for 1930's steam locomotives is pretty thin, it had to worth SOMETHING.

"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."

Well if it hasn't been destroyed according to a record retention policy, there's always FOIA.

For someone calling himself "Scranton Yard," you seem quite inattentive to what's happening right next to you.


OR:
4. Norfolk Southern planned to have completed their acquisition of CP's former D&H line from Scranton to the Albany area (including the former DL&W from Scranton to Binghamton, over which this excursion would have run), and the former PRR from Scranton/Wilkes-Barre to Sunbury, Pa., in time for the excursions to operate under NS aegis, with Canadian Pacific having nothing whatsoever to do with the excursions.

As Steve Barry posited in a Facebook post earlier today,

With all due respect, comparing an excursion run by responsible parties with a proven track record to incendiary fireworks is beyond ridiculous and is insulting.

The person that makes such an analogy is the one who needs perspective.

And the sale wasn't delayed, it was obstructed by one James Riffin and his serial abuse of process.

Lets not forget, CP signaled their lovely parting gift with how they handled the deadhead move of 765 from Binghamton.

That may be the case in the real world. But we're talking insurance demands and legal departments in a country where litigation has replaced baseball as the "national pastime" and juries fancy themselves as "social justice warriors." The legal departments have a fiduciary responsibility to be "paranoid." In a truly serious crash, CSX's past insurance demands of $200 million now looks to be in need of inflation adjustment.

As it turns out, I know two professional fireworks technicians. One is also an Amtrak technical official in his "real world" job. I need to ask him what HE thinks of that analogy.

And by the way, do we really have proof that the one individual is THE SOLE reason for the transaction delay, or is that mere speculation?

Mr. Mitchell and Superheater - thank you for clarifying the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of these two excursions. The link to the STB filing was especially useful since I was able to then use the "search" feature (searching on "Riffin") to read the previous thread, started by Superheater, on the administrative action regarding the transfer of the trackage from CP to NS.

Now, as to how this impacts the topic of this thread, the 3713 restoration project, the only unanswered question is, will it be possible for the 3713 restoration project to recoup some of the lost anticipated revenue from these two excursions by arranging an alternate trip over trackage that has already been largely scouted? Would the equipment originally intended for use on the Binghamton runs still be available for that weekend?

Suggestion, and it may be scoffed at as "lame". How about Steamtown place both Berkshires outdoors for "licensed" night photo sessions. By "licensed", I mean ticketed. For a ticket of say $50, photographers get in, can set up and shoot both Berks with steam & smoke flowing around and out of them? Maybe arrange some other locomotives that fit the scene and era? Do it over several days and nights and money will be generated towards 3713. No, it won't be tens of thousands of dollars, but it will be further into the black with minimum outlay.

I've read on Facebook and other places, directly from people involved with the Ft. Wayne group, that the engine will now leave shortly after the conclusion of Railfest to head back west - instead of staying longer in PA and running alternate trips instead of the Binghamton trips.

Friends,

There are six things you can do that will make a difference to everyone involved:

1) donate to Project3713, that will help the restoration

2) buy tickets for one of the #765 trips on Labor Day weekend, that will help the Fort Wayne team close out their visit to PA on two high notes

3) donate to the Erie Lackawanna Dining Car Preservation Society. They were to be a key part of the Binghamton trips.

4) support the Anthracite Railroad Historical Society - while their F units may not be headed to Ncholson, their convention will still be held in Scranton the same weekend as the bridge festival

5) attend the Nicholson Bridge festival - Josh Stull and team have worked their butts off on this, and it will be great even without an excursion

6) come to Steamtown for Railfest and show your support for visiting steam. The NPS is hustling to make a lot of things come together and I have a feeling it will be "the event" of the northeast railroad calendar for 2015. Plus, you can see #3713's tender up close this year.


These are my thoughts as an individual who ardently supports all the people behind the efforts mentioned.

We'll be posting official #3713 updates on our website and Facebook page as they evolve.

All the best,

Rob

Hopefully they can add cars or trips over Labor Day to make the best of a bad situation. Unfortunately, the remaining scheduled runs are too lengthy for me to consider them, both being all-day events. However, I would take a run up to Moscow or Tobyhanna in a heartbeat.

I am not sure why we need either analogies or surliness in addressing this 'insurance' question. Since I think it will emerge again and again in future, let's look at it a bit differently:

I don't look at this from a standpoint of 'responsibility' but rather of exposure. Take the recent accident to Amtrak 188 as an illustration ... and leave aside any consideration of whether the engineer was to "blame" in any personal sense. The potential 'exposure' to an insurer -- or, failing coverage, to the named insured -- is going to be the number of injured times the amount they or their counsel can either negotiate, in a settlement, or secure at trial. I have not gotten the impression that counsel for those injured in the Amtrak accident are interested in settling for small amounts.

Now look at the record numbers of riders in the sold-out excursions. And assume that something were to happen while one of these excursions were on CP rail, piloted by CP personnel, and something were to happen -- say, a derailment that killed or unjured some large percentage of those riders. Even a very large insurance policy might leave Canadian Pacific liable for substantial damages. So it would not surprise me to find them asking for a very large nominal coverage amount, probably related to the overall number of passengers and not those expected to be injured or killed in a 'normal' scale of accident. Very high amounts were described to me by NS people at the time 1218 was returned to Roanoke in 2001, and I very much doubt that the cost of insurance per million has decreased since that time.

This raises the question about the other conditions that were sticking points. I of course have no idea what CP might have been demanding, perhaps a waiver of liability for any acts of contributory negligence or even intentional malice. Hopefully we will hear more than speculation from someone involved, but I also fully understand if the details are kept in confidence. Until PROVEN otherwise, though, I don't attribute malicious motives to CP in requesting high levels of insurance coverage, even though I wonder why the demand for it appears to have been 'sprung' on the excursion people quite late in the game.

I do have one question for the 'contending parties' -- why is there so much venom about Canadian Pacific and its behavior back in 1998, when the transfer of 2816 occurred, when both the situation and the management are so very different now?

And what in heaven's nsme does any of this have to do with 3713 and its restoration?

The Scranton-Binghamton trips were meant to help finance said restoration.

"As it turns out, I know two professional fireworks technicians. One is also an Amtrak technical official in his "real world" job. I need to ask him what HE thinks of that analogy.

As do I know several professional "pyrotechnic engineers".

I also tried it myself once, assisting with the Ft. Dix show in 2004. I lit off a three inch round that had fuse afflicted with "premature ignition" and the wind took off my baseball cap. We also had a wooden containment frame on 6 inch rounds come apart and send "shrapnel" flying, causing a mild injury to one of the other technicians.

That, along with an incident involving spectator injuries in, I think, Hershey PA about the same time made me walk away.

Now let's put this another way. Mr. Barry is comparing running a train under controlled conditions to the intentional ignition of explosive and incendiary rounds, that in the cases of the really good stuff (10 and 12 inch rounds-the stuff that you feel the boom in your chest) are buried in the ground because the explosive force at launch can't be contained by the traditional wooden launch frames.

Are the deficiencies of the comparison sufficient sufficiently discernible now?

As far as fiduciary liability is concerned, I understand it. Intimately. Better than you.

(Ten years in a major insurer, multiple professional designations, the Babe is from your formerly fair city, you know what he said about "it ain't braggin', right?)

Now let's examine the situation. Given the nature of the legal system, there is NO amount of liability insurance that will reduce the exposure to risk and uncertainty to a level where the exposure is routine enough to be immaterial, or in ISO 31000 terms, it doesn't affect the achievement of objectives, should all hell break loose.

If zero liability is the goal, then nobody should be running ANYTHING over the Nicholson Viaduct or having anything more volatile than grade A dark amber maple syrup down grade from Clarks Summit to Scranton, as it parallels the McDade expressway and has some rather interesting track geometry as it runs near Scranton into the adjoining town of Taylor.

This is rather simple. CP is just looking to mark off and go home. The requested limits were not meant as prudent risk management, but to be a prohibitively high barrier to the endeavor. It is standard corporate duplicity, the kind that is designed to avoid public embarrassment by saying "NO" outright by turning their unwillingness into requester incapacity.

Now, with that having been said, they are completely in their right to manage their assets and affairs as they see fit, and I get the idea that they want to be fed a steady diet of fastballs, with no crazy knuckleballs in the ninth inning.

Yes, we must be resigned to the fact that they said no, it doesn't mean we have to like it or shrug our shoulders that they were really being prudent, rather than cloaking their actions in prudence.

Good luck on the slither back North. May the force of the Children's Investment Fund be with you.

(CSX'ers will understand that reference)

Even further afield, CP pulled this same stuff to prevent any live steam locomotive to run over it's trackage to and from the Steam Expo in Vancouver in 1986(?).

Their public face was "come one, come all," Behind the scenes it was "no way, uless it's dead on a flat car." 2 class 1 railroads got this treatment. No excursions or weekend warrior-type operations had a prayer with that attitude. THAT is why the even wound up with only small engines, no 4-8-4's or larger.

In this case, IMO, the blame lies at the feet of the guy who cannot mind his own business.

http://wnep.com/2015/08/27/train-rides- ... k-viaduct/

They had coverage for a 50 million dollar loss, CP demanded coverage for 100 mil.

I agree with this statement by the mayor of Nicholson, PA: “I think it’s terrible,” said Ann Marie Aylesworth, the mayor of Nicholson. “I think the railroad is doing a big injustice to the town of Nicholson and to the bridge.”

Chalk up another black mark against the new (but not improved) Canadian Pacific.