Frisco 1522 trips supposed to run Sept 28 and 29. As yet no ticket prices have been announced for these trips between St. Louis and Newburg, Missouri. What goes?

jimhollis@ev1.net

From what I understand these trips are by no means final. It still depends on approval from the railroad and other factors. I think everyone would like to see 1522 pull one more run; the miles the engine put in last year are nothing short of incredible. My bet is a trip will be run in one form or another. There seems to be a quiet feeling of hope concerning the engines future; that perhaps it will only be in cold storage for a year or two and return when circumstances improve. 1522 has a dedicated crew and I feel they will be careful in putting the engine to bed. Doing nothing that would complicate an eventual return to steam.

Amen to that! It seems a waste to have a functional steam loco, particularly one of a uniquely active wheel arrangement and simply retire it - cold- without hope of a future. My hope is that she'll go to bed in serviceable condition. Reviving her will be that much less expensive. Keep her greased, dry, undercover. One thing for certain is our economy has boom markets and bust ones. Reasons for her withdrawal are well founded. These are smart people and they'll do the right thing.


glueck@saturn.caps.maine.edu

From what I understand the 1522 is not FRA compliant with the new form 230 or whatever it is for next year. That and the insurance are the main reasons for no more trips. Even if insurance is worked out, they still have a bunch of boiler work to do apparently! At least thats what I have heard.

Greg Scholl

sales@gregschollvideo.com

The locomotive is obviously servicable or it could not run in Sept. It just will not be certifiable as FRA compliant after Jan. 2003.
If the MOT has 500 ft of track, they can unbolt a joint bar at the mainline switch, becoming temporarily insular. Once outside the FRA realm, the state probably has jurisdiction.
If the state can be convinced to "Certify" the boiler as safe for anything over 150 psi, it would be in the best long term interest of the machinery and the operating personnel to excercise the loco several times a year, even if only on 500 ft. of track.

> The locomotive is obviously servicable or it
> could not run in Sept. It just will not be
> certifiable as FRA compliant after Jan.
> 2003.
> If the MOT has 500 ft of track, they can
> unbolt a joint bar at the mainline switch,
> becoming temporarily insular. Once outside
> the FRA realm, the state probably has
> jurisdiction.
> If the state can be convinced to
> "Certify" the boiler as safe for
> anything over 150 psi, it would be in the
> best long term interest of the machinery and
> the operating personnel to excercise the
> loco several times a year, even if only on
> 500 ft. of track.

Splitting hairs here....I know what you are saying, and I was just trying to point out to the previous poster that the 1522 could not just up and run anytime in the future.(after January 2003 as you say...I didn't have the exact date to post).

Maybe a better way to say it is yes its serviceable until January 2003 when the new regulations take effect on the engine, then it is not serviceable until FRA compliant.

Greg

sales@gregschollvideo.com

What I was trying to say was only that if the engine were stored with care it would be that much easier to return to stean if and when the time comes. I'm not sure what work is needed, something to do with the way the boiler was patched before maybe? Considering all the work completed on 1522 in the last decade; I'm sure with enough money any repair could be done.

The current operating group (SLSTA) and MOT have said very clearly that they intend to store the engine in a condition conducive to her return to service. The SLSTA intends to use the remainder of their assets to establish a fund for her continued upkeep.

She will be in excellent shape to resume operations should a group emerge which persuades MOT that they would be as capable custodians as SLSTA has been.

The first chief expense a new operator would confront is almost certianly the cost of the Part 230 survey--I wouldn't expect the survey to discolse anything too shocking in the way of additional required repairs to boiler or firebox.

> The current operating group (SLSTA) and MOT
> have said very clearly that they intend to
> store the engine in a condition conducive to
> her return to service. The SLSTA intends to
> use the remainder of their assets to
> establish a fund for her continued upkeep.

> She will be in excellent shape to resume
> operations should a group emerge which
> persuades MOT that they would be as capable
> custodians as SLSTA has been.

> The first chief expense a new operator would
> confront is almost certianly the cost of the
> Part 230 survey--I wouldn't expect the
> survey to discolse anything too shocking in
> the way of additional required repairs to
> boiler or firebox.

What was the date of the last boiler overhaul on her? Wasn't it given a complete boiler inspection during the latest overhaul. (98/99?) I thought that the new FRA regulations were going to grandfather recent overhauls if they could complete and document the scope of the work performed and the locomotive's condition. I also understand that some representative from SLSTA was sitting on the advisory board when the new regs were written. Can anyone set me straight on this? Thanks!
Steve

sacarlso@scj.com

I thought that the new
> FRA regulations were going to grandfather
> recent overhauls if they could complete and
> document the scope of the work performed and
> the locomotive's condition.

Can't speak for 1522's last boiler inspection date or flue pullout date but can speak to the effective dates in 49 CFR 230.

In a nutshell, the new regs went into effect on 18 January 2000. On that date an interim period began. Requests for flue extensions under the old rules for calcuating hours of service were considered for up two two years after the effective date. After 18 January 2000 time extensions under the old rules were eliminated, the requirement for a new survey and Form 4 became mandatory.

There was also a provision for getting long-term grandfathering into the new rules based on the results of a recent prior inspection. However, the inspection had to be after September 25, 1995, and had to include a full UT. It's my understanding (someone correct me if I am wrong) that 1522 did not have a UT within that time frame.

Can't speak for someone on 1522 being on the advisory comitte: the names I know to be associated with it are Steve Lee, Linn Moedinger, and Bill Withun.

After 18 January
> 2000 time extensions under the old rules
> were eliminated, the requirement for a new
> survey and Form 4 became mandatory.

Sorry, make that 2002.

Dallas Morning News
eledbetter@rypn.org

Gosh, it's my night for making corrections. Add J. David Conrad to Lee, Withun, and Moedinger.

Dallas Morning News
eledbetter@rypn.org

You need to add Doyle McCormack to the list.

> Gosh, it's my night for making corrections.
> Add J. David Conrad to Lee, Withun, and
> Moedinger.

Smokebox


"orhf dot org"