Second Altoona Mirror K4 article

ebtrr · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:08 am

The thread below thread discusses an August 7th article in the Altoona Mirror on k4 1461. It is still behind a paywall.

http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39686

A second article from the same author on August 9th publishes some info from a 2003 National Park Service report on the K4. This article is not behind a paywall.
"Lack of oversight derailed K-4 project, report says"

Posting this for general knowledge and I will refrain from commenting on the situation. Link and text of the article are posted below.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/642134/Lack-of-oversight-derailed--K-4-project--report-says.html?nav=742

Quote:

A 2003 National Park Service report requested through the Freedom of Information Act by the Mirror in 2004 and delivered to the Mirror in 2011 illuminates the apparent chaos of the early years of the K-4 restoration project at Steamtown National Historic Site.

The 1995 agreement governing the restoration involved the historic site, the University of Scranton's Steamtown Institute and the Altoona Railroaders Memorial Museum, although the historic site didn't actually sign it, according to the NPS report, which focuses on findings that supervisory exhibit specialist Chris Ahrens violated NPS policy by receiving pay for work performed on the K-4 project, for awarding contracts without competitive bids and by ignoring an order from his superior regarding procurement procedures.

The agreement called for the museum, represented by Jeff Miller, to take the lead in developing task directives, to do periodic inspections and to prepare all documents.

It called for the institute, represented by Ray Sauvey, to oversee and coordinate task directives, outside contracts and billing.

The historic site, represented by Ahrens, was to provide shop space, equipment, technical advice and contracting services.

In practice, none of the parties followed the agreement, with the museum failing to provide documents or inspections, according to the NPS report.
Fact Box

A look at the K-4 timeline

1956 - K-4 retired.

1957 - K-4 donated to city of Altoona and put on display at Horsehoe Curve.

1985 - K-4 donated to Altoona Railroaders Memorial Museum, towed to Juniata Locomotive Shop.

1987 - K-4, after being rehabilitated using paid and volunteer labor, returns to excursion service.

1988 - K-4's main bearing fails near York, limiting operations.

1992 - $450,000 federal grant from the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission allows officials to explore options for restoration.

1996 - Museum signs contract with University of Scranton's Steamtown Institute and Steamtown National Historic Site in Scranton for K-4 restoration. Restoration budgeted to cost $625,000.

1999 - Ray Sauvey leaves project, replaced by Barry Claar, hired by museum to supervise. Claar discovers technical deficiencies in restoration work. Museum director Cummins McNitt predicts K-4 could be ready in 2000.

2000 - $600,000 state grant allocated by Gov. Tom Ridge administration. Museum seeks volunteers from Altoona to go to Scranton to work.

2001 - Project behind schedule and over budget. Museum unhappy with project, largely blaming Chris Ahrens, according to the NPS report. A Federal Railway Administration inspection discloses welds with slag and voids and rivets so poorly installed they pop out when struck with a hammer.

2002 - Museum claims in letter that mistakes made at Steamtown led to about $750,000 in unnecessary costs. Historic site superintendent blames museum for failing to fulfill its responsibilities. Museum receives $1.6 million grant for K-4 from state Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program. Bill Frederickson takes over leadership of work at Steamtown under direction of Altoona museum from crew that has been working under supervision of University of Scranton's Steamtown Institute. Frederickson begins by undoing and redoing prior work of a previous crew. Museum officials predict K-4 will be ready that fall.

2003 - Museum receives $1.6 million federal Transportation Enhancement grant, $1.195 million of which is for K-4, the rest for sitework on a quarter-roundhouse, which will be necessary to house K-4, and a turntable, which will be necessary for use of quarter-roundhouse. Museum officials say K-4 will return by fall 2004.

2004 - Museum director Scott Cessna, who replaces Westsylvania, says K-4 will be ready in summer 2005.

2005 - Cessna predicts K-4 will return that fall. Nine years in, there was massive impatience: "The long, sad story of the K-4," said steam enthusiast Ross Rowland of New Jersey, quoted in a Mirror story. "A story of well-meaning people who didn't know what they were doing." The project was lagging for lack of urgency and an overly meticulous approach, said Bill Benson, veteran restorationist of steam locomotives. Cessna defended the museum's thorough approach and suggested it would be irresponsible to take shortcuts.

2007 - Work at Steamtown suspended. Cessna replaced by Larry Salone.

2008 - With K-4 components slated to return to Altoona, Salone predicts K-4 could be done within 18 months, or it could take twice that long.

2010 - Board member Rudy Husband says museum will settle for static display, maybe accentuated with fire and steam enough to blow the whistle. A week later, Salone says no, locomotion is still the plan. A month later, board OKs project completion plan.

2011 - Most K-4 components are back in Altoona.

2015 - Boiler moved from storage at East Broad Top Railroad, controlled by Salone, to quarter-roundhouse at museum.

Ahrens was paid $1,358 for work he did at home, rather than having it done by the historic site staff - a practice he said saved money for the museum, according to the report. Ahrens also awarded $93,000 in contracts without bids, without providing sole-source justification, according to the report. And Ahrens continued to make purchases when told by his supervisor to defer to the museum for those.

But he wasn't the only one at fault, according to the report. "Things began to unravel when Ray Sauvey left the project in 1999, and was not replaced," leaving management almost entirely to Ahrens, the report states. "There was no oversight by (the museum) or (the institute) to make sure Ahrens followed the cooperative agreement, which in fact, they did not follow themselves," the report states. "Ahrens apparently did not have close supervision from (the historic site) either."

steamloco76 · **Joined:** Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:16 pm **Posts:** 61

It is a true travesty that over $3.3 million dollars of taxpayer money has been squandered on one of the biggest boondoggles to ever hit the railroad preservation community!

The people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have certainly paid enough to have a living, breathing K-4s headquartered in Altoona. What we actually have is a pile of parts, very, very expensive parts.

Dougvv · **Joined:** Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:52 pm **Posts:** 914

Hi,

Until I read this all in one place, I never realized that size of the boondoggle.

It seems to show (if I understand correctly), that the NPS personnel involved with the project were not following NPS guidelines.

I recall trying to read "The Wreck of the Penn Central" decades ago. I never got through it all the way but it was another big-time mess-up on a corporate level to hide 1950s and 1960s errors made by the once conservative and stalwart PRR corporation.

My question, has the NPS learned from this and placed improvements on its personel's staff to prevent a repeat.

Thanks.

Doug vV

co614 · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:05 pm

A classic real life example of 2 old adages......1. Too many cooks spoil the soup and 2. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

This disaster of a project has plenty of blame to spread around. The primary culprits are the 2 geniuses who micro-managed it from Altoona ( ARRMM director Scott Cessna and Chair Andy Mullholland both of whom knew just enough to be dangerous) and Steamtown CMO Chris Ahrens who should have known better than to allow a lot of what went on in Scranton to happen. There are a good number of other actors who also contributed to the sad end result, but the above 3 are the primary culprits.

Bottom line is that what would have been a $ 1.5mm 18 month exercise in a competent shop turned into a 10 year, $ 3.3mm cluster f... that produced an engine in a thousand pieces further from qualifying for mainline service than when it all began.

The take away lesson here is .....if you want to restore a locomotive to service hire a competent contractor ( with a proven track record of successful restorations), raise the funds needed to pay the costs and then stay COMPLETELY out of the way.

Oh yea, the K 4 disaster also helped Pa. State Representative Rick Geist ( who was the projects champion in the legislature and responsible for the taxpayer funds that were pumped into it ) to lose his re-election,..... for good reason.

Let's hope the lesson learned helps others avoid a similar sad ending.

Ross Rowland

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

like the 844 issues, you will have to grind on and get above all this to get the K4 back, if you want to keep pushing muck and mire you go nowhere, but to identify what you need to do in your next step. 844 is back running. Next.

JayZee · **Joined:** Sat May 07, 2016 1:12 am **Posts:** 140

Aside from past screw ups and swindled money whats the current plan for the K4? They state it will be restored to operation, but we all know that can stand for many things. Reduced boiler pressure and just steamed up for whistle or roadworthy excursion service? I believe them accepting less then the latter is admitting defeat rather them overcoming past bruises and showing everyone that the hard work wasn't in vain.

Son of a Coast Liner · **Joined:** Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:06 am **Posts:** 28

hate to sound political, but is there anything that govt touches that doesn't turn out to be a disaster?

Steamguy73 · **Joined:** Wed Dec 24, 2014 3:15 pm **Posts:** 635

For the last 20 years or so yes. But let's not get off topic here and start a conversation about politics. It's a shame that this engine doesn't get the respect it deserves, by getting a much better rebuild, rather than risking the issues that halted it from operation in the first place

Dave · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:15 pm

It would seem to have been a communication and management issue between two institutions, not a result of the source of the funding. I've seen equally difficult results in the private sector, between individuals - come to think of it, those got much worse. Think about Winston Link's locomotive, for example.

I wish the museum well, and hope to see her on horseshoe curve in the future.

cjvrr · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:15 pm

It is my understanding the issues at this point;

1) The boiler needs substantial upgrades from those originally designed. If I recall correctly, the firebox sheets are too thin for the originally designed staybolt spacing. I do not know if this would require an entirely new firebox but that may be the easiest solution. Now you have a problem keeping the locomotive historic, while providing upgrades to make it operational. The whole 'original fabric' issue that any museum faces.

2) Where does the funding come from? I do not know how much of the original grant funds were spent. And if they were all spent, what audit was done by that funding agency. I would think the State is not going to place one cent more into this project with the money pit it has been so far. So that leaves private donations. However I would think private donors would also be reluctant to give anything without a known person with a good reputation at the controls.

10stewi · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:40 pm

I think we are all safe in agreeing that the PRR K4 is the American equivalent of the Flying Scottsman (in terms of restoration cost). I honestly can not see any way the Penn State legislature would be willing to donate into the project. From here on out I imagine it must be private donations

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

its really sounding like new boiler time. You should look at its current designs and take the opportunuity to make one better with a better design. Thats the challenge and make the proof it works. With a college working on new steam with a 4-8-4 you have another opportunity.

cheers

steamfan765 · **Joined:** Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:30 am **Posts:** 184

I do think a brand new boiler is the way to go when comes with these old steam locomotives. I do care about originally but I care more about functionality. It's always a tough decision for a museum to make. Me I think it's for the best to replace the boiler with a new one because of the age and condition. I would keep the old boiler and put it on display in the museum. For any railroad preservation society that operates it like a business are the ones that last. You got to focus on the condition of the locomotive and figure out the long haul of the original fabric. giving it a new boiler is a no brainer for the long haul for the 1361 it's just my opinion.

Tom Davidson · **Joined:** Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:07 pm **Posts:** 203

If the goal is restoration for operation, then a new boiler might be the best option. But considering this convoluted history, the astronomical costs, and the overall condition of the engine, maybe it would be more sensible to abandon the idea of operation, cut the losses, and put her back together as a cosmetic exhibit. Many would consider this a devastating disappointment. However, the real devastating disappointment traces back to the fact that the plan was flawed from the beginning and the execution of the plan was so poorly carried out. The problems have compounded themselves. It is a real disgrace that this kind of fate should befall such an iconic, important piece; but maybe somebody should have the cajones to face reality and put operational restoration funds into a project that can be completed without so much expense and compromise of the original artifact. Poor 1361 has been tortured enough!

Tom

Dave · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:24 pm

It makes sense to know what's wrong with the old boiler before you decide to replace it with a new one. One lousy staybolt cap..........

My understanding of the PRR boiler issue is the wrapper / roof sheet on the Belpaire firebox was made with no margin for deterioration - just thick enough to qualify when new. Please correct me if I've misunderstood. We know how to fix this. We can expect some additional problems - thin spots, caps and sleeves, bad studs, cracked ligaments - every old park hulk boiler has these and unless they make up a lot of the boiler, it doesn't pay to replace what can be repaired.

Since I've never seen it I'd feel pretty stupid making a recommendation like scrap the boiler and build a new one from nothing but ignorance.