Federal Court Enters Judgment Against Wasatch (K&T 14 Case)

Frisco1522 · **Posted:** Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:36 am

I have to admit, looking at some of the photos it appears quite a few of them are of old work and the engine had been under steam and worked with a lot of the shoddy looking work.
The new work is obvious, but whoever did the old, old work were as somebody mentioned a bunch of drunken hillbillies.
What is the history of the locomotive?

Mark Jordan · **Joined:** Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:21 am **Posts:** 490

Quote:

I have to admit, looking at some of the photos it appears quite a few of them are of old work and the engine had been under steam and worked with a lot of the shoddy looking work.
The new work is obvious, but whoever did the old, old work were as somebody mentioned a bunch of drunken hillbillies.
What is the history of the locomotive?

The photos that have been posted here are all new work. The locomotive has not been steamed since this work has been done.

History: The locomotive ran at nearby "Tombstone Junction" until the mid 1990s when that venue closed. The engine had a hard life there, constantly operating on a steep grade, up to 8%, and was severely "worn out". I fired it there on a few occasions.

Regarding the restoration work in the photos:
1) The entire firebox was removed and new sheets installed by Steam Operations Corporation. These new sheets were not complete when SOC ended work and final fitup was not done. Misalignment of these sheets existed at that time, and apparently Wasatch did not address the misalignment. Rivet and staybolt holes were drilled undersize. No torch cuts.
2) As built, the engine had all rigid staybolts except three flex rows at the front of the crown sheet. SOC made the change to the "new" flexible pattern.
3) All original steam dome studs were removed by SOC. I don't remember if new studs were onsite then, but the seal welding was done by Wasatch.
4) The reinforcement rings for the belly washout plugs were originally inside the shell, and removed by SOC in favor of external reinforcement rings, here noted as "scab patches".
5) All the studs in the boiler were original, and were awaiting replacement by SOC. Thus, all stud repairs have been done by Wasatch.
6) The new smokebox was rolled and on the shop floor when SOC quit work.
7) The new front tube sheet patch was not in place when SOC quit work, but as I have noted prior, the tube hole pattern in it is wrong.
8) No staybolts were installed by SOC or BSFSRY. All new firebox sheets were held in place with threaded rod and tack bolts.
9) Gary Bensman, working for SOC, installed approximately 6 tubes to hold the new rear tube sheet in place. All other tubes installed by Wasatch.

Pegasuspinto · **Joined:** Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:43 am **Posts:** 783

Tom F wrote:

It would be prudent that any previous steam locomotives worked on by this company, should be thoroughly inspected.

Didn't they do a lot of the work on 844 and 3985 for the old crew? Remember the absolute nastiness that went on 'roughly' (the lines were a bit blurry) between the 'old' crew and their fanboys and the 'new' crew and their fanboys? 3985 is retired because she needs so much work?

I really wish we knew what happened on the Hawaii 302.

Tom F · **Joined:** Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:04 pm **Posts:** 314

Pegasuspinto wrote:

Tom F wrote:

It would be prudent that any previous steam locomotives worked on by this company, should be thoroughly inspected.

Didn't they do a lot of the work on 844 and 3985 for the old crew? Remember the absolute nastiness that went on 'roughly' (the lines were a bit blurry) between the 'old' crew and their fanboys and the 'new' crew and their fanboys? 3985 is retired because she needs so much work?

I really wish we knew what happened on the Hawaii 302.

I do believe they did some firebox work on the #844. Obviously they had good supervision and oversight during that time. Unknown if they ever did any work on the #3985. I know the #3985 needs extensive firebox and boiler work. I believe it was around 80% complete after 3 years of work into that locomotive (started in 2010) when there was too many issues with the firebox and boiler. I don't believe the #3985 has ever had a frame up restoration like the #844 and Big Boy received. They figured it was due for a top to bottom overhaul, where they fixed everything and be done with it, instead of dealing with monthly problems. The worked stopped on the #3985 when the overhaul started on the #844.

I know Ed did have new parts made for the #3985 when the Big Boy parts were being made as they are compatible for both locomotives. However I wouldn't expect any work to be done on the #3985 for many years if at all. More than likely the #3985 will be donated at some point, with the new parts, to some other railroad. But this is just speculation.

I would also really like to know about the issues with the Hawaii 302 locomotive. From the photos I saw it wasn't even tarped after it left the shop on the flat bed and arrived at the port caked in mud from the journey. Wouldn't be surprised if the windows and paint were chipped during that long journey. You would think the crew would take some pride in a freshly painted locomotive and cover it up during shipping. They also didn't paint a area where the US Navy emblem was stamped for some reason and left it bare metal. It will not take long for that to rust and streak down that nice new paint.

Pegasuspinto · **Joined:** Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:43 am **Posts:** 783

There were a lot of photos of 844, and a lot of the work done sure was sketchy, and somewhat reminiscent of these new pix....

Yes, it should of been shrink wrapped, and it was apparently wrapped before it was put on the ship for the ocean part of it's journey. I would of thought Wasatch either had the equipment to shrink wrap or had a subcontractor, since it's somewhat common in RR preservation.

Yes, the USN stamp should of been clearcoated.

I get the feeling the issues were a lot deeper then paint and the bare spot, tho.

Bottom line is that if you have someone to do a 5 or 6 or even 7 digit job, especially based off of donated, non profit, limited funds, is watch whoever it is like a hawk, and/or pay for a consultant to at least periodically double check the work. Once the money is gone, it's hard to ever get it back....

M Austin · **Joined:** Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:05 am **Posts:** 488

Ken Middlebrook wrote:

While the contractor selection may have been poor, [... not according to the contractor's proposal ... ]the use of a firm fixed agreement only accelerated this downward path.

Previous thread post from about 2 years ago

Quote:

Wasatch RR Cont wrote:

WRC Contracts: Our contracts are as "iron clad" as they can be. Our contract template, about 11-15 pages was written by a team of lawyers who, have litigated and won a number of "service provider" cases. I would remind all those who care that WRC has a "zero loss run record." That means, we have never litigated a case (kept any/all disputes out of court) and we have lost no cases nor do we have any pay outs on any case/project. We bond and protect every project and we insure our projects (something not many, if any other contractors in our industry do.). The fact that we bond our projects makes us more of a target for litigation. Some customers, seeing that we have insurance, are actually going after some kind of "insurance" claim, rather than any form of tangible damage claim. So far, we have not lost any dispute. We have never had to pay out on a performance bond either.

In addition, we are a growing company. Often, as you grow, you become a target. Our contracts are written in such a way that all of our projects are "time and materials, cost plus" projects. We do project and offer a "cost magnitude projection" but we have very strong language in our contracts that excludes any notion of guaranteed pricing. Since I am being transparent in this message, we have fought three such disputes in the past year. 100% total full paid victories for WRC, including repayment of legal fees. Our contracts are very well written. Lastly, our contracts include our fees and pricing and they also exclude very particular items.

Quote:

Attached is the proposal WRRC presented to get the job to work on K&T 14. This proposal was attached to the lawsuit that was filed in Court here in Kentucky, so it's a public document. Anyone can go down to the Circuit Clerk's Office and get a copy. What's interesting is that in the original proposal, WRRC stated:

Quote:
WRC has a zero loss run record having never litigated. nor negotiated any settlement related to no performance, poor performance, or inability to complete. The cost of bonding has been included in the cost of the project, however, this money is better spent on the project, not in an area that has little likely-hood of being used. Though we arc prepared and though we have provided proof of our ability to bond this project as required, we also know that there is precedent for waiving bond requirement based on past performance. Our record is substantial proof that bonding WRC should not be required and that we could honorably request a waiver to the bonding .

And:
Quote:
Finally, we feel that the total budget for the project is more than would be actually required to get this project finished on time and ensure full compliance with all FRA regulations.

Attachments:
WRRC 14 Proposal.pdf [1.25 MiB]
Downloaded 335 times

Howard P. · **Posted:** Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:25 am

That proposal is very interesting; it certainly could have used a good proofreading for spelling and syntax.

One of the highlights is the bottom of page 12, the last line.

I found it curious that many of the segments of the project were priced at the same amounts; and there was such precision in the times allotted: precise down to fractions of man-hours.

No allowance for contingencies in the project cost?

Howard P.

JR May · **Posted:** Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:25 pm

I guess something still bothers me here after reading the proposal. John has been in the business a long time which you only do by doing decent work. He provided references for the evaluators to call which hopefully they took advantage of before making the award. Even if they did not, he did provide the names and contact information. The proposal details how the work will be done to include hot riveting, the process for stud replacement, etc.

If you look at the photos and the torch cut holes and carriage bolts holding the smoke box on, it just has the appearance that someone other than any sort of professional did the work. The work does not match what I have seen of Wasatch, does not meet the words in the proposal, does not match the kind of work anyone with a hint of boiler experience would see as acceptable.

I like to keep an open mind and just feel there is a part of the story here that is missing.

J.R. May

ctjacks · **Posted:** Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:02 pm

In their proposal, Wasatch says repeatedly that they are "fully staffed" - that they don't use contractors. But later they talk about using local labor for the project, and their employment varies from 15 to 30. That doesn't make sense to me.

What did they actually do for this project? Did they have their people travel from Wyoming to work on this project, or did they hire local labor? Did the management listed in this document travel to Kentucky to supervise this work?

I also note that this document is dated February 2012 and they tout having the engine operable by Memorial Day 2013. That right there should have been a red flag that someone was drastically underestimating the amount of work to be done and the time to complete it.

One part of this saga that doesn't add up is the FRA inspection - I doubt the FRA did a surprise inspection on an engine that had been out of service for decades, so who called in the FRA for an inspection in 2016? Did someone really think they were going to put this engine into service?

BSFSRYFAN · **Joined:** Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:56 pm **Posts:** 92

JR May wrote:

If you look at the photos and the torch cut holes and carriage bolts holding the smoke box on, it just has the appearance that someone other than any sort of professional did the work. The work does not match what I have seen of Wasatch, does not meet the words in the proposal, does not match the kind of work anyone with a hint of boiler experience would see as acceptable.

From what I understand, Wasatch did not ever raise the "we didn't do that shoddy work" to either the FRA or in the arbitration. One can draw a conclusion that in fact, that is the work of their "professionals" and contractors.

The work also bears the telltale signs that Wasatch is known for, like seal welding around rivets, which from what I understand, is not necessary or really seen as acceptable.

Then, if you look at the work Wasatch performed on Nevada Northern 81, you see the same telltale signs of shoddy work.

In the first photo, we see welding around the seam of a boiler course, and seal welded rivets in the joint between the boiler sections (are they called courses?). I have submitted a FOIA request to the FRA to see if Wasatch or NN filed the paperwork to get approval to weld on an unstayed portion of the boiler. In the second and third picture, both taken in late September (the third is on NN's Facebook page), we see a gauge tested in October of 2020, AFTER a date then in the future.

Attachment:

Wasatch 3.JPG [ 257.41 KiB | Viewed 5996 times ]

I know people want to keep "an open mind" because it's easier than taking side, but how is any of this excusable?

BSFSRYFAN · **Joined:** Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:56 pm **Posts:** 92

And here's a pic of the fireup of the 81, with Wasatch employees, not contractors, present, and not even one, let alone two sight glasses on the backhead.

MD Ramsey · **Joined:** Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:52 pm **Posts:** 192

"One part of this saga that doesn't add up is the FRA inspection - I doubt the FRA did a surprise inspection on an engine that had been out of service for decades, so who called in the FRA for an inspection in 2016? Did someone really think they were going to put this engine into service?"

Most (not all) owner/operators work closely with their local FRA steam inspector when preparing a locomotive for a 1472 day inspection, and/or conducting major repairs or alterations on the boiler. Getting that guidance from FRA early and often will help head off potential problems or non-compliance in the future. Some repairs/alterations require FRA approval before hand.

BSFSRYFAN · **Joined:** Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:56 pm **Posts:** 92

MD Ramsey wrote:

"One part of this saga that doesn't add up is the FRA inspection - I doubt the FRA did a surprise inspection on an engine that had been out of service for decades, so who called in the FRA for an inspection in 2016? Did someone really think they were going to put this engine into service?"

Most (not all) owner/operators work closely with their local FRA steam inspector when preparing a locomotive for a 1472 day inspection, and/or conducting major repairs or alterations on the boiler. Getting that guidance from FRA early and often will help head off potential problems or non-compliance in the future. Some repairs/alterations require FRA approval before hand.

From what I understand, the owner of the locomotive, who was dissatisfied with the "quality" of the work and the fact that the boiler wouldn't hold water at atmospheric pressure, invited the FRA to come take a look.

Robby Peartree · **Joined:** Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:16 am **Posts:** 767

Hi All,

In this thread on Looking for Federal Regulations citation(viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36618&p=215173&hilit=+crack#p215173), i think you will find Mr. Rimmasch's quote very telling.

"Union Pacific had a Dyno car that we (Wasatch Railroad) actually considered purchasing. What we found interesting about the car was the fact that the strain gauge end had cushioned draft gear. Generally a locomotive attached to a dyno car has rigid or fixed or non-cushioned draft gear.....what ever term you want to use.

The strain gauge measured the draft forces based on the motion of the cushioned draft gear on the car, pulling or drifting. I can see how a camera could be used to measure specific locations of the coupler in a pulling or drifting mode and therefore could generate some specific information related to strain.....makes sense. Painting the coupler top white would accentuate the picture and make the measurement easier.

Note that FRA has not enforced the painted coupler deal much beyond the past ten years. In fact, if you look at enough Private Car photos and painted locomotives (mostly Bicentennial locomotives of 1976) you will find a number of painted couplers. Go dig through a stack of old UP Calendars from the 70's and 80's.....SD-40's all had gray painted couplers, air hoses and pilots.

Here is the funny part......Go buy a can of flat brown spray paint and paint the top of your coupler brown and then mix in some flat black over coat and some touches of flat gray. Then, go find an MP&E to inspect the item. 9 out of 10 inspectors will miss the paint on the coupler as it looks too natural. BUT......paint it WHITE and the gods of railroading will come down hard on you.....paint it anything other than a natural color.....watch out.

Why? It looks like you are intentionally trying to hide something. Most MP&E classes teach inspectors to watch for things that may indicate an issue.....covering a crack on a coupler with white paint is a dead giveaway to a problem with the coupler......BUT.....painting it natural brown and adding hints of gray and black won't single an issue at all. I speak from year of experience! I am more than happy to lay out a list of locomotives I have painted couplers flat brown just to get them past FRA and to date, have not been caught yet!
Odd right? This whole thing is a culture issue.....not really a hard and fast rule.

If it is an FRA MP&E who is hassling you.....have HIM show you the hard and fast rule!!!! If he can't; ask him to call his regional administrator and ask him where it is in the 49CFR.....and if that doesn't work, have the regional admin call DC......now you will get action!!!!!

Kindly,

JohnE.

P.S. Write a waiver request (except that you don't have a rule to waive) and call it a "special service/dedicated service coupler". After all it was a "company car" specific service car."

Robby Peartree

Lincoln Penn · **Joined:** Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:40 pm **Posts:** 841

Let's settle the crap (and that's exactly what is is) about the Hawaii engine.

This locomotive arrived in the USA after sitting on an open-deck ship with no protection at all.

The locomotive received 2 completley rebuilt (by a large, recognized builder) Cummins engines.

Both radiator cores were replaced after it was determined by a commercial radiator shop that they were plugged with mud and scale and were not repairable. Somewhere along the line, untreated water had been used for cooling. No antifreeze, no water pump lubricant, no filters, or anything else.

Both main generators were removed and sent to a large-equipment electrical shop and completely rebuilt and tested on their test stand. Both traction motors were also removed and sent to the same shop, dismantled and rebuilt. One motor had a bent main shaft, for which a new one had to be made to replace it. Both generators and motors got new bearings and cabling.

Both traction motors had been removed/replaced sometime in the dim past. This was done by simply cutting out the connecting links and wiring the ends together, adding miles of rubber tape. That was all replaced with new this time, as were the cables.

The batteries and battery cables were replaced with new.

The air brake system was rebuilt by yet another air-brake company.

After reassembly and testing, the entire locomotive body and frame were sanded to bare metal, primered, and repainted to the customer's exact specifications, which INCLUDED the USN numbers someone is whining about. I respectfully suggest such whining be refer[color=#FFBF00][/color]ed to the customer, as that is what THEY demanded!

The wheels were turned and trued.

During all this work, there were management changes at the customer, including changes in the work they wanted done. Along with that came misunderstandings.

Once completed and tested, the locomotive was loaded on a truck. The customer refused tarping the load or protecting it in any way from weather or vandalism.

The locomotive was hauled by highway though several major winter snowstorms to the dock on the west coast, where it sat for months, again untarped at customer insistance, while waiting for a ship. It went on deck of a ship, still untarped at customer insistence, to the Islands, where, it sat on the dock once again.

I have no idea what happened to it after that. The customer might be able to tell you.

Or maybe not.