Help with Soo Line 2719

The Fireman · **Joined:** Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:44 pm **Posts:** 120

PMC wrote:

On this map

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/trav ... ailmap.pdf

I note that UP still owns a ten or so mile stretch of the former Omaha Road line from Eau Claire to Chippewa Falls that originally went to Duluth (most of which C&NW sold to Wisconsin Central in the nineties which later combined it with the old WC Duluth line). Would it be possible to pick up this spur for excursion use? It also connects to another longer stretch of the Omaha Road Duluth Line now run by Progressive Rail, I'm not sure though how Progressive is about excursions though.

Not a chance. UP and Progressive Rail (d.b.a Wisconsin Northern) have benefited immensely from the frac sand boom, there are half a dozen plants that ship dozens if not hundreds of cars a day.

PMC · **Joined:** Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:55 pm **Posts:** 2615

The Fireman wrote:

Not a chance. UP and Progressive Rail (d.b.a Wisconsin Northern) have benefited immensely from the frac sand boom, there are half a dozen plants that ship dozens if not hundreds of cars a day.

Ah, was not aware of that. My grandparents went to Hayward every year up through the 80s (in July when it was 100 regularly in Central Illinois), that was my last time up there. I recall that little stretch of track (then a "main line") and not seeing anything on it ever.

colfaxstation · **Posted:** Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:58 pm

Nick,
Unless you have a working relationship with the UP and Progressive Rail in western Wisconsin, your comment is unneeded in this discussion.

As far as the questions of why this was done at the last minute, this effort has been ongoing since late 2017. The city had requested an extension from Duluth for the option, but the Museum had declined the request. Steve's comment on Duluth failing to make the payments to the L&TPF is interesting. Their failure to complete the payments was one of the major factors why Eau Claire couldn't get 2719 back in the first place. The suggestion about M&StL 457 was appreciated and info on that display will be forwarded to the architect doing the design work.

Herb Sakalaucks

P Martin · **Joined:** Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:56 pm **Posts:** 11

Let me get this straight. Because Eau Claire had 9000 people attend a toy train expo, that suddenly make them a major contender for preserving railroad history? What a statement!

I’ve seen a few posts from those whom work or are/have been involved in some capacity for Lake Superior Railroad Museum. What would be great is if the museum itself were to issue a statement on the subject, either confirming of denying their interest in providing a permanent home for 2719. If they indeed want the engine, perhaps a fundraiser could be held to buy the locomotive from the city.

For whatever happens in the future, I am happy for the 2719 to go somewhere loved. (as long as it isn’t Colfax...)

colfaxstation · **Posted:** Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 am

The Colfax Railroad Museum has absolutely NO interest in housing 2719.

We have enough work with ongoing restoration work and in developing the new properties we've acquired over the past 4 years for our new events center, library/ archive and the 7.5" gauge train ride.

Herb Sakalaucks

SteveC · **Joined:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:45 am **Posts:** 86

steve55126 wrote:

Let me just address a couple of concerns. One item that Herb brought up about funding. I don't know about money going to "other non-profits" but when the engine came to Duluth, an agreement was signed with its then owner, the Locomotive & Tower Preservation Fund. Under that agreement, the museum set aside money to rebuild the engine and that money was deposited with L&TPF. What happened to that money the museum does not know. LSRM stopped paying the funds after it was determined by the Wisconsin Secretary of State that the L&TPF was not a legal entity. Indeed the money was being sent to a private checking account and that's when the museum stopped paying.

In terms of the expense of moving the engine, the museum contacted BNSF and asked them what they would approximate the cost would be. Then they asked a crane company about the cost of lifting it up onto flatcars. That's where the dollar figure came from. If Eau Claire can get companies to donate and move it more cheaply, then more power to them.

Of course, 2719 is legally now again the property of the city, and they may do anything they want with it. It would be fantastic if they built an all-weather enclosure and it was a source of civic pride. A great example of what can be done with a display engine is M&StL 457 in Mason City. It has a roof, everything lights up, it even has sound, probably the best park display in the country - and it was once one of the most derelict engines you ever saw, until concerned fans stepped up. Perhaps that will happen in Eau Claire.

But it is still just a display. 2719 came back to life and was an operating example of the age of steam. If it was at the museum, it would certainly be stuffed and mounted for a time since they have D&NE 28 running, but its time could and should come again. There is 27 miles of track waiting just outside the museum door and Amtrak policy change or not, it can run there. That won't happen if it goes back to Eau Claire.

I should add that one reason the museum began to focus on No. 28 in 2011-12 was because at the time 2719 would come due for its federal overhaul it was not owned by the museum. They wanted operating steam, and they could not justify putting funds into a steam engine they did not own, hence 28 got the nod. Plus Cloquet Terminal was willing to do a lot of the work on 28.

I just find it a little suspect that with only a month to go before the contract expired and the engine would have stayed in Duluth permanently, the only remaining city council member from three years ago and who opposed the contract in 2015 suddenly proposed the resolution to buy it back. Of course he and the city were within their right to do so, and they did. But they did so with no plan for the engine's future, which apparently they are only now working on. Knowing the track record of most cities and display locomotives, their actions don't exactly inspire confidence.

But we will see how it all shakes out in the end. My only reason for even bringing this up is IMHO an operating 2719 is better than a display 2719, and rebuilding an engine that has already been restored is a lot easier and less expensive than pulling one out of a park.

We will see what steps Eau Claire takes from here.

I find it very hard to disagree with this post. I have seen many "Park Locomotives" that have been given less than adequate care. The track record with Eau Claire is an unknown to mixed. I remember that the Altoona roundhouse was a logical place for the 2719 and others to reside if the city really wanted to have an interpretive display. Union Pacific tore the site down as it was their property to do so, but a real loss of an opportunity that placed two locomotives at risk. (Soo 1003 was the other one) The LSM stepped up to the plate to give the 2719 an opportunity to run again, and have allowed a lot more folks make a real tangible connection with the locomotive vs. stuffed and mounted in a park. I agree that it would be good for the museum to state their case, but if we are to consider what is best for the artifact, then it is really hard to argue a compelling case supporting moving it back to Eau Claire.

Steve

Dennis Storzek · **Posted:** Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:19 am

colfaxstation wrote:

The suggestion about M&StL 457 was appreciated and info on that display will be forwarded to the architect doing the design work.

Herb Sakalaucks

Herb,

If you talk to them, also point them toward the group that takes care of Soo 2713 in Stevens Point. Sorry I don't have contact info, but here is their web site:
http://soo2713.org/

Howard P. · **Posted:** Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:49 am

Soo 2713 website-- "Perserving"?? Really? And it's repeated at least twice on the main web page.

Howard P.

Dennis Storzek · **Posted:** Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:15 am

Howard, people who learned English on a smart phone with auto correct can't tell the difference. I didn't get two sentences into the text and noticed "are" for "our." Goes to show what happens when you recruit a pimply faced kid to craft your web site because they are "computer savvy."

However, none of that should detract from the excellent design of the shelter.

On Edit: I should have mentioned that the Friends of 2713 web site lists the design/build firm that did the shelter on their LINKS page:
http://www.revarch.com/

tweetsie12 · **Joined:** Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:09 am **Posts:** 170

I actually sent a persuasive email to the city of Eau Claire against the idea of moving the engine back.

tweetsie12 · **Joined:** Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:09 am **Posts:** 170

robertjohndavis wrote:

jayrod wrote:

I'd have to agree with Herb here. The fastest way to get the council to dig in their heels and get them PO'd is to have a bunch of outsiders to tell them what to do. It seems something similar happened recently....

You mean when Jason stepped in, saved a locomotive from imminent scrapping while raising $67K almost overnight? No matter what any of us think about Port Arthur's final decision, the irrefutable fact is that the only reason we aren't talking about #503 in the past tense is because of Jason's elbow grease effort to save her and the hundreds who stood up with him.

Had he not stepped up, there would have been nothing for the city to dig their heels into.

I can't find fault in that. - Rob

Speaking of 503, whatever happened to it?

Help with Soo Line 2719

Who is online