Ditto.

If we're going to get into personal attacks, then I'm voting for this thread to be locked. Aside from the two posted photos, there has been no information posted here that can't be found on the railroad's facebook page.

I have read and comprehended this thread. We have photos and videos of a locomotive moving around with steam coming from various places. No one witnessed the event first hand nor is anyone connected to the railroad or museum that we know of. No one knows the facts in this case. What this thread has done is slander and defame the railroad and museum involved without just cause. And all this after they went to the time and trouble to stage a terrific event. You'll be happy to know that this is my last post on the subject.

That raises a point that has been ignored. What was the event or occasion?

It appears the engine was decorated for July 4, but never left the yard.

Was the engine prepared for an aborted public display? Real or fake, what was the point of all of this effort? It would not appear related to the task of cosmetic work for the museum.

Where are the press releases?

I just thought I would jump in before the thread gets locked. (if it does) Some interesting things I noticed in the videos taken on July 4. Did anyone else notice the sound of the 2 compressors running in the background? What about the absence of the blower running on steam? The XC compressor with the "steam" leaking from it has the heads off. The "Blow down steam" looks much the way an air reservoir tank looks when the water is blown out. That is the water that comes from condensation from warm humid compressed air cooling in the reservoir. The smoke from the stack and the fire harming the firebox... My 1986 S-10 pick-up smokes almost that much. Finally I ask where are any other signs of water or fire?

I think these guys pulled off a great publicity event, and it worked look how much they got people talking about #28!

Mark A. Frazier

Well, from what I saw of the (Facebook) videos, the engine was running on air. Likely the boiler was full of water to reduce the volume of pressurization required and to protect the crown sheet from whatever they had burning in the box. From the blowdown video, it doesn't look like the boiler water ever got to boiling, so the engine was acting purely under air.

Not sure what they spurt of (?) was coming off ahead of the cab, except that it looked like a governor or moisture trap cycling. If that was steam, it looked really dirty.

So far as the lovely photoshopped photos? I can't imagine that it's that hard to swipe the "steam" from one photo and cut and paste it as a layer over another. I don't know much about Photoshop, but would be surprised if you couldn't select certain color values and copy them off of a layer and use that layer elsewhere.

I think it's neat that the Cloquet Terminal folks went through all this effort, but find it annoying how roundly condemned they were before enough facts were in. Any wonder why a lot of projects don't get on the Internet? Certainly kudos to the remark that managing ones online presence is critical.

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT

Oh c'mon! If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck, it's a duck. This duck is under steam. The point is, whether she's a solid locomotive or not, had she blown up, it's likely all of the great steam revivals ongoing today would be slammed down hard and fast. The operators might be skilled and eager, but they ain't too bright.
Somebody needs to go to the woodshed for this. By buttoning up the facts, they operators are trying to do damage control because they know somebody screwed up. We are all lucky the tendril of this event haven't extended into every responsible steam operation.

A thought: even if it was only operated on compressed air, I'm assuming that would still require pressurizing the boiler which would mean relying on components of a pressurized vessel that likely have not been inspected or serviced in half a century, which = bad....

Actually in Montana, air pressure vessels are not regulated but steam vessels are. I have seen traction engines run on air, when unable or unwilling to comply with boiler regulations. In Minnesota, I believe both varieties are, with exemption of railroad and Federal boilers/pressure vessels https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=326B.988. So, a Federal boiler, used as an air pressure vessel.....

This may be another point as to why the boiler was full of water...if there were a catastrophic failure (suspect a hydro was performed first), the incompressible water would not contribute energy to any rupture.

Those who believe the engine was under steam shall not be swayed from their viewpoint. From my perspective in the traction engine community I think there are good reasons why it is important to comply with the various regulations. Much the same applies in railroad preservation, but in this instance, I think there are a lot of people in the mode of "shoot first and that's that".

Aside from the boiler, it seems like the engine has most of what it takes to become a runner again. I hope they can make it happen.

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT

That is assuming they didn't damage it by failing to properly lubricate the cylinders and valves while it was allegedly running on compressed air.

The facebook videos give me the impression that whatever they are doing, they have done it with this locomotive on more than one date/occurrence. Agreed?

One other detail, that really has nothing to do with what did or did not happen with No. 28: the photographer took the shots, posted them, then took them down. Then someone on this discussion list took it upon themselves to somehow copy them and repost them here.

That, it seem to me, is unethical. If I was the photographer I'd be pretty pissed off. For whatever reason they took the photos off the internet, and I think that wish should have been honored. Yeah, he or she perhaps should not have posted them in the first place, and you can also argue that once something is on the Internet it's there forever. But some people on this thread are acting awful high and mighty about this incident, and its all based on evidence from photos that were posted on this thread against the specific wishes of the person that took them. Regardless of what did or didn't happen with the 28, that's not right, and if I were the moderator, I would have the photos removed from this thread immediately. You can always look at the shots on the railroad's Facebook page.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides a mechanism for which a copyright holder may request a site take down materials posted by users without permission. Unless and until such a request is made there is no need to do anything. It is not up to the site owner to try to judge everything that is posted by users nor is there any obligation to act on third party notice.

This is emphatically not legal advice.

Steve

Here is what I know from 150 miles away.

Source #1: Is driving through Cloquet on the 4th with his wife and sees the locomotive moving. He posts from his cellphone to Yahoo News group.

Source #2: Reads message and heads for Cloquet, takes pictures and posts them to his Flicker account, posts links to Yahoo Newsgroup, he later takes pictures down, I am positive he did NOT photoshop the pictures.

Source #3: Was on his way north and stopped in Cloquet to check on the flood damage, the engineer blew the whistle for him.


One question I have is the Ore car, is it carrying the compressor(s), and is it supplying brakes for the operation.

-Hudson

My impression of the ore car is that it is simply a historic piece which had already been restored and it does in fact look good behind another historic piece of equipment. Also HudsonL, I like the way you think in regards to securing 3 sources. It works for all reputable sources of main stream media. What yahoo news group do you reference?

In regards to the photos, they had already been publicly viewed by many on this and other sites prior to their removal from Flickr. Also, I fail to see an overlayed copyright on either of them. In this "act" which is referenced, is their any provision stating that an image posted without any imprinted notice of copyright is simply public domain?

My question is who do we have the honor in hearing from in the post by "steve55126", a first time poster, and how is he involved with the railroad in question and why head a crusade to get photos removed which the FRA has undoubtedly already seen?

John

Lack of a copyright notice does not cause anything to fall into public domain.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf

Steve