I vote you lock it again. Apparently a lot of people believe modernizing steam locomotives and reclaiming Guiness world records is a lucrative get-rich-quick scheme for crooks. Apparently it would be far preferable to let the locomotive rot in place as long as it remains original.

I'm with Hugh. Real information was displaced many pages ago with paranoid delusional ramblings and character assasinations cocnerning the integrity and motivations of some of the leading minds in our industry who stand behind this project. If I want to listen to irrational fears, I can turn on Rush Limbaugh.

dave

When the ATSF donated this locomotive to the city of Topeka, I am sure that they intended it to be kept up and displayed as an icon of the relationship between the city and the railroad. The donation had to have cost the railroad some money in the form of foregone scrap value. So I am sure that there must have been a contract stating what the ATSF expected in return for their 200-ton locomotive.

Take a look at this discussion and read the seven posts by member pd3463 in the first half of the thread:

http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php?1,217490

Among other things, he says that the 3463 is listed on the National Historic Register as the only surviving super Hudson.

I say, without any snark, "prove it." Show me the paperwork, its listing number, or its listing on a reputable compilation of NRHS/etc. sites.

I have perused several such websites for a listing for this loco in Topeka and the surrounding county (Shawnee).

http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricpl ... state.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_R ... ty,_Kansas

http://www.kshs.org/natreg/natreg_listi ... /county:SN

Depending on which sites you look at, I can find 1-2 UP depots and a "Santa Fe Motive Power Building" listed, but NOT 3463 itself.

Mr. Mitchell,

It may not be true. I certainly agree that proof is needed before it should be believed. Even if it were true, I am not sure what it would mean in practical terms. But read the other comments by this poster, pf3463 that I linked to above. They may not be true either, but I am in the process of looking into it to find out for myself.

You can "intend" it all you want, but unless you're really and truly in a position to forcibly reclaim a 200-ton loco because you don't think it's being painted properly, you really don't get a say.

There is virtually nobody left on BNSF who knows firsthand what those locos looked like back then. BNSF shareholders are NOT paying their executives to give a rat's patootie how nice the dozens of steamers they gave away a half-century or more ago look today. Unless they're operating their own museum a la the B&O or UP, it's no longer their business or concern how nice or raggedy a piece of former Santa Fe rolling stock looks. It might be great PR for BNSF to completely refurbish the model RR in Chicago's Museum of Science & Industry to bring it from the 1950s' F-units and boxcars to B40-8's and stacked container trains, but it's not mandatory or even necessary.

Show me a situation where someone wants to saddle someone else with the upkeep of some big, unwieldy behemoth, presumably with several possible hazards (lead paint? asbestos? glass to break? sharp edges? ladders to fall off of?), and they want to say "You get stuck with the upkeep and maintenance and liabilities of this 'attractive nuisance', but you have to keep it up just the way we tell you or we'll sue you or take it back; oh, and by the way it's utterly historic so you can't scrap it or sell it or let someone else use it any way we don't approve of...."

SLAM goes the door in their faces. With damn good reason.

Yes, I understand what you are saying about intent. I am just saying that the intent must have existed, but I surely would not expect BNSF to raise an objection at this point. I am just curious as what type of agreement accompanied the transfer of title for these display locomotives. I once acquired a boxcar from the C&NW for $1. But they did give me a bill of sale.

Except for the "you have to keep it up just the way we tell you or we'll sue you or take it back" part, isn't that what we supposedly commit to when we accept something into our collections? Why shouldn't a city be prepared to make the same commitment?

As to placement on the register, that in and of itself does not provide complete protection, but it should raise the level of scrutiny required before public money can be spent on the project to modify the engine. I am confident there are measures that could be taken to guarantee that the engine could be returned to its original configuration upon the project's completion, but I would feel better if such a commitment was backed by a bond or money in escrow.

It ultimately depends upon how carefully whomever administering the money follows the law and whether or not anyone is prepared to intervene if they do not. Give that we are talking about Railway Preservation, and not Architectural Preservation, I suspect no one would intervene on behalf of the locomotive.

I reiterate: It's not on the National Register. Therefore, completely irrelevant to the discussion. No such "law" applies.

The Kansas State Historical Society website linked earlier lists buildings/sites on either the National and/or Kansas State registers. It does not show 3463. I presume, therefore, it's not on the Register of Historic Kansas Places, either.

Get back to us when you can show a National or Kansas Register listing. I can't prove a negative.

Maybe it's time to lock this thread and throw away the key.

Grown ups should be able to reasonably disagree when discussing controversial subjects. I have been careful not to attack, call people names, etc. I have opinions, but I am trying to focus my comments on law, policy, and standard practices.

When evaluating a project such as the modification of ATSF 3463, a public agency has an obligation to determine if the project might cause an adverse impact on significant cultural resources. Irrespective of whether this engine IS on the register, such an environmental review should determine whether or not it is eligible. Eligibility is the standard by which these things are measured. If something is determined to be eligible for listing, it affords the same protections as if it had been listed.

For that matter, I have not stated that the locomotive is eligible. That determination is above my pay grade as they say, and would require an analysis of the engine's history and its current condition.

Post Script: I should have said the above is true in California. I am not familiar with the preservation and environmental laws of Kansas. I am not a licensed architect there, so that has not been a problem. Many states have laws modeled after NHPA (I had earlier said NEPA, when I meant NHPA), so I had reason to suspect Kansas was similar. In fact the Kansas Preservation Act only applies to properties that are listed locally or nationally. If federal funds are involved, then NHPA applies, which does consider register-eligible properties. While I do make mistakes, I generally make an effort to know what I am talking about.

I object. If nothing else for now, it's exposing the folly of:

1) assuming something is "protected" by a register listing that may not, in fact, actually exist, and

2) provoking discussion on just what, if anything, someone can mandate or require of an object donated to a city, museum, etc.

Both are relevant subjects for consideration in many other rail preservation projects, and are also applicable to the 3463 scenario.

I perused the NGDF thread, and read claims that the loco was donated to "the Children of Topeka, Kansas." This is not the first time such terminology has (reportedly) been used--supposedly, similar "Children of" language has precluded efforts by some preservationists to do any operating restoration of Western Maryland 4-6-2 202 in Hagerstown, Md. If someone really, really wanted the loco badly enough, I'd love to see what a court challenge would eventually determine, especially as the nominative "owners" lack legal rights themselves.



With all due respect: No. I've personally dealt with this issue with several projects. I also know the rules in both the U.S. and the U.K. A structure, etc. may or may not be eligible--many of the "eligibility" requirements, specifically "significance," are incredibly subjective; sometimes the determination of eligibility comes down to the eloquence or "balderdash-slinging" abilities of the nomination writers:

http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bull ... rb15_2.htm

Furthermore, simply because something may qualify for inclusion in a state or national register DOES NOT in and of itself afford the same protections. It has to actually be listed. The Register inclusion process is the moral equivalent of a judge hearing and deciding your case; just because you may claim it's historic, priceless, and irreplacable doesn't mean it's going to be declared so by the Department of the Interior. And as some folks who have had to deal with technicalities of the protections can tell you, even National Register status doesn't fully "protect" an artifact in the manner in which some folks would like to believe. A structure can still be demolished or moved; you're just forced to document it thoroughly before doing so.

I guess I'm trying to understand why some here are so hot to end this conversation.

This isn't the first apparent failure of what might loosely be referred to as "the railway preservation community." It probably won't be the last. It's prickly territory when outsiders are obliged to step into such a controversy, and not a situation I'd care to hazard, even with extreme provocation.

I've long assumed that any community with such a historic asset -- most of all Topeka -- would impatiently chafe at the suggestion that it was available to go elsewhere.

I'm also well aware of the impressive costs and liability that taking on such a responsibility carries.

Still -- there is only one ATSF 3463, last example of an elegant and superlative high-water mark in steam power. I have no doubt that, if such assets are subject to inclusion on official state or national preservation lists, she would easily qualify. Unfortunately, I've long since learned that even such a listing does not necessarily preclude compromise or destruction.

It's been 20 years since my family and I regularly came to the Annual Topeka Railroad Days celebrations. I never dreamed that Topeka, of all cities, would ever accede to such as this, and I am still in hopes that spirits and voices will effectively rise there against this proposal (and FOR a real preservation effort).

Perhaps other Kansans (like the successful steam restorers from Salina) would be willing to help and advise. If not, I'd be willing to help assemble an advisory panel.

I see no particular value in attacking "SRI" on the technical merits or feasibility of its proposal. I do, however, have a real bone to pick with deliberate, defacto vandalism of such an asset, once its singular value is understood.

On the merits of its intrinsic value alone, 3463 should be held strictly inviolable to this sort of a plan.

What is the purpose or literal meaning of language such as, "The Children of the City of Topeka" ?

Purpose: Warm, fuzzy feelings and general goodwill. Pretty much the same as the cliched bleedin'-heart do-gooder invoking "Won't somebody think of the children?!?!" in a desperate attempt to salvage a debate they're losing.

Legal meaning? It's pretty much anyone's guess. There have been several instances of steam locomotives, other artifacts, and even entire museums that supposedly "belong" to "the children of" a city, state, or whatever; here's one with a little-noted PRR steamer:
http://www.childrensmuseum.org/

I personally suspect that such distinctions have as much legal validity and function as the designation of PRR 1361 as the "Official Steam Locomotive" of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania...... in other words, the first word of what it means functionally is "jack", and I'll leave you to fill in the second word.