I wish the article had countered CSX's claims with those of Jason Johnson or someone else involved with the Petersburg event. It's one thing to give the CSX company policy but another to explain why organizers had said the event was to involve the 734 from the beginning. Did they just assume CSX would agree? That was not addressed.

I think the real reason concerning CSX's policy is the possibility of “serious and potentially expensive insurance concerns.”

It's one thing to have liability in running a passenger train but quite another to be afraid of liability in moving a steam loco. Now, if there's concern about damaging someone else's toy, there are always waivers for such things. How hard it is to move a steam engine at low speeds? Also, I suppose there is no liability in moving a GP-30?

What a world we now live in. So many things that used to be commonplace are now not possible because of the small chance that something could happen.

Here's an article from the same author from this past Tuesday with Jason Johnson's side:

http://times-news.com/local/x657341189/ ... e-of-plans

Thank You David for posting Tuesday's article. Being out of town, I missed that day's paper.

Tim Wilson

I hate to admit it, but CSX is actually absolutely correct with the reasons they give:


Yep, that happens.



Can't argue that wouldn't happen either. Maybe not in this case, but in some cases.




Now that doesn't absolutely make sense the way they wrote it, but if they mean that some of the stuff that we wish to move isn't compatible with current systems (like AEI readers, hot box detectors, etc...), then they're right.




I know that I'd have a hard time explaining to MY boss why some decision I made "because it'd be fun for this group over here" just raised the company's insurance premiums.

Like it or not, CSX is a for-profit business, who's job it is ISN'T to please us.

It sucks, but it's true.

Ed, no one is questioning that CSX has a right to say no. Many of us question why they would say yes to begin with and then say no.

Again, I just can't understand those on this board who want to agree that no historic trains or locos should be allowed on a Class 1 RR. Sure there is liability for doing so but it is MINIMAL with proper precautions and insurance.

It's like saying I can't fly in a plane because it might crash. It may but there is a minimal chance.

I must respectfully disagree. It's not that I think that no historic equipment should be allowed, it's that I understand the reason it's not.

I think your analogy is slightly off though. It'd be more accurate to think of it like this.
It'd be like saying that US Air doesn't want to swap out the engines in a 737 with those from a restored B29 and fly them somewhere with their own crew and an empty plane.

The part of this which I entirely disagree with though, is that they first said yes, then changed their minds. But even then, it's not like CSX is a monolith, it's full of individuals, and while one might have thought it wouldn't be a problem, perhaps someone else (his boss, probably), got wind and said "oh hellll no, I like my job, I'm not having another TRRA incident here".

And therein lies the problem ... the speed at which information is accessed today.

There was a time when having something historic moved a short distance involved nothing more than a bottle of the local Superintendent's favorite sprits, and a handshake. By the time anyone higher up the corporate chain found out about it, the move was long in the past and nothing came of it. If something minor did happen, it was taken care of and swept under the rug long before anyone could ask questions.

Now, thanks to modern technology and the supply of information in real-time, railroads are centralized in their operating plans. Most special moves now need to get approved on the system level. Every day there are multiple conference calls regarding just the routine operations. Add a special move into the mix, and now you're looking at having to get the approval of the VP in charge of operations, because nobody else is going to stake the future of their livelihood on it if something goes wrong. Granted, the move may go off without a hitch ... but something does go wrong, everyone is going to know about it right away and someone will be the scapegoat.

Many of us may not like it, but that is the current corporate culture in the railroad industry.

Being that CSX, like all other Class 1's, are self-insured, they really don't need a reason to say no. Yes, the engineering and infrastructure has changed since the steam days, and that could have played a factor. CSX would have to go through the expense of sending someone out to inspect and measure 734, and then compare that data against the routing. Somewhere along the line that expense was probably weighed on the PR return it would provide. In this case, they decided it wasn't worth the effort. The question that remains to be answered is whether or not CSX's assertion that the organizers were informed of the decision back in March is true. If so, I wouldn't exactly call it an 11th hour letdown.

No matter how we feel about it ... it's CSX's railroad, and they will decide what runs and what doesn't. It's not the first time it has happened, and it certainly won't be the last.

Consistency is not moving a certain Chinese 2-10-2 a year ago at 10MPH for several miles. (Unless you want to argue a 1980s built steam locomotive is not "antique" because of its build date.)

CSX moved RJ Corman's QJ no. 2008 last year - under steam, at 10MPH. That's not consistency. (It's not lost on me that there were corporate relationships at work there; but then again the state's governor was also leaning on CSX to see this through.)

CSX said no to a passenger train move in March -- that same month saw the paperwork approved to move the 734.

KL

But didn't the TRRA switcher incident happen after that?

Are those "antiques?" I can't speak to that incident, only the present situation. Those switchers don't necessarily meet the criteria as listed as reasons for rejection.

KL

No, but their drawbars caused a lot of problems. Plus the RR is constantly changing (esp. managers). 2008 was a LONG time ago in the railroad world.

It's their sandbox and they make the rules.

I personally witnessed RJ Corman's (friction bearing) QJ under steam on it's inaugural trip in Louisville, KY in May 2008. It was on CSX trackage pulling 6 gons and a caboose at speeds far in excess of 10mph, without any diesel helper nor any CSX equipment in sight. Large crowds of spectators, including media as well as Corman's staff and vehicles. Corman has trackage rights on this part of CSX and runs his freight trains daily. However, this same route was nixed for the steam engine for this year's Kentucky Derby Train.

That's because the QJ was a last minute addition to the train this year. It wasn't nixed so much as the locomotive was just for show and never intended to do the engine route and handle the train the whole time.

I'm only pointing out that in May 2008, Corman's steam was running under it's own power on CSX mainline trackage.

We aren't blind, brother. Some of us work in the industry and know that already. Understanding the realities (be they upside down or right side up) of the situation shouldn't prevent dialogue or invite policing of it.

With regard to the drawbars and the incident with the switchers, that's an example of operating ignorance and unfamiliarity with equipment. Even if you stretched it, it doesn't fall under the items listed by the company spokesperson as reasons for not transporting steam engines/antique equipment, which is why connecting that move and the move of 734 doesn't really fly. They're very likely connected in ways that would never be disclosed, so I'm only going off what is known and what has been disclosed to the public --- for mere conjecture if anything.

The bottom line, as communicated to directly from people higher up who got involved in the last minute, is that CSX will not participate in "non-essential moves" which can be a very easy blanket to lay down. That's all anyone has to say, but in this case someone said that last minute and after others had said something and practiced differently.