It sounds like the CSR is going to pursue the acquisition of the locomotive so I assume that they have future plans for it. Otherwise they could just walk away from it right now since they never entered into an agreement to buy the 3463 from the city. I suspect that plans for it are long term as they have found other steam locomotives to test their fuel with apparently promising results.

Keeping it in Topeka can be viewed in a number of ways. They may store it there until the time comes when they have the resources to move it to Minnesota for rebuilding. Or they may find it more economical to rebuild it in Topeka. It's even possible, though not likely, that they just want to save face given all the hoopla they have on their website about the 3463 project. Most of us would never have heard of the CSR or their fuel if it weren't for the 3463. Whatever their plans for the locomotive, they've proven to be the best caretaker of it in many many years.

Their press release is ambiguous about their plans for the locomotive, and why they would even have any plans for a locomotive that they do not own. Their statement makes it impossible to determine whether they intend to purchase the locomotive from the City; or whether they are just wishing it well and letting go of the original dream.

Also, completely missing from any of the news is the response from the City upon learning that they own a locomotive that they had thought they got rid of many years ago. If they did not want to display and maintain it then, I doubt they want to do that now.

I see nothing to indicate that CSR has proven to be the best caretaker of the locomotive, as you say. They have given it a cheap coat of cosmetic paint, and undertaken a considerable amount of disassembly. The greatest constructive effort put forth so far to preserve and maintain the locomotive was done by volunteers before Great Overland Station lost interest and ordered the work to cease.

A couple years ago, when the news of the CSR acquisition of #3463 first came out, I attempted to verify the ownership of the locomotive. I made written inquiries to the City of Topeka, Shawnee County, and Great Overland Station. GOS claimed to have owned the locomotive prior to transferring title to CSR in Minneapolis; however, GOS could not produce any documentation to verify that they had owned the locomotive.

Shawnee County told me that they had never owned the locomotive. Their only involvement was that the locomotive was on their property.

The City of Topeka told me that they did not own the locomotive and they could not produce any documentation showing that they had ever owned it. However, they did say or suggest that they had once owned it as a gift from AT&SF. There was also a general narrative circulating that said that the City had transferred ownership to GOS (or their predecessor of a different name).

These factors indicate the following:

1) Several years ago, the City decided to find a new home for both the locomotive and the responsibility to care it.
2) Up until this court decision, the City believed that they had found a new home for the locomotive; and have not owned the locomotive for the several years since transferring the locomotive ownership to GOS.

So this court decision is a real game changer for the City of Topeka. After a long period of believing that they had gotten rid of their responsibility for the locomotive, it is back in their lap in worse condition than when they got rid of it.

So what happens next will be influenced by that background. It seems to me that the City will be more interested than ever in transferring the locomotive to another party. Because of the immense size and weight of the locomotive any practical transfer of ownership depends on the ability of the recipient provide their own facility for the locomotive, and to MOVE it to that facility. One way out of that problem would be for Shawnee County to allow the locomotive to be stored on their property where it presently stands. Then the new owner would only have to protect and insure the locomotive.

In my opinion, this approach would favor the “Children” group that wants to keep the engine in Topeka for public display.

Bringing this topic/thread back up from lethargic purgatory:

https://www.facebook.com/csrail/posts/1417937831650495

So the answer is "yes, we don't have the money to put modifications on it."

I mean, I know the CSR is claiming innovation and the torrefacted wood fuel legitimately interests me. But glancing at their test bed plans it's all stuff Ing L.D Porta and David Wardale were doing decades ago elsewhere in the world. It wouldn't provide new data or any other real benefit.

Especially as there's far cheaper 'new build' options (Like the LVM 800 that was never built) that would do far better as a test bed concept.

Can somebody please provide the documentation that clearly explains how the legal action has found that CSR is the rightful owner?

CSR has made this claim in several different publications, but I have never seen any independent verification. My impression was that CSR never owned the locomotive because the seller of the locomotive (Great Overland Station) never owned it.

More from Trains Newswire:
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/20 ... locomotive
(is not indicated as "subscribers only")

Excerpt:

The impression I get is that the CSR group is stuck with the locomotive. They no longer need it as they've found other test beds for their fuel but are obligated to do something with it given the amount of publicity that it has generated. My guess is that they'll stuff and mount it somewhere in Topeka after a token effort to determine its condition.

Rebuilding 3463 as a 'testbed' was never more than an excuse for the "Project 130' publicity -- the revised engine having to be capable of at least a plausible 'shot' at achieving 130mph operation to justify the large costs of the conversion. For a variety of reasons, extensive modifications would be needed, on top of which would be the 'reserve' needed for reconversion of the locomotive to original appearance, at least cosmetically, following the testing.

Even a few years ago, CSR/SRI mentioned that the 'real' testbed part of Project 130 was not the torrefied conversion of the locomotive itself, but the design and construction of the HEP generation for its excursion service -- which, I think, maps to the "100KW" generator they've gotten the grant for. This in my opinion confirms some of the 'face-saving' aspect here. If there is no need for the formal faster-than-Mallard business, there's little point in conducting a long string of potentially very expensive modifications that leave the group with a locomotive far too overspecialized for any use in practical Amtrak (or other conceivable passenger) service.

I think they say very clearly that their intent is to provide a proper work facility, move 3463 onto live rail out of the hole she's in, and work toward an operational restoration. In my opinion they'd be foolish not to reach out to the group of volunteers that had been working on the locomotive before its transfer to the hands of the GOS organization, and I think that reading between the lines this is a Big Thing for steam preservation.

from: http://csrail.org/3463

I'm not seeing the benefit in owning the locomotive if it will remain in Topeka. For all the work that CSR has done to identify AT&SF 3463 as one of the high points in steam locomotive development, why not seek a partner that would preserve and interpret the locomotive in a wider context? It could complement a museum that has an existing collection of Santa Fe steam era passenger equipment, or a collection showing the development of steam and diesel motive power, or a general technology museum. Create the basis for a competition and let the market decide. There aren't many pieces of rolling stock that this model would work for - but CSR has done much to make the case for 3463.

This is just my opinion, but it appears an opportunity to have an operating main line steam locomotive has been lost.

I realise some folks are totally against the changes in the "Historic Fabric" those folks proposed, but preservation of historic fabric has been an ongoing debate in this website forever.

Brian

More in-depth coverage:

http://www.cjonline.com/news/20180123/f ... e-restored

With that degree of deception, how do we know that they will carry out their new promises to restore the locomotive?

Mr. Mitchell - Thanks for the great link. This is very interesting for any other artifact that is in a similar situation in that the artifact was initially gifted to a municipality for the enjoyment of the people of that municipality. My recollection is that several locomotives were gifted by railroads in this manner with the intended beneficiary being the people of the community . From the article:

"The Kansas Attorney General’s office also became involved in the dispute to represent the public interest in preserving the locomotive’s intended purpose as a gift for the Topeka community.

In a statement Tuesday, Attorney General Derek Schmidt hailed the settlement.

“We expect this settlement to keep the locomotive based in Topeka, and I am hopeful it also will allow for the locomotive’s restoration and productive use,” he said."

On page six of the thread "Santa Fe 3463 - Wicked Cool News", back in April 2017, I suggested that the Kansas State AG get involved to protect the intended beneficiaries of the original gift by the railroad. At the time, it seemed to me that this would be a viable strategy moving forward in similar situations where the item is originally gifted to the community.

The original post, as well as Mr. Wilkins' alternate view, can be found here.

http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35310&p=261070&sid=3cce90d142dd95586225aa2cc2f02f63&sid=3cce90d142dd95586225aa2cc2f02f63#p261070

Deception? What part of all the previous posts, or the current statments, are you continuing to misunderstand?

I think CSR/SRI and Davidson Ward in particular did originally think that modifying 3463 would produce an alternative high-speed passenger locomotive, but the 'goal' was always to get it as close to operation at 130mph or above as possible. We can argue about the technical feasibility, or legal wisdom, of actually operating a 3460 class locomotive no matter how cost-effectively modified at that speed, but such was the plan, and I stand by the idea that it was primarily intended as publicity for the torrefied-fuel research efforts and not proof-of-concept for a new generation of Amtrak locomotives.

From the very beginning, CSR/SRI stated they would perform a full 'restoration to original' following the Project 130 operations; the only real argument there was whether it would be cosmetic or keep some of the high-speed modifications, such as those to valves, ports, and passages, "where it did not show". They committed early and fairly publicly to understanding funds for this restoration needed to be reasonably escrowed before any major modification began, perhaps before the engine was to be moved outside the Topeka area. It was sorta cute to see all the arguments about lying and bad faith without either proof or reasonable suspicion while the issue of preservation was undecided, but that crap has now gotten old.

The locomotive stays in Topeka because someone in Kansas came to their senses and interpreted the intent of the original deed of gift. In my opinion it makes great sense to keep it in Topeka if any of the original 'cadre' of people who were restoring it before the GOS disaster can be recruited -- and I hope they will be. As with the likely situation in Elkhart, there is little reason a restored-to-operation 3463 could not be based in Topeka, for reasons that need be no more involved than applied local pride, and then ferried a la 765 to wherever a practical excursion has been arranged.

And, as noted, if it proves impossible to do a running restoration now, cosmetic and then covered storage will do just fine, until a concerted effort for the operational restoration is arranged. I noted in another forum that the restoration of ATSF 2926 in New Mexico is a shining example of what can be done by a good organization; I suspect that much of what the New Mexico group has done has applications to a sister "Big Three" engine.