We have been belated witnesses to the fiasco that was the LASTA group. This was a group with zero, nada experience operating a steam locomotive, either on the mainline, shortline, or backporch.

It was, and is the only group I have ever heard of where the organization was able to get federal money (ISTEA) to fix up their park queen, and then turn around and pay someone else to fix it. Many, me included, thought this was a bad idea with no real, viable reason to take place: I like opertating steam as much as the next guy, and more if the lifetime investment I have put in them is a reflection, but as I have gotten older, I know that you really need a compelling reason to fix one up and run it.

When it was announced that the KCS was going to let them run, I was flabbergasted. Here was a mainline that was letting a group out on their railroad with an untested locomotive and both the engine and the group had no track record nor credentials. The KCS, a railroad that has not been known for its interest in steam engines or passenger excursions, seemed to be the most unlikely candidate of all.

How did THAT happen? It appears that political pressure was applied somewere; I don't know how...the 819 bunch is a lot more professional and sure has a track record, but I betcha the KCS wouldn't let them out on the road. I have been running and repairing shortline steam and diesel for over twenty years, both passenger and freight and am a fully rules carded engineer. I also hold boiler firemans certificate but I don't know that I would be the best old boy to turn loose on a mainline.

Even with my long experience and training, I would never approach a big carrier and present myself to take old number so and so out on the road despite the fact I could likely do it and do it safely because I do know what can happen when you get out of your level of experience.

And here's where fault lies...KCS misplaced trust in LASTA to know what they were doing. When all is said and done, it is up to the railroad to insure that equipment and crews on its property are safe.

Has there ever been another group with a similar situation where they got their equipment fixed and were allowed to go out with so little oversight?

Do we need a national engineer program codified into law? I don't think so...what you need to know to run a 2-8-4 at 75mph with 18 heavyweights isn't the same thing as running a tank engine 10mph down a scenic branch. Really what they have in common is the water,smoke and whistle. One size cannot fit all.

What do we need, that would help? An industry sponsored fireman's and engineers qualification program, to insure that a minimum of training and experience takes place to insure at the very least they have enought sense to keep water in the glass.

If someone needs to get out on the mainline, it should be up to the individual railroads to determine who is qualified.

And maybe, just maybe, someone with a little common sense would look at the group and decide on their merits if they can run or not.

I look at this just like I view Medina: unqualified people with big egos got in way over their head and let the water get low. The difference is the Medina engine had never been inspected and had a faulty soft plug.

And, just like Medina, people that had no business around a steam engine are likely to set the agenda for the rest of us who do play by the rules.

Agree in all points Jim.

There was a mention of "flexibility" in other threads in any training and standards for qualification. I think this flexibility can be best provided by setting a standard for minimal requirements to be objectively taught and proven for any operation - the little teakettle making trips around a circle at a small museum one weekend a month, for example. Less stringent than running down the mainline with a 4-8-4, but if it blows up it will kill you just as dead, along with the future of steam operation.

If you want to move on to working a mainline 4-8-4, it is up to thye owners of the 4-8-4 and the railroad it runs on to assure you have the necessary skills to handle that job. I wouldn't want to do it at my stage of experience and skill either, without a real expert looking over my shoulder.

If realistic minimal standards are defined, and a program that will meet them for training and experience provision, and a good objective testing program to objectively asure they are met, we can all be safe at even the least intensive operating situation.

dave

Jim, I agree with your points, but I'm not sure the incident means the entire crew was ignorant. However, having a diesel engineer with the throttle open and a green fireman in the cab of a steam locomotive without supervision does suggest a serious neglection of duties.

Not trying to stick up for the LASTA crew in the cab...obviously there was insufficient experience on-board...but the comment of "having a diesel engineer with the throttle open" infers something thet doesn't appear to have been the case, at least from whet I have read here. If 745 was being towed, the throttle would have been cracked just a bit to keep lubrication going to the valve cylinders and pistons...drifting, I believe it is called. (Please correct me if I'm wrong...no doubt someone will correct me! :>)) Nothing wrong with that, but the "green" firemen, on the other hand, appears to have been the one "asleep at the wheel".

Really, do we even know who these people were, to have any basis for making some of the comments posted in the various LASTA threads?

Will we ever see an "official" report on this?

Keep in mind that KCS is not the only railroad that has allowed 745 to run. The Louisiana Bicentennial Tour brought 745 onto BNSF and Canadian National rails. They tied up the CN-IC main in Mississippi for several hours one night because of a bearing problem.

I was on the road last week when the info on this incident was posted. One point that I didn't see mentioned is something I have said for a long time. I think an important factor is missing in many of the steam locomotive qualification programs. I feel it is essential that someone qualifies as a fireman before they begin training as an engineer. The engineer supervises the fireman; he needs to know what the fireman is up against. I have said many times that keeping water in the boiler is the fireman's job but the engineer's responsibility. Running these beasts requires better teamwork than many marriages. Both the fireman and egineer need to know and understand the locomotive, their water condition, and where they are. I don't think the man at the throttle is qualified to use the steam unless he has the experience of what it takes to make it!

They were working steam up Rich Mountain when everything went crazy.

Good posts on this topic. A few responses:

1. The Soo Line 2719 (L&TPF) group was another that raised money and then (mostly) paid others to restore their engine. I think the results generally were good in this case - so this can be a viable model.

2. Keep in mind that the 745 operations over CN/IC and KCS were almost entirely deadhead moves, not public excursions. The RRs today treat deadhead moves very differently from public excursions - if LASTA proposed running a 700-passenger excursion train over either CN/IC or KCS I think their answer would have been a definite "no", regardless of political pressure applied.

Chris .

Mr. Wallace,

Please get your facts straight before making such an irresponsible posting. NONE of the Class I mainlines were ever tied up during the LASTA Bicentennial Trip in 2005. The engine did stop in Terry, MS for 4 hours to make repairs, but it was on the siding next to the depot.

That 1000 mile trip was conducted under the supervision of experienced professionals and there were no operational incidents of any kind, excepting an air pump that had internal lubrication problems and one side rod pin that lost lubrication. All members of the LASTA crew who were involved had to attend a KCS safety training course and pass the prerequisite examiniation. In addition, the FRA Certified Engineer and Fireman had to pass supplemental GCOR certification. Also, daily team meetings were held to review safety and operational issues that came to light.

I only have direct knowledge of that trip and wasn't involved in any way with the Kansas City Trip. I'm in full agreement with you folks that a low water incident is an inexcusable occurance. However, I feel that it's in everyone's best interest to wait until the official FRA report comes out before drawing any conclusions. I'm sure that the report will contain a tremendous amount of beneficial information which will allow targeting of the specific problems which led to this incident and further educate us in the safe operations of steam and the avoidance of these kind of occurances in the future.

Until such time as the report comes out and a course of constructive analysis and reaction can be implemented, making LASTA a whipping boy will just add to the kind of ignorant knee-jerk reactions that can only further serve to hurt the steam industry.

Bill Johnson, Lexington, KY

It's quite possible that ALL of these railroads were under political pressure.

As for the Terry, MS incident, admittedly, I was in Crystal Springs, about fifteen minutes to the south, but from the scanner chatter, it sounded as though it was tying up the main. I stand corrected.

"Do we need a national engineer program codified into law? I don't think so".

"What do we need, that would help? An industry sponsored fireman's and engineers qualification program, to insure that a minimum of training and experience takes place to insure at the very least they have enought sense to keep water in the glass".

Does the CFR49 part 240 not cover a national engineer program for railroads in FRA jurisdiction? Are you speaking of this or a program for railroads not in FRA jurisdiction?

And if a 240 submission for engineer qualification programs works then why not the same submission for Fireman qualifications.

I would hope that if this were to come about that the submissions would be handled by the railroad or shortline initiating the program rather than some self or otherwise appointed person(s) who would oversee all.

When I have written Part 240 exams for steam,I always tried to put more mechanical questions than anyother types of questions. Reason being that a serious locomotive problem would be what needed to be dealt with right then,and the rules are dealt with as well. My exams were in the 150-200 question range to deal with everything.
If the FRA blesses your Part 240, in practice they believe if you have a program they have blessed,then you should be qualified to be on that locomotive and should be able to handle whatever is thrown at you.
Because of the nature of steam, OP@E FRA inspectors know little about steam,therefore do not know which questions should be on the exams. The steam inspectors,however,do know what needs to be covered but they are not required to inspect or approve the exams.Perhaps we as a group should suggest that for operators who run steam to submit their exams to the steam guys at the FRA so they can also sign off on them. This might settle a growing sentiment that more regulation is needed or a national testing system be established. If we expand on the tools we have already codified,this might be the best solution all the way round.

I'm going to be a hotheaded cynic here.

If we are to take the blanket view that we can't allow an "untested" loco or an "unprofessional" crew out on a major Class 1 railroad, then for all practical purposes we've just shut down ALL mainline steam save for a separate "main line" like Steamtown or the Grand Canyon RR.

I could, if I were trying to sabotage steam, make a coherent argument that would stick against EVERY LAST steam crew and locomotive, with the possible exception of Union Pacific, MILW 261 and maybe SP 4449.

C&O 614? NKP 765? ATSF 3751? PM 1225? Cotton Belt 819? N&W 611? A&WP 290? All been sitting around too long, and where are you gonna get a fresh, experienced crew?

Those Chinese 2-10-2's? Untested, no track record in North America, too many uncertified appliances......

Grand Canyon? Strasburg? TVRM? What do they know about running on the main line? Totally different from their little playthings.

Reading 2100? Don't get me started...............

And I won't even bring up such things as PRR 1361, Reading 2102, etc.

Please remember that I'm playing "devil's advocate" above. I'm a firm believer in break-in periods, of a crew proving itself, etc. I have no knowledge of the LASTA incident/problems (as far as I'm concerned, until I see an official report, everything here is just rumor-mongering). But I do know, for example, that it would be completely foolhardy to ask Conrail/NS to run PRR 1361 up and around the traffic-heavy Horse Shoe Curve until both the locos and crews are properly "broken in"--and that is what the 1361 trips on the Nittany & Bald Eagle in 1986-1987 were attempting to do, and they apparently didn't work very well. We saw similar break-in opportunities with TVRM, Stone Mountain/New Georgia, etc.

Working experience has to be earned. And with today's relative lack of old heads to teach the old ways combined with the reduction in main track mileage, it will have to be earned the hard way, on cooperative short lines or low-traffic Class One mains. But let's not make it even harder for steam to survive than it already is, lest the next thing it does is turn around and shuts down E8's, F40PH's, etc.

One thing that has been missing from this very long discussion has been human nature. Let's look at history.

As long as railroads operated steam locomotives there were boiler explosions and similar mishaps every year. Many were caused by operator error. Probably the first was when the fireman of The Best Friend of Charleston tied down the safety valve because it made a noise that bothered him.

Most of these errors were made by professionals with many years of experience. Certainly they knew what would happen if boiler water was allowed to go too low. (Perhaps some of these errors were caused by the crew literally being asleep as a result of the horrendous railroad work schedules of that time.)

You can train and test firemen util.....(supply your own metaphor), but you cannot prevent a person from mentally nodding off or getting distracted. It's human nature.

Boiler mishaps are going to continue to happen as long as human beings are involved. Human beings will make mistakes.

Perhaps the best approach would be to install multiple fail-safe devices that will automatically take corrective action if a dangerous condition arises. It may not be histroically authentic. Then you hope they will prevent an incident when oprator error is involved.

Folks,
Can I respectfully request a self-imposed moratorium on this issue for awhile ?

As some else pointed out, until either (a) An official statement from LASTA
is released and available, and/or (b) The official FRA report is made available, there is quite a bit of supposition and condemnation being thrown about with little basis for fact. As has been noted by many of the posters, few were even in the area at the time.

We're treading close to the types of posts that end up causing a thread and/or topic to be locked. A cool down period, and again I ask that it be self-imposed, might be just the ticket.

At the end of the day, let's remember that this incident all but certainly wasn't on purpose (which would not excuse neglect or incompetence should either be the root cause) but was also the end result of quite a few people's very hard work and best intentions. We've all been in similar situations where something has gone wrong (and the degree of wrong/bad isn't the point here). Let's not condemn anyone until all the facts are in, and even then, as a community, we should see what we can do to help prevent such occurances in the future, be it at the hands of LASTA or anyone else.


Thank you for your consideration of my request