> the locomotive must be returned to its owner at
> or better than the state it appeared in 2001.

Does that include pigeon droppings? (Sorry...)

Ok, more serious question. Have they removed the boiler tubes on 261 in preparation for installation of new ones? I can't recall if they'd started that work or not?

If the have, and the engine is to be returned to the museum, will they have to install boiler tubes? The old ones were most likely damaged to the point they can't be re-installed during removal. Installing new ones would be expensive and useless if the engine is not going to operate.

I can see advantages to either scenario. If the engine is going to be restored at some point, then having the old tubes removed would be beneficial. If it's only going to be on static display, then they might want the boiler tubes in place so the engine is "complete". Then again, they're not visible in a typical display setting, so does it really matter?

Anyone know what the plans are, if there are any?

The flues are definitely out of the 261, if memory serves me correctly. I've no idea if there is any plan in that regard, and there probably won't be one until after the results of the Museum's BoD meeting today, if I were to guess.

I am interested in the "same or better condition" deal though. Let's evaluate.

1. When the locomotive was obtained from the museum, it had flues which were of course useless to any purpose and were removed and replaced at considerable expense. There are no flues in the locomotive now, so presumably to satisfy the "same" part of the test in the lease, an unusable set of flues could be inserted and tacked into place.

2. When the locomotive was obtained from the museum there was a prodigious amount of strange, foam sealant sprayed about the interior of the firebox, into the non-functional flues and elsewere. This stuff was removed, so that surely would constitute "better" condition than that in which the locomotive was received.

3. All the external piping was removed, and new pipes bent and installed. Presumably these would come back with the locomotive. "Better"

4. The dynamo on which the locomotive operated all these years isn't the one which was on it when removed from the museum. I don't remember where the operating one came from, but I think they kept the dead one that came with the locomotive and would probably put it back on before returning it to meet the "same" test.

5. The tender had temporary brass bearings in it. The roller bearings had been removed before the locomotive was donated. The 261 folk purchased all the bearings for the axles from a "Big Blow" tender in KC, I think. Do you suppose that they should put the temporary bearings back to meet the "same" criteria?

6. Numerous other parts were missing or defective. Some were borrowed from the IRM (think 265), and other parts (a missing mechanical lubricator and maybe a boiler check valve) came from elsewere. To meet the "same" criteria, I suppose the locomotive should be returned with everything that was missing, once again missing?

7. The staybolts currently in the locomotive are in much better shape than they were when the locomotive was received from the museum, I think. So that would meet the "better" test.

8. I'm sure there's hundreds of other little items that could be discussed,

9. Sure, put the jacketing back on. It looked really nice.

In my opinion, it's not really a matter of doing it so the engine is in the "same condition" as it was. If something was broken and has been repaired, I wouldn't expect them to break it again.

However, products that were loaned from other engines should be returned to the donor engine.

I also think it would be totally reasonable to remove any items they have to make or purchase that could be used elsewhere. So, as you suggest, put the jacketing back on and donate it to the museum, that's reasonable. But I don't feel there's any reason to expect they would include items like a check valve or dynamo that's in operating condition, and wasn't on the engine when it was recieved.

Me thinks Bob's post establishes the right parameters and if the final decision is to return the 261 to the NRM hopefully something along those lines will be worked out.

I'm confident that the 261 will be in much better overall condition if Steve decides to return her than when he took her out of the museum some time ago!!

IMHO- Ross Rowland

I just realized that the one possible answer to what could replace 261 may well be contained in another thread on this very board. The one about the "Age of Steam Roundhouse".

Imagine what would happen if Jerry Jacobson and the 261 crew combined forces!

I notice on his site that it says

What if he hired the 261 crew to operate and maintain his Berk or one of his other engines, on similiar trips to those done by 261? Wow...

Okay, next round: The NKP 763 is a "Midwestern" loco, but on the other hand there are several "underemployed" such locos now operable.....

Do NKP Berks have roller bearings in all the right places?

or GTW 6325..........

Already answered in the negative.............

If you have to start from square one, I'd love to see a Burlington O-5 4-8-4. Big, fast and loud.
Basis for the Frisco 4500s, but the 4500s are solid bearings. Too bad as there are still 4 of them around. O-5 is certainly a midwestern engine. All it takes is acquiring one of them and a boxcar load of money. Couldn't be any more work than the Milw 265 at Union.
IMHO, which along with some money will get you a cup of coffee.

One of the nice things about running the 1522 was it was a Mountain. I think running 4-8-4's all the time is perhaps, practical, but a variety of wheel arrangements makes for the opportunity to see one of the things that made steam so great. We do not have a heavy 4-6-4 operating in the country at this time, although the CPR has one north of the border. A Hudson would be a nice variant. There are a number of CB&Q Hudsons out there.

Yes, Richard!

I can think of a nice-looking Mountain in particular (I believe roller-equipped), tucked under a shed in Wishram, WA. P-2 class Mountain for the Great Northern. If Steve is interested, the crews loved this class.

The S-4 Hudsons for the "Q" also need a representative under steam. Not sure about bearings in this class. Several of this class in the wings as well.

Scott

By chance has anyone heard if the NRM BOD did consider this issue at its 11/11 mtg. and if so what was decided??

Would be interesting to know what decision they reached.

Ross Rowland

As of midday yesterday, the Sandbergs hadn't heard anything. Spoke with Judy briefly. Steve is a bit out of commission as he just had his tonsils out.

Doug

I have a bad feeling about this. Somehow this negotiation is reminding me of what happened between the Georgetown Loop and the CHS when egos and ignorance took charge. And given the nature of egos and ignorance, it is all too likely that the result will be similar absent some kind of miracle.

The comment about the Friends of the 261 "making money" intrigues me. I wonder how transparent their finances are. Did they really make a "profit" or is somebody confusing profit with positive cash flow (that might include "investment", contributions and volunteer labor). I find it hard to believe that anything involving maintenance and operation of a large steam engine could be "profitable" in any meaningful sense of that word. Their website is not very informative.

Here's hoping for the best.

John West

It is interesting to watch all of the would be experts offer their guesses as to why and who is to blame, if any. Let all stop and take into account what, at this point has been passed over. First of all, Sandbergs ownership/operation of this locomotive has not been in question they lease it, just w/any type of equipement leased there are restrictions, that both sides agreed to in advance. Now it is true that this locomotive was a static display at Greenbay, now let look at what has happened . Sandbergs has run a sucessful business, with the 261, period. You have to spend money in order to make it, this equals maintenance. Money has been made. As much as we like to play w/trains real or otherwise it is a business not only to the Sandbergs but to the Greenbay Musuem, yes it may come as a shock to the folks in the "know" who become reactionaries as soon as the "toys" are not available for use. I have been amazed to read at the off handed veiled threats. Yes it is true that there are other locomotives that can be used,so use them! Ownership of this engine can be bought, however if were not for Greenbay Museum no one would have the 261 to fawn or fight over. So when the masses start attacking who is the bad guy(s) are, you should stop and take a step back and let cooler heads prevail. Lets face it, people who realy become upset about things they have no control over will get upset at just about everything they can not control. Now, I own several pieces of real equipement, I own several cabooses currentely and have owned other car like passenger cars, boxcar etc. I collect I do not lease,I hear a whole load of suggestions/disdain from the peanut gallery as why don't you run your equipement? ,why dont you restore it back to the way it was built? You get my drift now. If the complainers actually owned some "real" equipement, they would get a real quick education on what it takes to own,insure ,maintain, move etc. This mindset would pass quickly, it is business both for Sandbergs and the Greenbay Museum. Both sides have lawyers, I have not seen or heard from them . Folks it is only business,private business. Ease up if your able.you will live longer and be a whole lot happier! Thanks for putting up w/my side of it. No animals were hurt with this rant. Thanks Terry Grace.