For Immediate Release: The American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals announced today that no horses will be allowed into the Interchange area of the Railway Preservation News. Citing case numbers 844 and 3463, the society reported the discovery of carcasses of horses that had been severly beaten after having expired. A spokesperson commented "I just don't understand why people keep beating a dead horse." When asked when horses might once again be let in, that spokesperson said "When pigs fly."

In a related development, a major university announced a 5 million dollar project to test the aerodynamics of pigs by fitting them with wings and rocket engines. When asked how the university came up with the concept, the president said "We've been getting a lot of grants lately and needed to burn up some of the money, so we came up with this idea while having BLT's for lunch the other day."

Thank you Charlie,

You made my day. I understand next is the report on studies to see how effective the studies we have been conducting are.

Robby Peartree

Several points…

As Randy has pointed out, at least in California, for some planning work, being found (formally) eligible for the National Register triggers the same review process and exemptions as being on the register.

For example, the Niles Canyon Railway has a line with two significant bridges, one from 1906, the second from 1896, that cross a creek and a state highway. During the planning and environmental review for a highway widening project we (Pacific Locomotive Association, and myself) worked with Caltrans (California State Highways Department) environmental group, and submitted the findings to the State Historic Preservation Officer, (SHPO) who issued a finding that the line was eligible for listing on the register… It was not listed (at that time) because the county, owner of the bridges did not want them listed, but the letter of finding was useful in defending the bridges. The bridges have since been listed.

Second example, We have a 1853 building on our site. It was moved onto the site 30 years ago, and has since sat on a steel pallet, occasionally covered with a blue tarp. In discussions with the City, we asked for a finding that the building was historic… It is not on the register, it has not been formally declared eligible (by the SHPO) but the City determined it was historic, and therefore was eligible for the Historic Building Code. Without the flexibility of the Historic Building Code the building would not be restored… (it’s not sure if it will with the historic building code).

If on the register, or formally eligible, the only protections in most places are laws that say that no state or Federal funds can be used in a way that harms the structure. At one time it would have likely prevented moving the building, but the law was amended circa 2000 as part of the one of the Federal Transportation Acts (TEA-21?)… Additionally, increasingly, environmental impact reports (or formal statements of “no impact” are required for development or government actions. In the cases of the site with the 1853 building, we required a CEQA (environmental impact report, with public notice and comment) before tearing down a second 1880’s cottage, also moved to the site 30 years ago, left on blocks, and allowed to collapse…

In cases above, the objects were not “eligible for National Register” because they were the public said so, or because they were old, they were because a public official, in his official capacity, in one case the SHPO, in another the planning director of the city.
There are railroad equipment, planes, and ships on the register. Obviously these can be moved, so that is not an issue, but one could find fault if State or Federal funds were used (in the case of the Santa Fe engine there may be Federal grants, or (public) University funds.) It is possible that the city should have done an environmental report before disposing of the locomotive.

I do know of one case where a government museum accepted a “distressed car body” agreeing in the deed of gift that it would be restored by (fill in a date here) them didn’t meet the deadline, Nasty lawyer letters were exchanged… threats were made, and the museum (more the museum’s parent government agency) committed to and completed the restoration. The results are spectacular, but done under duress. Good museum practice says you should not accept conditional donations.

In the case of AT&SF 3463, so far, while we have heard rumors (“Joe who worked on the loco as a volunteer said...” and “it is owned by the Children and Stray dogs of ….”) without any documentation. Alternately we have broad statements of indignation “There should be a law”

In closing;
1) Not all old things are on the National Register (most are not)

2) Being on the National Register (or eligible for it) does not assure preservation.

3) The laws concerning preservation mostly concern governments and are technical in their protections and processes.

4) Wishing that this locomotive was preserved, or restored and $2.99 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Wishing that the loco was preserved and $100.000 will buy a nice coat of paint... Wishing and $1,000,000 might restore the loco and find it a nice home... add $50,000 for track space in a building at a museum and it may be preserved.

5) We are blaming Eco Coal and the demonstration project, when we should be blaming the folks (and community) that put it in a park and ignored it for 50+ years… If this was once a railroad preservation project then we failed, but I would suggest this was not railroad preservation, but instead is a park monument, and as such, lack of maintenance, and insufficient commitment have seen that as a park monument, it no longer has value beyond $150 a ton, delivered to Chicago…

Randy Hees

Lets go back to the basics.
To quote their own website. " The CSR team draws on extensive expertise in modern thermal-dynamically efficient and low maintenance steam locomotives. When combining the greater thermal efficiency and reduced maintenance costs associated with modern steam locomotives"
Well this was written by someone who knows more about creative writing then the subject of thermal dynamics and steam locomotive maintenance
I have to set aside my knowledge of thermal dynamics and mechanical knowledge to believe the quotation. The only way to improve the thermal efficiency is to raise the operating temperature and pressure beyond the limits of reciprocating piston and piston valve lubrication. I do not understand how they expect to make a mechanical system with rotational and reciprocating parts reduced in maintenance when they expect to operate at 130 MPH.
Their statements read well to the uninformed, but I will still categorize this with cold fusion and other improbable ideas
If CSR is serious they should start with a more rational plan and test bed. I have no problem with a restoration of the engine, cosmetic or operational, but the CSR plan is farfetched to the point of being absurd.

Your first statement is demonstrably incorrect. Case in point- former SAR 4-8-4 #3450, a locomotive of similar technical sophistication to the ATSF 3463. It was modified by David Wardale in the early 1980's by fitting the Gas Producer Combustion System (GPCS), increased superheat, a streamlined steam circuit, improved valves, twin Lempor exhausts, a feedwater heater, and other detail improvements. It was extensively tested using a dynamometer car after completion of the modifications. Testing showed the maximum drawbar horsepower increase of 43% and fuel saving of 28% compared to unmodified locomotives. The boiler pressure of the locomotive was not increased to achieve this performance. The superheat temperature was increased. Significantly increased superheat (compared to what was typically used on U.S. locomotives) is possible with piston valves and cylinders through careful design of the lubrication system and applying saturated steam cooling of the valve liners. Read Wardale's book "The Red Devil and Other Tales from the Age of Steam" for complete technical details and documentation.

The director of engineering (Shaun McMahon) for this project comes from the same background as David Wardale; both were students of Ing. L. D. Porta of Argentina. A lot of steam development work has been done since Wardale modified #3450 in the 1980's.

There is nothing inherent about mechanical systems with reciprocating parts that makes them "high maintenance". Internal combustion engines have far higher rotational speeds and go hundreds of thousands of miles with minimal maintenance. Steam locomotive mechanical parts could achieve similar reliability through the careful detailed design of the parts, the application of roller bearings, application of self-lubricating materials, and similar practices.

I'm sure the group doesn't intend to routinely operate this locomotive at 130 MPH. Obviously at its maximum speed wear (and therefore maintenance) is going to be greater than at more reasonable operating speeds of 80-100 MPH.

It's not "cold fusion". It's just applying 50 years of proven engineering practices to a 1937 design.

Please Mr Moderator bring this thread to an end. I have read all the miss information and paranoya. and most of it is unrelated to anything which would benifit keeping steam as a living beast.

Here Here! If there was a like button I would have just hit it.

This thread reaks of rotting horse......

Publicly complaining here on a preservation forum accomplishes nothing other than raising peoples' blood pressure, guys.

If you have a problem with this project, communicate your concerns- clearly and politely- to those in charge of the project, whether via their website contact info, via Facebook, or good old fashioned letter or telephone!

You will have far more impact by doing that.

And, when you have a reply from them, whether or not you like the answer, feel free to share!

I own horses, and I have a real problem with those who beat them, whether dead or alive, LOL.

Steve Hunter

I have had a bunch of private conversations...

From one entitled simply "Enough"



From second:

A third expressed concern for another member, who he felt was making a fool of himself in public.

Tom Gears tried to lock the thread earlier. I have considered it several times. When two of us have concerns, it is time to end the thread.

I am leaving the existing thread on Thermal Efficiency of bio coal, I would welcome a new thread about how preservation is regulated via the National Register and required environmental reports, so this is not the end of the conversation, but needs to be the end of the "This shouldn't be allowed" and "this is impossible" comments.

Randy Hees, Moderator RYPN