n/m

Indeed it does.

It's obvious the jacketing wasn't removed due to the amount of deterioration AND the fact there is still asbestos lagging still present under said jacketing. Furthermore, based on what we've seen with the pictures with the amount of dirt, soot and rust present on the rear fluesheet, one cannot help but assume zero boiler was completed. I also saw no evidence of a hydro or an attempt at least. I will say IMHO that the videos/pictures on their FB account do not lend themselves to an organization that has their head on straight much less a clue about steam. There is even a photo if you dig deep enough on their account that has them pulling the air side cylinder head and piston out of the XC compressor. Needless to say, the piston looked as if it had been sitting for 40 years with the amount of scale, corrosion and deterioration present. That makes it very difficult to believe that the rest of the locomotive wasn't in a similar condition elsewhere.

I'm willing to bet that all the movements of the locomotive by itself that were captured on video had been done on air and not steam, mainly due to all the air compressors and air lines nearby and running.

Above all, the most concerning part of this situation is simply the timeframe of events ("firings")and the obvious secrecy up until now. The two pictures that were suspiciously taken down, but plastered here on this thread are the only ones that look like the locomotive was in fact under steam. You take down the only pictures that show evidence of a fire-up but you leave the rest on FB (minus those two) for the world to see? Something's fishy... This situation is looking more and more like the CFR title 49 part 230 Form 4 requirements were bypassed. I've yet to see anything that makes me think otherwise. Polishing a few fittings with a wire wheel does not equal a Form 4. Sitting here thumbing through the amount of penalties and fines associated with a move like that is adding up to a multi-thousand dollar figure...I sure hope I'm wrong!

I say she is under steam. I see vapor at the stack, at the pops, and at the leading compressor.

Bunch of old heads just said "f-it, its our engine and our railroad?".

Two quick points...

First, if this is what it seems to be, she's not the first steam locomotive to be steamed after decades of inactivity without a full overhaul. Not saying it's a good idea, but... Can't wait to see how this shakes out. Hoax or not?

Second, since some asked that the pics be taken down from Flickr (and they were), it might be wise to do the same on RYPN unless the poster is also the photographer. Just sayin'. There are legal issues galore with this topic.

Rob

Will someone spare us this mockery of conversation?

I suppose the engine is as hot as the wind some of you blow every-freakin-time something "odd" remotely shows up. 95% of you haven't a clue about what you are talking about, 4% think because they have read it...or know someone that knows someone at a museum or railroad...that they are steam experts...and the 1% that are people with real knowledge...

...well they sit back shake their heads...and wonder why they have to pretend to like any of us to pursue the hobby.

So you don't know the story, either?

My thought exactly. Does someone who knows someone get word from someone there about just what is going on here? :)

Not to condone firing up an engine without the proper paperwork (or to jump to the conclusion that that's necessarily what has happened here), but this engine does have a few things going for her as far as being an "easy" restoration candidate. She has been an indoor display for most if not all of her years at the Lake Superior Railroad Museum, and as I understand it, she went in there in working order. She was stored inside the Duluth & Northeastern (now Cloquet Terminal) engine house before that, the same engine house where she is being restored now. It seems likely that they would still have all of her old shop records, and I wouldn't be surprised if at least one or two of the old heads who maintained her back in the day are still around, so they probably have a pretty good idea what they're dealing with. I hope that we will someday see her back in regular operation (and fully certified, of course!)

As I recall, East Branch & Lincoln no. 5 had a similarly fast turnaround from a similar period of static display to her first steamup at Clark's Trading Post, and she had been an outdoor display. Of course, no. 5 is also a much smaller engine than no. 28, but the key difference is, Clark's is insular so they only have to please the state boiler inspector, not the FRA.

Static aside, there's an interesting question involved here - perhaps somebody very conversant with the regs or with the book in front of them can answer:

Does the 1472 need to be complete before testing the locomotive, or before it goes into service?

Never had to ask that one before......process was structured to get the boiler certified before assembling the running gear and appliances on everything I've done for regulated entities. I'm wondering if there's another valid structure for getting the job done.

dave

Dave,

In theory no, one can do "testing" to an extent with a locomotive prior to it being filed in service and then being placed in service. However, the boiler on any engine has to go through certain steps in order to even be steamed such as an internal inspection and an FRA witnessed hydro.

CFR 49 Part 230.17
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... 17&idno=49

And is applicable regarding all annual work

CFR 49 Part 230.16 (subpart B)
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... 16&idno=49



Cheers, Jason

Is there an old coach body on the ground in the shop area?

Thanks Jason....but reading over the citations to which you kindly linked, it seems clear that testing is not prohibited.....presumably including steaming....... before the inspection or witnessed hydro, provided such is done before said locomotive is "brought out of retirement" or put into service.

An argument might be made that testing is evidence of bringing out of retirement, but an equally valid one can be made that testing is a good idea before deciding whether or not to bring a locomotive out of retirement, so you know more about its condition before making the decision.

Any lawyers familiar with it out there?

dave

Yes. I'm not sure of the history of the car, but it's an old wood combine. Here's an older view of it, looks like the 1970s judging by the vehicles in the background.

http://vernwigfield.rrpicturearchives.n ... ?id=303413

They also have an old Duluth & Iron Range boxcar body that they use as a storage shed.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 42&nseq=26

Well, here's my speculation, based on a combination of the comments here from people more knowledgeable than I am:

We have a railroad that is apparently enthusiastic about itself and its history, as noted by the photo of a box car-now storage shed--in a classy paint job recalling its earlier years. This also shows in photos of what looks like a clean, well-maintained engine house, and clean, well-maintained diesels.

It has, for the time being, a steam locomotive that once ran on it, ran into relatively late times for steam (1964), was retired in operational condition and kept indoors ever since. As suggested, it is possible that the shop records are still around, and it is possible some old-timers were available to tap for knowledge.

Despite no flue change-out at this time, the engine looks and sounds in good condition, which brings up the question of how long it had been between its last hydro test and its retirement.

If the time between the last classified repairs and hydro test and the following retirement had been relatively short, and with the machine being stored indoors all that time, with repair records and possibly human experience available, it is possible the management and shop crew decided they could risk a day or so of operation. It may well have been a good call based on the condition of the locomotive, if not necessarily a wise one in view of current regulations. Boiler and machinery regulations are a bit more strict today than they were when 759 and 765 were first restored to operation. I understand much of 765's early mileage was on the last classified repairs the engine received in the 1950s; that it has been rebuilt at least twice since then is a credit to the people at Fort Wayne.

Now, what will the FRA say about this? Afraid we'll have to wait and see on that one. . .

Was the engine built with two water gauges? Because it has two now.