I seem to be missing something here, and need someone with distinctive competence to explain it. Not a lawyer and not pretending to be.

I am presuming (not knowing specifically) that this railroad is not "insular" according to 230:4(d) and hence is subject to FRA authority.

While section 230 does not define "retirement" (which it probably should, especially in light of the present circumstances) or, for that matter, "used", it does define a 'service day' (and, presumably, a definition of 'service' applying for the other definitions, and a determination that the locomotive is no longer 'retired'). That definition is when the locomotive contains steam at atmospheric pressure or above. (Note: this would explicitly cover even 1-2psi gauge steam "for effect" if the pressure surfaces of the boiler are exposed to that steam...)

I am presuming that the provisions of 230:12 for 'lite' (aaugh!) non-complying moves, particularly including the tag referenced in 230:12(b), were being followed (as this is the only even remotely 'legal' way the engine could be operated under steam). Whose signature was on that tag? Note also the footnote in the civil-penalty schedule of section 230 regarding 'failure to observe any condition for movement set forth in 230:12'.

230:23 says that you cannot 'place [a] steam locomotive in service (and remember, 'service' is any pressure above atmospheric) before ensuring that the steam locomotive's safe working pressure has been established.' How you determine this "safely" without a hydro test is a bit mysterious to me, if from nothing more than a common-sense standpoint... whether or not a hydro test is 'indicated' by provisions of section 230 or not. There is an interesting catch in the hydro-test requirements in the present code: 230:36(b) requires hydro test to 25% above MAWP, but 230"36(c) requires 'internal inspection of the boiler' after any hydro test that exceeds MAWP. This in turn would indicate -- to anyone even remotely familiar with locomotive boilers -- that the 'internal inspection' involved not require any tube removal, and that opens up something of a can of worms as to what this inspection is intended to include. (Amazing that a Federal code would leave this undefined, but then again, aren't these the people who thought that the superheater on a Lima Berkshire could be a separately-fired pressure vessel?)

I do understand that a hydro test with the lagging still applied is not a FRA-legal test, but I will not pick at that nit under the presumption that a hydro test indicating no meaningful leakage might reasonably indicate nothing wrong under the jacket. (Common sense, to me, would dictate checking the outside of the boiler before firing the thing at all... but I'm not going to claim that my common sense is a 'standard' for anyone else's with respect to operating preserved steam)

Somehow I think that the 'non-complying move' provisions were intended to cover situations where a failure occurs on the road that makes the engine technically non-compliant with one or more FRA standards (but not so unsafe as to mandate it be shut down), and instead of declaring the engine 'dead' then and there and requiring a tow-in, the crew is allowed to run the engine light to the terminal, and hostle it as needed, to facilitate repairs that bring it 'up to code'. Of course, if this were strictly so, it is a bit odd that the 'non-complying' provisions are given so early in the CFR.

My hope for these folks is that they not become subject to 'strict scrutiny' after this.


RME

As an ambivalent point of clarification, determining MAWP is not connected to conducting a hydro. The boiler is dimensioned out, thickness measurements taken and the engineering done on said previously gathered data. This data then tells you (via utilization of appropriate formulas) both the minimum thickness and MAWP for each component area of the boiler.

Cheers, Jason

Jeff,

That has been my thought too. And something I am sure plenty of us have thought about while seeing any static steam locomotive.

Chris (not commenting on the legality of any of this)

Bob, also not a lawyer, but if it never was placed in service how could it accrue service days regardless of the presence of pressure or combustion?

I don't see any need to push for more regulation.......I think a bit of latitude that enables knowledgeable people to undertake testing that provides them with valuable information is a good thing.

dave

While 765 and the 759 ran on their last mechanical shopping by the NKP, both of their boilers were stripped, inspected and re-tubed before they were steamed.

The rule reads as follows:

§ 230.17 One thousand four hundred seventy-two (1472) service day inspection.

(a) General. Before any steam locomotive is initially put in service or brought out of retirement, and after every 1472 service days or 15 years, whichever is earlier, an individual competent to conduct the inspection shall inspect the entire boiler. In the case of a new locomotive or a locomotive being brought out of retirement, the initial 15 year period shall begin on the day that the locomotive is placed in service or 365 calendar days after the first flue tube is installed in the locomotive, whichever comes first. This 1472 service day inspection shall include all annual, and 5th annual, inspection requirements, as well as any items required by the steam locomotive owner and/or operator or the FRA inspector. At this time, the locomotive owner and/or operator shall complete, update and verify the locomotive specification card (FRA Form No. 4), to reflect the condition of the boiler at the time of this inspection. See appendices A and B of this part.

(b) Filing inspection reports. Within 30 days of completing the 1472 service day inspection, the steam locomotive owner and/or operator shall, for each steam locomotive inspected, file in the place where the steam locomotive is maintained and with the FRA Regional Administrator for that region a report of inspection (FRA Form No. 3), and a completed FRA Form No.4. See appendix C of this part.



Let it be known that a service day is defined as any day the locomotive has steam pressure above atmospheric pressure and a fire in the firebox. So do explain how "test steaming" exempt from being classified as a service day as you're suggesting? Without following the proper channels of what the 1,472 day inspection requires, the locomotive is out-of-service (in this case, retired) and thus cannot be steamed legally with the exception of a waiver signed by the FRA, which would have to come with proper documentation i.e a previous boiler survey (Form 4).

The bottom line is, IF they did what some of us are speculating, it's willful violation under the eyes of the FRA, period. Until we know more about what ACTUALLY went down, we can only speculate.

I think the butler did it {not Steven either}! Cheers, John.

What does the museum think of this? Do they own the locomotive, or is it a loan?

Richard -

There was a fantrip in 1962 over the old Duluth & Northeastern (Cloquet Terminal predecessor) where the passengers were able to tour the railroads Shop. At that time, they had the boiler off of one of their old steamers to power some (perhaps all) of the building, either as primary power, or as a backup. There are a number of shots of the building in this thread, but I can't tell for sure if that old boiler is still in place. Anyone know for sure, one way or the other? Thanks.

BTW, the power for that trip was D&NE 27 (not 28) doubleheaded with D&NE #14, which has now been restored out in California. Number 27 does still exist too, as a static display in Barnum, Minnesota I believe.

Les

No....a "service day" is defined as such. "In service" is not defined. At least, not in the portions we have seen on this thread.

I think the concept of a "service day" is as a means of counting the number of allowable days of use in service within a set time frame for a locomotive that is actually in service, not as a definition of what constitues the definition of "in service" itself.

A locomotive could be brought out of retirement, legallly entered into service, and never be used with pressure or fire at all, provided the inspections were kept up to date, and die on the calendar without accruing a single day "in service." So, why then couldn't a retired locomotive have steam in the boiler for testing purposes without being used in service without breaching the regulatory wall beyond which it becomes "in service" and then "days in service" would become applicable? In the absence of specific guidance to the contrary, seems reasonable.

Again, I'm not a lawyer and I don't have my copy of the entire regs at hand, but I'm just reading what has been posted here and playing devil's advocate in my head based on that. Forget what you THINK you know, and read only the words and consider what they could mean from other points of view.

dave

Really, all of this is pure speculation, nobody here (as the saying goes about the Supreme Court, "Nobody who knows anything says anything") knows what went on there up to what was photographed the other day. I'm guessing that those in charge and responsible were not impatient enough to "go rogue" and risk steep civil or criminal penalties just to "see what she'll do".

...and thus, we have the railroad museum quandry.
You can't just fire up a locomotive (aside from normal, daily operations) and think nobody will notice or talk about it later on.
And when someone does talk or post about it, clamming up probably isn't a bright idea either because if you did something wrong, you're busted no matter what.

This reminds me of an airplane museum that once did a special paint job on a WW2 airplane and wheeled it out for photos for their own use. It was supposed to be a surprise for a show later that month that nobody was supposed to know about. Boy, did they get mad when someone posted photos of the "going to be a surprise to everyone" paint job that afternoon. Said poster happened to be nearby, saw the plane being wheeled out and he grabbed his camera with a telephoto lens. They went nuts and tried to have the photos removed from the net (which is about plausible as nailing jello to your wall), crying that this was a big secret. Everyone responded roughly by saying if it was to be a secret, it should have stayed inside the hangar behind a locked door.

If one looks closely in the video of the locomotive moving reverse under its own power, you will see clear water dripping/leaking on pipes between the air pump and firebox. If it was trapped water, you would assume it would be filled with rust and sediment. As the locomotive backs away, you will see a good amount of moisture on the ground in the vicinity of where this dripping water was.

Assuming it is running on air, there should be no reason to see water dripping on a bone dry locomotive that has sat in storage for decades.

A few questions: First, is there enough evidence in the photos and videos to positively state that the locomotive was operating under steam? Or air for that matter. If an FRA investigator wanted to determine if it had been run under it's own power, what would he look for?

And can a steam locomotive be operated by piping air directly into the cylinders, bypassing the boiler? I saw a deal on the History Channel once where they did that to a steam shovel that was in an inaccessible place. If that's possible with a locomotive, would that be in violation of the FRA regs?

So far the only incriminating evidence has been the request to remove the pictures from the web. I don't know much about the Lake Superior museum, but it seems like a well run organization. I just can't believe that they'd pull such a fool hardy stunt as to fire up a dead steam locomotive. Despite the recent posts, I'm still voting for the smoke and mirrors angle.

Retired loco, NOT EVER run under Part 230, INDUSTRIAL trackage.......methinks that someone decided that since they were NOT part of the general system they could just go ahead without the FRA. Probably there was not much time on the flues when the loco was retired and it ran just fine last time, so what the hey! Just this once!

OBVIOUSLY, if there is any interest in actually running this loco, all the FRA regs will have to be dealt with.

And who knows? Maybe the local FRA guy told them to go ahead, once....

For my education, insular or not, don't the steam locomotive regs apply? Narrow gage railroads are exempt from the Track Safety Standards, etc, but I thought the FRA still exerted dominion over their steam locomotives.

Greg