Believe what you want, IC382. Obviously, none of the rest fo us are going to convince you of anything.

BTW, a friend of mine for almost 40 years is Michael D. Ramsey, Passenger Rail Safety Division Specialist for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. i get it directly from the horse's mouth!

Mike

Two people have now asked them about it on their Facebook page. There is still no reply, even though someone from the railroad has updated other material on the page.

Maybe someone at the museum that owns the locomotive is willing to talk about it.

Bob H. asked:

"OK, so let's roll the clock back 30 years... What would have been done to restore a steamer to operation?

Was there ever a time you simply put a hydrostatic test on the boiler and if she held that was good enough? Before all the new rules, how did you decide when to change the boiler tubes? Did they ever do "form 4" calculations for a restoration project back then?"

Here's at least one story from "back in the day". Valley Railroad purchased Aberdeen & Rockfish 2-8-2 #40 in 1977. The engine was stored inside at the A&R since the early 50s. 40 was moved to New Haven, CT on a flatcar, unloaded and towed in a local freight to Saybrook and handed off to the VRR. If my memory is correct, within a month of arriving, 40 was running under steam on the VRR. There was a hydrostatic test of the boiler; I do not think the jacket was removed. I am 99% certain the tubes were not removed at that time. I do not think the FRA had juristiction of steam power at VRR; they were under the State boiler regs and Hartford Steam Boiler inspector's regulation.

As for the Form 4, it was a very common practice to simply copy those/transfer the info to a new Form with the new operating railroad's name. I have copies of 2-6-2 #103's various Form 4s, from Middletown & New Jersey, VRR and Baldwin Loco Works--- there were no calculations or UT done after 103 left BLW in 1925.

Obviously, those quaint practices have changed. Engines do not run on extensions of 15 or even 30 year-old sets of tubes.

The real story will eventually come out about the D&NE #28, and it should be very interesting. I hope it does not have undesired consequences for others.

Howard P.

from their facebook page

Cloquet Terminal Railroad

Everyone out there who is in such a uproar about #28 being out this past weekend needs to take a chill pill. There are several pages of exchanges on different rr sites arguing about if #28 was running under its own steam pressure. #28 can travel using several air compressors, and a generator. NO steam was involved. A small fire using scrap wood was used to provide the smoke to give the people at the Independence Day celebration a good show. If you still have more questions stop by the CTRR shops in Cloquet, MN and come and see it in person. We are always happy to have visitors! Updates WILL be posted on FB and it will be noted when it is moving under its own steam power.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have nothing to do with the railroad, just posting their response

Mike Slater

Okay, so there we have it. Cloquet Terminal's explanation.

The question now is, is she going to eventually be restored for operation? I think the museum's current steamer (Soo Line 4-6-2 # 2719) is now out of service, so D&NE 28 seems like a nice choice.

Les

Well, heck, everyone else who knows little or nothing about the situation gets to post... I may as well, too. Here is my recollection of the situation in the sixties and seventies. Mind you, I never was in a position to have actually been responsible for the decisions; therefore, I can post when others may wish to decline.

At that time steam was still being regulated under the old ICC rules. IIRC, the ICC allowed 48 service months between complete internal inspections; up to five years if the engine had been stored without steaming for a number of months during the initial 48. There was no maximum calendar limit between inspections, so engines that had been retired with time remaining "on their flues" as was the terminology of the day, were considered stored for the intervening period. So, in theory, nothing had to be done to put the engine back in service, so long as you had the paperwork; just light the fire and go. Most responsible operators would at least do a hydro to be sure the engine didn't have problems when it was laid up.

There was no requirement to recalculate the Form 4. Wastage of the sheets was expected to be addressed at the internal inspection. The regulations never anticipated engines that would be laid up for twenty or thirty years between inspections.

The big changes the FRA made to their regulations at the turn of the Millennium were:

Requiring the Form 4 be recalculated at each inspection, in deference, I suppose, to the fact that the inspectors were now seeing so few sheets removed that they no longer had a good feel for what constituted condemnable wastage. Modern ultrasonic testing has made it possible to tell exactly how much sheet is remaining, and from that a new MAWP can be calculated.

Splitting the "service months" into service days. You'll Note that the current inspection interval works out to appx. 48 months of daily service. So, if you keep your engine hot 24/7/365, you still have to do internal inspections every four years, as with the old ICC rules. However, you can now be miserly and save individual days, and stretch that inspection period out to fifteen years, which is definitely advantageous for tourist railways and museum display railroads.

So, someone ill informed, remembering the old ICC regs, could make the judgement that we have the records, and the engine was laid up with "time on her tubes", so we can just fire it. Unfortunately (or maybe it is really fortunately) the law has changed since then.

So it was ran on air but compressed air doesn't make those thick clouds of white steam when the whistle is blown. Are they sayind they're photoshopped? Also, the photo of it sitting in front of the shop builidng with steam coming out of the dynamo and a nice thick column of hot air and wisps of smoke doesn't look like compressed air to me. If photoshop is the case that's pretty impressive!

Don't believe it (compressed air)!

Anybody record or vouch for whistle blows? That would be a give away.

Agreed. I'm just trying to understand the regulation.

I daresay one could argue it in court! But as Bob says - does it really matter? Observing the regulations is a matter of self preservation!

I call bulls**t, I really do not care what anyone says. See the attached picture for my reasoning.

That excuse is ever so convenient and highly suspicious indeed, namely because of how the most telling photographs were immediately taken down once people started asking questions. I am still 99.99% convinced this locomotive was under steam, with a fire in the firebox. The picture is inexcusable (or exquisitely doctored I might say!). The .01% of me that buys this load of crap is the part of me that believes someone over there is an unsung messiah of Adobe Photoshop. Unless someone can PROVE otherwise, they've gotta do better than a lowly FB status update.

I'll jump in here.

1. I looked at the Pine Journal newspaper pages (local news in Cloquet). No mention of this engine on display or under steam on Independence Day.
2. The Sappi paper mill is located on the railroad and is a source of stationary steam for possible "effects".

"I'm just sayin..."

Wesley

Service day. Any calendar day that the boiler has steam pressure above atmospheric pressure with fire in the firebox. In the case of a fireless steam locomotive, any calendar day that the boiler has steam pressure above atmospheric pressure.

Even if they charged the thing up on "shop steam" with wood in the firebox for effect (which I doubt for reasons Cormack was kind enough to ever so thoroughly illustrate) by definition it is STILL a service day.

John

I have previously operated a steam locomotive on compressed air. It sounded and ran pretty much like normal. What it didn't do was run very far. The "charge" was enough to get her out of the shop building, but that was about it. (which was all we needed)

I suppose on board air compressors could extend run distance...