DNE 28 2-8-0 Under Steam!!

junior · **Posted:** Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:59 pm

IC382 wrote:

.....
The Cloquet Terminal Railroad is not a fly-by-night railroad. I can not imagine how professional railroaders/business men would chance substantial fines to play with danger for a few days.

There are many professional operations out there, still only takes one stupid mistake to flush the toilet....

Even on compressed air, things can go wrong . Professionalism only goes as far as the knowledge and execution of what you are doing. They may be great at running a freight railroad with diesels, no doubt they are, but steam is a whole other story and the professionalism with it comes with following and obeying rules.

They lost the professionalism hat when they took this to where they did. Regardless of the reasons, the how, the why...they put them selves out there now for the scrutiny.

Hell, for them to post what they did about all the hoop-lah, just shows they have no respect for the industry and the people who DO follow the rules.

As I said before, its like a drunk driver making it home then telling everyone "hey, stop, I made it home, no one is dead - its OK - stop worrying, I know what I'm doing!"

Ron Travis · **Joined:** Sun May 15, 2005 2:22 pm **Posts:** 1543

It is only my opinion, but I am convinced that they fired up the engine and ran it on its own steam. And assuming that is true, the fact and tone of their denial seems to really compound the sin. You know what they always say. It is not the crime; it’s the cover-up that gets you in trouble.

Lincoln Penn · **Joined:** Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:40 pm **Posts:** 841

Dennis Storzek wrote:

Howard P. wrote:

Bob H. asked:

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

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.

*Not quite so. After 60 total months (48 of service - and remember that even one day or part of one day under steam in any calendar month counted as a full month - and 12 out of service months) the time for removal of flues was up and it had to be done, period, before the locomotive could be fired again.

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.

*Nor did the regs contemplate that locomotive would be operating 100 years or more after they were built.

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.

*This was also a resultof several forward-looking operators back in the 1980's using UT to determine the exact thickness of the sheets and shells in their locomotives. A couple of these resulted in the operators scaring themselves silly when they found out just how thin some of their sheets were and what a danger they posed. This resulted in some locomotives being immediately parked and others being repaired before being fired up again.

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.

*Yes, and the determination of whether or not the rules apply is not up to the operator.

Charlie · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:29 am

Just a few comments from the Peanuts gallery. First off, it took a great deal of time, effort and creativity to create the illusion of a locomotive in service. All of that is evident in their facebook reports. And that is a commendable accomplishment on their part. The photo of it and the ore car on the bridge is stunning! And yet most people, except for the FRA and other agencies, are condemning them for their actions. I'm hoping that once all this blows over, they'll receive the thanks and kudos that they deserve.

And please don't call it a hoax. All these guys wanted to do was to show what this locomotive would've looked like in service, just like any other railfan photo shoot. I applaud their efforts and look forward to the day when this engine is running under its own steam.

filmteknik · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:18 am

Oh yeah, how did they make steam appear at the various places cited in the photo? Was that Photoshopped in or did they burn smoking material all over the engine including by the cylinder cocks and air pump?

Steve

Bobharbison · **Joined:** Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:42 pm **Posts:** 3011

If this was all done with special effects, then Peter Lerro, who is seen by many, including myself, as the master of that craft, could learn a thing or two...

That is by far the most authentic looking "simulated steamup" I have ever seen.

As a reference, here's a link to a page on Lerro Productions. You'll see the Big Boy "Under Steam". It's also an excellent simulation of steam. But the difference is that it wasn't moving, which adds a whole new degree of difficulty.

http://www.lerroproductions.com/photography/railroads

ns2110 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:04 am

You can tell when it's just smoke and mirrors. Whatever media he uses to create the steam effect lasts much long and tends to leave a long trail of where it originates whereas steam cools off rather quickly and disappears. The two have distinctive patterns of dissapation and I see steam.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:08 am

I'm only going to interject one thing here:

My wife, who isn't even that good of a Photoshop wizard, could probably pull off similar "It's Alive!" effects on a similar photo of a static steamer in ten or fifteen minutes, especially if she has a reserve of photos of steam clouds at hand. This isn't that hard to do if you know what you're doing.

Having said that, I'm scratching my head as to why a reasonably reputable RR/museum would create with such photos, a situation that would put it under 1) potential serious inquiry from FRA or state boiler officials, and 2) nine pages of speculative blather on this forum. (My best guess is an overzealous member or two without authority from superiors or officials--which, come to think of it, would also apply to a potentially "maverick" steam-up as well.)

Unless someone finds sworn witnesses who actually say "I saw this moving under its own power, and here's my cell phone video" or the like, at the moment I don't see quite enough evidence here to hand down a big five- or six-figure fine. A good "We're watching you like a hawk now" and some serious finger-shaking, by all means, and most deservedly so, but enough to convict in a court of law or before a jury?

Bobharbison · **Joined:** Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:42 pm **Posts:** 3011

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

I'm only going to interject one thing here:

My wife, who isn't even that good of a Photoshop wizard, could probably pull off similar "It's Alive!" effects on a similar photo of a static steamer in ten or fifteen minutes, especially if she has a reserve of photos of steam clouds at hand. This isn't that hard to do if you know what you're doing.

Sure, you can do pretty much anything in Photoshop. But, having somebody who is good enough to get the effects shown in that photo, including heat distortion and the building being visible through the smoke, would require significant skills. Until you actually try it, faking this sort of thing seems easier than it actually is. It's much easier to do it "in camera". (And that could be the case here, real smoke, added whisps of steam elsewhere...)

It would also require significant knowledge of steam, so that you knew exactly what to place and where to place it. You can be the best in the world at Photoshop, but if you put smoke coming out of the cylinders, your photo won't pass muster.

Many years ago, they made crew jackets for the Mt Rainier Scenic RR. They took a photo of the Heisler to a local silk screen artist and said "Make a logo!". He'd done a lot of work for the local dirt racing track teams, and so he was used to putting clouds of dust coming off the wheels to indicate speed. Sure enough, he did that with the Heisler too. Since her bearings did run hot on occasion, we joked about "Guess all three trucks were running hot!"

Bobharbison · **Joined:** Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:42 pm **Posts:** 3011

ns2110 wrote:

You can tell when it's just smoke and mirrors. Whatever media he uses to create the steam effect lasts much long and tends to leave a long trail of where it originates whereas steam cools off rather quickly and disappears. The two have distinctive patterns of dissapation and I see steam.

That is true. But it is possible (I didn't say likely...) that they could plumb steam lines.

Notice they're trailing a car behind the locomotive. What's in there? Who knows... Could there be a steam generator in there? Could there be lines from it to the appropriate locations on the loco? Well, I guess in theory that's possible. Heck of a lot of work, but possible... Doesn't seem likely unless MGM is paying you by the hour, but hey, who knows?

Quote:

Having said that, I'm scratching my head as to why a reasonably reputable RR/museum would create with such photos, a situation that would put it under 1) potential serious inquiry from FRA or state boiler officials...

I would tend to agree. I would also tend to agree that is APPEARS to be a "rogue" steam up. But before we get a new rope and find a tree, let's remember that we weren't there. For all I know, the FRA man was consulted beforehand. He may have signed off on running her on air with steam effects plumbed to the whistle and dynamo from a steam generator in the tender. Or he may have said "As long as the boiler isn't under pressure and you're not hauling people..."

Again, is that likely? I'd guess not. But we don't know for certain do we?

beacon_joe · **Joined:** Wed May 16, 2012 2:51 pm **Posts:** 37

Just an opinion, we all have them, I would like to share. And even pose a question or two.

First off, after looking at the pictures, I do not believe their Facebook excuse. It sounds like a cover up story created to save face and do damage control.

That being said lets examine their explanation.

1. Wood fire in the fire box for effect- looking at the heat waves exiting the stack in conjunction with the light some it appears to have a fairly hot fire in it. Weather it be wood, coal, old tires or whatever it's a decent fire. There is no water in the boiler to absorb the heat being produced. So now you have firebox sheets holding large amounts of heat and nowhere for it to go. So we are now damaging the firebox just for an effect.

2. Pressurized the boiler with air- I have had to move a locomotive on compressed air before, and it does not last very long. It was just around the shop, but it did not take long to loose pressure after just 75 feet or so. This is a much large locomotive and would presumable need much more of an air supply. Unless that gon has a large compressor in it, I don't think you would get very far out of the shop on compressed air. Much less making it back to the shop. (that being said I have never visited this location, I am only going by google maps).

P.s. with over heated and potentially soft firebox sheets you are now going to put pressurized air pushing on theese firebox sheets.

That's just my thoughts.

wilkinsd · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:44 am

I've read this thread, have seen some good discussions of the regulations, have seen the "evidence" and I think there are two possible conclusions.

1. This was the "fake" steam up, done Pete Lerro-style for photographs. However, CTRR personnel did a very poor job of mentioning that on Facebook, and by not being thorough, they failed to understand how this could "catch fire" on this and other forums. A simple "Here are some photos of the simulated steam-up of #28 we did recently. The 'steam' is just for photos, and not real, the boiler was not under pressure." Had that appeared anywhere on the CTRR Facebook page, posted by them, this would have all been averted. Instead, they have to post a semi smart-aleck denial, and then this:

Quote:

The ONLY videos that are truly from the CTRR and NOT photoshopped are found on this Facebook site. No videos have been removed from this site, nor will they. It is up to the viewer to formulate their own assumptions on what is being viewed. Once again, ANYONE is more than welcomed to visit the shops M-F to view the locomotive, ask questions, sit in the cab and such.

Formulate their own assumptions? This is the kind of double-talk usually associated with members of my profession and/or politicians. They seem to only make the problem worse by this.

2. There was a real "rogue" steam up and this is a poorly executed attempt to cover it up. It's harder to get away with these things these days, with everyone having a cell phone camera and internet access in their pocket.

If possibility #1 is true, it speaks an important lesson for us in preservation. Choosing who speaks for your organization and how, especially on the internet and in social medial is paramount. How you message yourself as an organization is key. Remember this, even Facebook, Twitter, this forum is an advertisement not only for yourself, but for your group.

Dennis Storzek · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:57 pm

It's going to be interesting to see how this shakes out. It is my understanding that the engine is still owned by the Lake Superior Railroad Museum, while the CTRR is only a contract shop. LSRM of course, has its own operating arm, the North Shore Scenic, which has its own relationship with the FRA to protect.

Curiouser and curiouser...

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:10 pm

beacon_joe wrote:

1. Wood fire in the fire box for effect- looking at the heat waves exiting the stack in conjunction with the light some it appears to have a fairly hot fire in it. Weather it be wood, coal, old tires or whatever it's a decent fire. There is no water in the boiler to absorb the heat being produced. So now you have firebox sheets holding large amounts of heat and nowhere for it to go. So we are now damaging the firebox just for an effect.

If you asked me to do this "just for effect," I'd just burn a few pallet scraps and oily rags in the smokebox. Or, as reportedly done at Steamtown years ago, just ignite an old raincoat and drop it down the stack.

Next?

As for photoshopping talent, trust me, you don't have to be THAT good to get this right in a Photoshop fake, just have someone conversant with how steam locomotives operate stand over the Photoshopper. This is not O. Winston Link needing dozens of bulbs, miles of cord, and a key to the phone boxes. It's admittedly easy to do a bad fake that we steam experts would nitpick apart seven ways to Sunday, but not that outrageously difficult to make a passable fake. That said, I'm not saying that I think this is a set of fakes, only that you're stuck with proving it's not a set of fakes in a court of law.

softwerkslex · **Posted:** Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:21 pm

If it was a real steam up, then would evidence on the engine itself exist? Could someone tell the difference looking at the cold engine weeks, months later?