It has been 14 years since Part 230 became the law of the steam locomotive world and we are seeing the first round of inspections now. It seems, from reading other threads that there are still some folks who believe that there are such things as flue extensions. The subject is a little confusing because there WERE operating locomotives when Part 230 went into effect and there has been little reliable information about how and when these had their first 1472 day inspections. My understanding is that the FRA is NOT easily convinced to waive or extend the 1472 day limit.

How many locomotives have reached 15 years and how many have reached 1472 days and how many (if ANY) have gotten a waiver on the inspection? And for how long?

I've wondered that as well and also think the extension thing is less common than people like to think it is.
Pardon my ignorance, but if extensions do still get granted, would they be more likely for locomotives that are better stored than others? I'd think, say, 4449 (which is stored in a good climate-controlled building which is cleaner than some restaurants) might have been more likely than a locomotive which was always stored outdoors in a harsh climate if each were requested at the same time to the same inspector.

Locomotives on the Durango and Silverton had second inspections as early as six years after the rule went into effect. There have been many locomotives that have already had two rounds of inspections and they are getting ready for third rounds!

The position of the FRA is easy: No extensions.....PERIOD and no waivers, PERIOD. If you wonder if I am correct or not, go ask them. The rule is very clear 15 years of 1472 operating days, which ever comes first. No exceptions. Keep in mind, that was 1472 operating days. Operating days are clearly defined and there is no exception there either.

By the way, Kelly Anderson will remind all of us on January 17th to submit our days of service log to the FRA on or about the same date.

Kindly,

Contrary to the opinion of others, I know of one “extension request” that was granted. 4960 received one to finish out a season a couple of years ago. 4960 was due on the 15 years and not on service days. I understand they had a set number of days they wanted to run and spelled each one out in the request. It probably also helped that GCR has a strong relationship with their MP&E inspector.

Robby Peartree

Soo Line 2719 in Duluth is a second example of an extension; she received a 60 day reprieve (from July 31 to September 30th of this year) so that she could finish out her operating season. The locomotive was up on years, not operating days, and is stored indoors whenever possible. I've only met the local region FRA inspector once, but I will second Brother Peartree's suggestion that a strong relationship with them would probably go a LONG way towards a request for extension, along with very specific details on when and how the locomotive would be operated if an extension were granted.

My memory is not to be trusted. But wasn't the C&TS allowed an extension on the #487 while they were in process of rebuilding their fleet? Thought I recall the FRA showing mercy on them? I know I wouldn't count on extensions and mercy either, but I think they played ball with a few outfits over the years. Maybe those days are over now, but I think there might of been a couple of exceptions as already stated. Good questions, but again I would think now that most everyone is onboard with the requirements that there would be very few exceptions anymore, if any? Just guessing on my part.

Regards, John.

The 487 on the C&TS did not operate under a flue extension in 2003 it operated under the old code provision of 48 months of service within a 60 calendar months. 487 was not placed into the new code until the winter of 2003/2004 The other locomotives had been operating on flue extensions and did not receive a 1472 day inspection during the winter of 2002/2003.

The winter of 2002/2003 was a critical time for the C&TS as the operating company had notified the commission of not continuing the contract and so the commission was trying to both run the shops and select an operator. If we were to go much further into what happened we would only come across areas that certain people are desperately trying to rewrite history.

Respectfully
Robby Peartree

RP, not sure I fully understand and don't really need too in regards to C&TS, but I thank you for clarifying my poor memory on the subject. I watched at the time with great interest as the C&TS worked on the fleet to get the locomotives back up and running. Did not ever know about any of the behind the scenes activities, but I knew a struggle existed at that time. Glad things are better now. Also thanks for correcting my WAG at what locomotive was still running.

Regards, John.

This is what is confusing with regard to Part 230. Operating steam railroads, especially those who had RECENTLY (1997-2000) overhauled their locomotives (including and especially tubes) were more or less grandfathered into the regs. And RRs like the C&TS who operate every day would come up against the 1472 day limit and not the 15 year limit. But other tourist RRs do not operate daily and would never reach 1472 service days before 15 years. What was the FRA's attitude toward these folks? Would these RRs be more likely to get an extension to finish the season? And does anyone have any idea of the CURRENT FRA attitude about this?

Dear hamster,

I suggest you review the following material on steam central
http://www.steamcentral.com/documents/49cfr230.pdf
Many of your questions I think will be answered there. With the waiver process starting it was on the locomotive owner and or operator and therefore people who are in charge of a locomotive did a lot to determine if they received a waiver. Now under the old code you had four years of service. If you look at 1472 days that is 4 years and 12 days but if 92 days is a quarter then a year should be 368 and four years would have 1472 days.

To Mr Risley

I had the privilege of traveling to several commission meetings during the 2002 to 2004 period with a co author of the historic preservation study. It was a very stressful time for the railroad that in many ways it is still recovering from that traumatic period Hopefully even brighter days are still ahead.

Robby Peartree