As a historic object, it is not reversible. As a machine built to certain blueprints, it is.

Steve

One possible answer can be obtained from the A1 Trust.

Not to be snide about this, but if the cubic dollars were there to build a replica, why would they need to buy/lease/use 3463? Why not just build a new test loco from scratch?

This sounds an awful lot like "let us use the loco, and we'll hit the jackpot with our commercial venture and rebuild her just like she was once we're in commercial production!" That makes me back up a bit further and grab my wallet tighter.....

Well just to be clear, I don’t see any merit (or credibility) in CSR claiming their work will be reversible. I understand the point that new parts built to print are not the old parts with patina. But I don’t expect patina to be an issue in restoring the locomotive for display, if that is the outcome here. I would expect it to be made to look new with full new paint. But I agree that surface patina, in its authentic form, is a product of aging, so reversing by replacement does not necessarily recover the aged patina.

I think this is what CSR intends to convey by their assurance that their work will be reversible:

1) Every bolt-separable part on #3463 that would be involved in the modification will removed and stored in its original condition.
2) All of the original parts removed will be replaced by newly made parts that include the modifications as features of the newly made parts.

Under this plan, if they needed to modify the firebox by welded fabrication, they would do so by building a new boiler with the firebox modification. The old boiler would be removed and placed into storage for safekeeping.

When you read the entirety of the CSR proposal for the modern engine, it is clear how outlandish this “reversibility” would be. It would be similar to that classic example of jacking up the whistle and building a completely new locomotive under it.

Which brings up an interesting point; since apparently the original engineering was NOT used in the firebox design, the engine is having problems that the original never did. Which means it's only a replica, not a reproduction.

I wonder when this legal question of ownership will be resolved. As I understand it, the matter is scheduled to go to court. In my opinion, if the Topeka group wins, there will be steady progress on a static display restoration. If CSR wins, I can only guess at what will follow. The big money starts getting spent when it comes to moving the locomotive out from Topeka to CSR work site. I cannot confirm the details, but I have been told that moving will require traveling down city streets for over a mile on panel track to get to a point where it can be shipped by rail. I wonder how easy it would be to get UP or BNSF to agree to transport the locomotive on its own wheels.

You don't have to guess, you already know what would happen in either case. The legal fight will continue as people bank on wearing out their opponent in cases like this.

With "Sustainable" in the entity's name, I smell grant funding. The Topeka group may need only drag this out long enough that CSR goes another direction. Grant funds do have strings attached. The kind that cause you to show progress. Also grant funds typically have restricted use - like not for legal bills. In this fight CSR has to win to win. The other party doesn't have to win the case to win. See A&WP v Southern re 290. A&WP won without winning because the Southern went elsewhere.

This all further emphasizes my point; what is the business sense in getting into trench warfare on this locomotive? I would think that the best interests of the scientific research would be to conserve funds, recoup whatever was expended on this engine, and set out to find an alternative test subject; preferably one that comes to you willingly.

Ok I may get spammed on this one. How about a JV btx the T-1 Trust and CSR.

As all of you debate who owns 3463 you have not been told all the details regarding the transformation of Topeka Railroad Days to what is now the Great Overland Station. The original intent a number of years ago was to include 3463 in a static display at the station as it was being restored. The rehab of the station took a long time and there were numerous changes in the make up of the board as well as directors who each had their own agenda as to how the project should proceed. Topeka Railroad Days was a annual event that was held at the old air base south of downtown. It was well attended and was supported by both the ATSF and UP. It evolved to being the keeper of 3463 and there was a well intended small group who were working on doing cosmetic and preservation work on the locomotive. The current board and director of Great Overland Station decided to stop all work on the locomotive when they found out the cost of moving it from its current location to the Station site. This group has changed the entire mission of the station from one of preserving the history of the railroads and the relationship they had with Topeka and the State of Kansas. This board and its current director also made it very clear to the rail fan community that they were not welcome at board meetings and that their input regarding rail history was not needed. ( I am being nice about how these events unfolded and how the various individuals were treated by the director) There was no public notification by the board that they were considering giving 3463 away and no public input was allowed. The people of Topeka did not find out about this until the deal was done.

ATSF Curtis Hill,

Thanks for that clear explanation of a widely misunderstood history. That matches exactly what I have been told by three different sources in Topeka. What has been repeated over and over by CSR and by many others who side with their mission is essentially this:

The group fighting to keep the engine in Topeka should not be given custody of the engine because when they had a chance to restore it, they just let it rust and rot.

Your very clear explanation of the facts sure takes the wind right out of that fallacious argument.

Does anyone have any update on this ownership fight/overall status of the locomotive? I was at Great Overland station in Topeka today to see 844, and when I asked a volunteer refused to answer my question.

Looks like a win for the 3463.

http://cjonline.com/news/local/2017-04- ... locomotive

Ron, help me understand...



The efforts that Curtis Hill mentions are in recent history, but the non-profit lost its status in 1973...so what exactly did anyone do for this engine between now and the station restoration/relocation conversations when work or efforts halted and then SRI interjected?

Why did the group of well-intentioned people not file a suit against Great Overland Station to continue working on the locomotive if they claimed it was theirs? If it was their property, how could Great Overland Station prohibit their involvement or participation?

The court obviously believes that the locals don't have a claim. No matter your opinion on the outcome, it's obvious that putting a paint brush on a rusty choo is no replacement for having your legal and business affairs in order first.

This was a catalyst that came too late for them.

KL