And more specifically 230.17 (a) contains the pertinent information: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SI ... 7&rgn=div8

mld

Didn't mean to stir up such a fuss. I was just wondering if anyone knew approximately when the first tube was installed. Seems like a good chunk of the 15 year cycle has already been spent with little to show for it. Am hoping that it'll find a home where it can romp around in.

I am one of a large number of people who volunteered many hours on the restoration of the ST2. I drove stay bolts, cut tubes, and assisted in the rebuild of the running gear over the last 8 years. As far as the FRA clock, it began ticking in January 2011, one year after the tubes were installed in the boiler. The boiler sat outside at Mid-Continent for 4 years while the owner, nearly singlehandedly, performed the needed repairs to the running gear. These repairs included eight new driving brasses, a new main axle which included keyways for the eccentrics, turning all 8 driving wheels, repairs to the pistons and cylinders and many other items that tend to wear out on every locomotive. Because the owner was working with his own money, he was obliged to trade time for money to keep expenses down and using contract labor only when absolutely necessary. He ended up performing his 1472 day inspection for around $300,000. The owner is an unusually skilled and determined man who regards the repair of his locomotive as protecting his investment. He is not that interested in operation but wants to be involved in all of the maintenance, because that is where is interest lies. There was never any doubt that the ST2 would run again!! And it is doubtful that anyone else could have accomplished this repair.

Relevant question:

If any outfit wants to lease this locomotive, does it assume that the owner is "part of the package"? To make up an example, if Strasburg or Disney World wants to lease this loco, would they be expected to employ the owner as well?

These are the kind of details that keep otherwise worthy transactions or projects from happening. (See, as another supposed example, the lengthy list of "conditions" that were supposedly tied to the sale of the DL&W 99 Belford before it was acquired by NS.......... )

Chuck, many thanks for the info! Bringing in an operational restoration for $300,000 is truly remarkable in today's world, especially considering the condition that the boiler and running gear was in. I hope that someone will do a lengthy article if not a book on Skip's restoration of the engine. I've also seen his name linked to other projects so he wasn't spending his entire time on the locomotive. He seems to be one of the few remaining mechanic heads out there.

As for Skip being a part of a package deal with the locomotive, I can't imagine why anyone would object to having him on their team. He's probably forgotten more about locomotive restoration than most of us will ever know.

I don't know if most of the readers know this, but Chuck has been a tireless worker for the museum and has lead a tremendous effort to improve the museum grounds and buildings. This gentleman really walks the walk!

Steve

Agree with Charlie here. I do not think he is interested in being totally out of the picture. Skip would be welcomed by any organization that would be interested in leasing his locomotive. If not that would not be the right place to go anyway. He is not some leasing company. He is a guy who knows his engine well and wants to see it run and taken care of. No hidden agenda on his part.

For those who do not know him personally or the 17 years of drama surrounding the locomotives return to service it has indeed been a journey for both the locomotive and he the person/human being/owner. The point I want to make here is short and simple. The lawsuits {there were 2 of them} did not have to happen. They were not created by "leased equipment". They were caused by arrogant behavior and of course there are two sides to every story. I, like a lot of people have been involved with Skip and the #2 for many years. There was bullying, road blocks constantly put in his path, back stabbing were part of the problem. I witnessed it for the last 15 years and even people not involved quit trying to pretend it wasn't happening. Just suffice it to say this law suit did not have to happen.

The Trains article is pretty accurate. Think confused about the first law suit and the timing, but the rest of it is pretty right on. You can dissect leasing to death, but it takes two to make things work and it can take two to make it not work. Cooperation and respect go a long way and that applies to the BOD and Skip and all of us.

In answer to #3 a few posts above: I don't think anybody is applauding the BOD of MC for leading the museum into this situation. If Skip moves his engine they will end up spending more like $400,000 and have nothing show for the money. The agreement was legally binding. For $200,000 that was not demanded to be paid immediately they would of had a FRA ready to go steam locomotive that was perfect for the operation. Now they are going to have nothing for twice the money. The lawsuits did not have to happen. MC BOD forced it upon themselves. Just like the failed attempts of a couple other steam locomotives at MC nobody wants to examine how they got to where they got. Why? Because that would resemble taking responsibility, and God knows we would rather ruin the museum than take a look at ourselves to see how we got here. Taking responsibility may appear to be a nose rubbing affair in the steaming pile of mistakes. The purpose is to learn from your mistakes, not hang the other person.

I know a donor who had listed 25% of his estate to MC in his will. He is talking about quitting his life membership and removing MC from his will. He is no a longer active member and does not know the current BOD. But he knows Skip well from the old days. No body is winning here. Skip won in the sense that he will not let a bully screw him out of $200,000 that is legally his, but he isn't winning. He loves MC and it has been a huge part of his life for 50 some years. He doesn't want to hurt MC, but what was he supposed to do? Lay down and take it like a man? MC loses the perfect locomotive for its operation and an additional $400,000 it can't afford and a whole lot of credibility from just about everybody. It did not have to end like this folks. Leased equipment did not cause this to happen anymore than the weatherman made it snow in New England last week. It is the people in your organization that make it sink or swim. Membership and BOD had better stop this separation thing now. Warmest regards, John.

I'm in no position to question the gentleman's ability, talent, or knowledge.

But the two-fold implied questions raised are:

1) Does he relocate with the loco, is the loco restricted to places within a day's drive for him, or is he willing to trust its new operators to run and maintain it in his absence?

2) Does he become a crew member automatically, or will they put him through the same qualifying process as other volunteers there?

I witnessed, years ago, a similar "member leasing his loco" to an excursion line that started well but ended in acrimony over personality clashes, crew management issues, terms of leasing, etc. Let's just say it didn't end well, and it's part of why a "competing" operation opened up not far away, in an area already somewhat saturated with train ride opportunities.

If I observed as a potential operator the current availability of this loco and the situation that developed from afar, the first worry I would have is whether the loco comes with a "helicopter owner" that hovers over every last thing you do with it, micromanages its operation, and/or wants all the fun and glory of operating it with none of the work. This, of course could be the complete opposite of the owner's personality and temperament, and the MCRM could actually be completely disingenuous, incompetent, malicious, or otherwise at fault. But there was litigation over differences of opinion/management already, and if I were an operator or its BOD I would have a responsibility to prevent that from happening again.

Honestly, that's a legitimate issue no matter who you decide to lease equipment from.

I imagine a lot of the questions and suspicions can be ferreted out in meeting and talking with the other. Also, negotiating the agreement, and obtaining the assistance of competent legal counsel on your side to assist you in the process would be a big help.

Remember, MCRM was simply held to the terms of the contractual agreement it made with the locomotive's owner. Hindsight is 20/20, but always consider the ramifications of the agreements your organization makes, especially with regard to what the consequences could be.

The ST2's owner is a pretty reasonable man. He wants his locomotive to be used. But he wants it to be operated in an environment where the machine is respected. That means that the operator must be willing to train the crews in proper care and feeding of a steam locomotive. It means that he wants a program of boiler water treatment that is followed to the letter. It means that the crew knows that the locomotive is 100 year old technology and that it is their responsibility to do the things necessary to keep the machine operating properly. It means that everyone involved with the locomotive needs to be intimately acquainted with CFR49 Part 230.

So, will the owner be involved with his locomotive? You bet! Will he want to be regular crew? Probably not, but he will insist on a good portion of TLC being applied and he will most certainly want to be involved with any adjustments and repairs that will inevitably be needed. If the operator takes care of these things as a matter of course, the owner will be a very happy man.

ADM you bring up good points and they are indeed valid. This locomotive and owner are unique. Both are dinosoars from the past. Skip is I think 72 years old, he is a unique individual. Normal people don't buy and rebuild steam locomotives. He is old school. Don't BS him, don't lie to him, show a willing brain and keep things honest and up front and you got a new friend. Is any owner of a Steam locomotive in this day and age going to lease a stranger an engine like this and walk away and not watch closely how it is taken care of? The actual owner of the locomotive has a lot at stake beside the money invested and blood sweat and tears. So unless he decides to sell it which I don't think is an option he chooses at this time, ya he might be a mother hen and he should be and so should any owner of a locomotive. Too many people and organizations want to play trains. Who in their right mind would not be particular about who and how the engine is operated and maintained. I do not ask this in a confrontational way so please don't take it that way. But after working on this locomotive for so long I feel strongly about the same things he does. His thoughts and mine go back to years of working on the worn out steam locomotives at MC during the "steam years". He was much more involved than I was, but I too was under them even when I was young. The weekend warriors would come up and burn more coal, wreck more things and we {the shop guys} would be the ones who had to deal with a lot of this. The weekday crews took pretty decent care of things, left us notes what needed looking at but seldom abused the equipment. Some weekend warriors were great, others did not oil or grease anything. We usually had hot boxes and burnt journals from the weekenders. A few eventually got kicked off the engines permanently. Some of this was no doubt from the fact that the equipment was totally wore out before it came back into steam.

In a perfect world I think owning your own steam engine is best for an organization. Yes leases come with strings attached but frankly with MC track record I would not lease to them if it were my locomotive period. The proof is in the pudding. So yes leasing might not be the best option for both owner and the organization. Bad manners or bad maintenance or bad operations are bad for both parties.

What Skip wants for his locomotive is good for the lease organization. If you operate safely and courteous, the locomotive will have less repairs and you will get more miles out of your boiler and running gear. What he wanted to incorporate at MC for his locomotive would of been good for #1385 when that 1.5-2 million dollar repair is done. His being adamant about oil/grease and boiler tx as well as crew training is exactly what the #1385 will need when it comes back into service. Those things will be good for everybody concerned whether it be at MC or anywhere else. I was fascinated by the crew training and care of PM maintenance on the N&S steam program or excursions. That paying of attention to details is what Skip wants on his locomotive. The not paying attention to details years ago by many operating museums is what he is trying to avoid. If you can, I would recommend not leasing your equipment. But if not for leased equipment MC would of had a lot of years of not running steam back in the day when MC was one of the leading museums in the country. I am not trying to speak for Skip or his plans. But I know him well and he is a very reasonable person, but he is not a chump either. Hand job charlies don't make it in his world. So don't send your best salesman type to talk to him. Send your CMO. Skip is far from perfect. He doesn't walk on water, but he figured out where the rocks are and does a pretty good job at making it look that way. At least in comparison to a lot of people in this business. Regards, John.

PS and then there is the Montreal #1.

Well I guess to keep this out of personalities and more related to restoration and operating historical rail equipment I will try to refrain from to much more of it. I only brought it up more or less to make a point that leasing did not cause the law suit. No doubt there are two sides to every story. You don't back out of a lease once you entered into it, tear the leased locomotive down to a pile of parts, cut the boiler apart somewhat haphazardly, then change your mind? Then blame the owner for being pissed off? I think the BOD made a mistake trying to get out of what was promised by court order {think it was considered a court order} and was very underhanded in the way they attempted it. Not wanting to lease locomotives is perfectly understandable. Reneging on your debts. and not acting anything that resembles in "good faith" as often as was the case is another story. I find MC actions surrounding the #2 and a number of other issues embarrassing to a once top notch outfit. For the life of me I cannot see where these decisions were going to go anywhere but bad and nobody on the BOD could see this coming? If you keep poking the bear and then the bear bites you, is the bear a bad bear or do you have a malfunction?

On a better note. There has been and on going currently many positive things happening at the MC. A new building which will really help preserve many of the hysterical wooden cars and maybe a couple of steel ones, many new roofs on existing building {Thanks Chuck Ham for spear heading this}, rebuilding program for the trucks under EL&W coaches, upgrades to public bathrooms and a whole lot of infrastructure type things. Restoration dept just keeps on and on with multiple projects. A ton of other not as noticeable projects as well. A giant thank you to the donors who funded most of this and the membership that carried out the tasks.

Well happy, happy. John.

As John mentions, there has been some real significant wins at Mid-Continent over the last decade. The recovery from the devastating flood was not small task. The workmanship on the wood car restorations is stunning! The difficult decision to get rid of equipment that was never going to be anything more than a liability, and raise some very much needed funds. (This auction raised significant discussion here on the loss of the steam cranes and other railroad items to a scrap dealer, but was able to get WI 401 2-10-0 to a safe place at Age of Steam.) The building and grounds team lead by Hamster here has been tireless working on overcoming years of deferred maintenance on the buildings and infrastructure and the place is looking GREAT! The new storage building is an item that is desperately needed and will be a huge benefit to the restored and even waiting to be restored equipment.

Also, as was also mentioned, I could not believe that the ST#2's boiler was repaired after looking at the torched out mud ring as the boiler was laying on a flat car. This looked like it was in the process of being scrapped as the torch work was extreme. You have to give a tip of the hat to Skip for perseverance for bringing this back from the dead....very dead.

John; in your other post, you mention the WC&C #1. Every time I asked about the locomotive, (~ 10 years or so ago ), I could not really get an answer to what went wrong or caused the project to be shelved. This is the kind of conversation that can make others learn from and all move forward together. And finally, John, thank you for all of your hard work as well as the many folks who work all year to keep this treasure of a place for all of us. While I disagree with the situation with the #2, I continue to visit and support the museum and wish them all the best!

Steve

This is the actual reason for the disputes over the lease and the resulting lawsuits. The steam folks at MC did not have a clue about how to begin a boiler restoration project. So they guessed and applied the torch. While the boiler for the ST2 was not fatally damaged, only the owner's action of removing the boiler to Milwaukee saved the No.2 from a rusty fate. To be fair, not many knew how to restore worn out boilers back in the 1999-2000 timeframe and there were many other botched projects. But Mid-Continent actually started cutting on THREE locomotives. The C&NW 1385, the WC&C No. 1 and the ST2. The WC&C no. 1 remains a sad basket case and is another story of mistakes and ignorance. And of course, mega bucks are being thrown at the 1385.

And now an 8.5 minute pause in the commentary for a short video edited from the 1997 & 1998 North Freedom Snow Train Events. The majority of the slide inserts, middle of the video, were shot during the 1997 event. All of the video was shot during the 1998 event using a then "State of the Art" Canon XL-1 mini-DVD camcorder which I got rid of a year later due to what I considered a great deal less than stellar performance for something so highly hyped & priced.

It's not HD-HQ compared to what you can get with your smart phone today, but still fairly interesting for an event not seen in a great while now with either of these engines.

North Freedom Snow Train - 1998