The Railroad Museum of Long Island has announced that we will close till the insurance goes down.

BEDT15@aol.com

> The Railroad Museum of Long Island has
> announced that we will close till the
> insurance goes down.

Just curious, is (was) this an operating museum

superheater@rrmail.com

> Just curious, is (was) this an operating
> museum

Interesting message from the RMLI. The Museum had no operating equipment, but does have a storefront building. There are many wonderful pieces of LIRR motivepower on the premises, including G5 4-6-0, #39, which was supposed to be rebuilt for operation. LIRR RS-3, #1556 was being restored for operation. Since there were no operating trains on the property, this closure strikes me as peculiar.
Elsewhere on Long Island is the other G5, #35, in the custody of an entirely different group.

glueck@maine.edu

We have almost restored just need to work out the bugs a former Long Island Railroad Minature Train, built for the 1964-65 worlds fair, which led to I belive the high insurance costs. But we should be opened again in the next few weeks

> There are many
> wonderful pieces of LIRR motivepower on the
> premises, including G5 4-6-0, #39, which was
> supposed to be rebuilt for operation.

> Elsewhere on Long Island is the other G5,
> #35, in the custody of an entirely different
> group.

Which group is the one who couldn't afford the costs of proper asbestos removal for their engine, only to have some members take it upon themselves to remove their locomotive's lagging covertly, place it in green trash bags, and then dump them in the trunks of scrap police cars in a junkyard/landfill?

Before everyone gets excited, a "gentleman" named Steve, who claims to be affiliated with one of the LI groups, likes to go around and talk pretty freely of his involvement with this alleged endeavor. He also talks quite a bit about supposedly opening up a switch on NJT without authorization, and using a backhoe to move a restored caboose several miles from one spur to another when NJT refused to move it themselves.

Not trying to start a flame war, but make those groups aware of the things supposed members will claim to others, which can damage a group's credibility... especially when there's two engines of the same class in close proximity to each other, and one group can be mistakenly blamed for something the other did.

Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

Personally, I wish one of these groups would be successful. 35 and 39 have both been in the hands of one "restoration" effort or another since the late 1970's. Sadly, I gave $100 back in 1983 for #39. I still have my "ticket" for the first run - July 4, 1985!

From a practical point of view, I would think the only chance to run a steam locomotive on Long Island would be between Riverhead and Greenpoint as there is very little regular service on this line and there is a decent tourist base out there.

larr4307@yahoo.com

I am not sure which group it was but one of these groups have caused a lot of ill will in the boiler industry. They convinced a major boiler company to donate a full set of flues only to have the flues sit and rot to the point of being unusable. This type of stuff hurts everyone in the steam business and it is a shame.

Tom Gears

Both locomotives have passed from group to group, and the management has been alteredover the years, but again, two different groups.
Probably these two locos are at the top of the list of "most wanted to return to steam", and both will eventually do just that. Understand that back in 1970, very eager people made some unrealistic promises to operate the locos. A noted loco expert even claimed that they could be fired up right where they stood and operated. Cooler heads prevailed, and when both G5's run again, it will be for a very long time.
Friends of Loco 35 have done a great job of properly stripping her down for total rebuild. She is protected, cared for, and forms the center of what promise to be a very wonderfulhistorical collection in Oyster Bay. Ironically, this is where she spent her last operational weekend.
RMLI has a magnificent collection of motive power and historical cars, most of which is of PRR design. The collection is worth visiting, even if only to look through the fence. The RMLI has financial support promised through Suffolk Cty. for the restoration of #39. At present, along with the Twin Forks NRHS Chapter, they have a running RS3 and will eventually also have an RS1. Both locos are contemporaries of the G5's. This is a very excellent turn of steam collection and it deserves big support and big dreams. I encourage each and every PRR and LIRR fan with the means to do so, to get behind one or both of these efforts. If you can weld, paint, grease, or grill hotdogs, I'm sure both groups will appreciate your being along. But let's clear the air. These outfits are both fresh starts, and both are reaching for a common and wonderful goal. Mistakes are mistakes, and everything has consequences. What happened in the past belongs to other people. Two G5's are going to roll again. Will you be part of it? Until the people to do the work get into the fray, they will sit protected, but cold.



glueck@maine.edu

I hat to tell you this but 1556 does not operate it just idles we have a flat tire. A big one.

RMLI

> But let's clear the air. These
> outfits are both fresh starts, and both are
> reaching for a common and wonderful goal.
> Mistakes are mistakes, and everything has
> consequences. What happened in the past
> belongs to other people. Two G5's are going
> to roll again. Will you be part of it? Until
> the people to do the work get into the fray,
> they will sit protected, but cold.

With all due respect, Richard, the person I mentioned in my previous post (Stephen or Steven, not sure how he spells it), who allegedly disposed of asbestos lagging illegally, claims to be a CURRENT volunteer, is rather young (meaning he wasn't around when the original groups were formed) and worked briefly for at least one of the Class 1 RR's (CR and or NS).

This wasn't information I heard second hand... all of the claims came directly from his own mouth. For as much as I'd like to see the efforts of the two groups prove to be successful, I have to question the credibility of at least one of the groups when a supposed member brags about dumping hazardous material improperly into a public landfill within the past couple of years.

The question is.... which group was it, and are the responsible individuals no long affiliated with the restoration efforts?


Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

I am not going to try to justify illegalities, nor would I try to rationalize the braggings of any one individual. I would be more concerned with the policies, goals, and methods of the larger group. From what I've read and followed in official documents and websites, both group are currently on the right track, and I want to support those positive efforts. I wouldn't tar the entire crew with the brush you intend for a single individual. If you are disgusted with the actions of any individual, then cut your association with them. If you are disgusted with the entire group, there are other groups that will benefit from whatever support you choose to offer them.
You are quite correct to want to be within the law whenever dealing with a prominent public project like locomotive restoration.


glueck@maine.edu

> I am not going to try to justify
> illegalities, nor would I try to rationalize
> the braggings of any one individual. I would
> be more concerned with the policies, goals,
> and methods of the larger group.

I agree, the only question I have is whether or not the group was aware of those individuals' actions, and whether or not they continued to allow the responsible parties to actively take part.

> From what
> I've read and followed in official documents
> and websites, both group are currently on
> the right track, and I want to support those
> positive efforts. I wouldn't tar the entire
> crew with the brush you intend for a single
> individual.

I would only tar the group if they knowingly condoned or "looked the other way" when they became aware of what allegedly took place. If they held the responsible parties accountable, then the group has nothing to be ashamed of.

> If you are disgusted with the
> actions of any individual, then cut your
> association with them.

The individual in question no longer works for the same employer, I have not seen him in some time, and others have mentioned that he may be working for another RR. I no longer associate with him, as I felt his claims were of a nature that discredit the preservation community.

> If you are disgusted
> with the entire group, there are other
> groups that will benefit from whatever
> support you choose to offer them.

I don't have a bone to pick with the group, as long as they took the proper action when discovering what allegedly happened. As long as they did the right thing to rectify the situation, then I personally feel they deserve all the support in the world.

> You are quite correct to want to be within
> the law whenever dealing with a prominent
> public project like locomotive restoration.

As common-sense an issue as legalities may seem, I believe any restoration group should place considerable emphasis on it when accepting new members. All it takes is one person with more enthusiasm than reasoning skills, and they can end up bringing down an entire project with an unsound decision. If groups make it clear up front that such activities will not be tolerated, perhaps some of the "nut case" volunteers will think twice before pulling a stunt that jeopardizes the entire project.

Of course, there will be the infrequent person who can't follow the rules, but they have nobody to blame but themselves when they get shown the door...

Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

I'm certainly not defending anyone here, but back in the 1980s and through to today, asbestos disposal practically became an inside joke in the industry.

I know for a fact that during the restoration of one locomotive mentioned right here on the Interchange lately, the asbestos bags "disappeared" from the tender or firebox or wherever they were hidden. No one ever claimed responsibility (there was a thorough investigation involving every volunteer), and it was later assumed that, because of the bag's resemblance to trash bags, they were inadvertently tossed in the trash, intentionally or no.

Here's the funny part: The director told me that they went to the EPA to report this disappearance, and the EPA office reached into a drawer and produced a standardized EPA "Loss of Asbestos" form. Apparently this was happening quite commonly back in the 1980s!

lner4472@bcpl.net

> Here's the funny part: The director told me
> that they went to the EPA to report this
> disappearance, and the EPA office reached
> into a drawer and produced a standardized
> EPA "Loss of Asbestos" form.
> Apparently this was happening quite commonly
> back in the 1980s!

The real funny part is that a recent study showed no hazard from asbestos EXCEPT to persons who were cigarette smokers at the time of exposure, while nonsmokers had no greater incidence of asbestiosis than did members of the general population who were never exposed to asbestos.
Maybe, after enough companies are shoved into bankruptcy and the "well" of jackpot lawsuits goes dry, we can use the real data on asbestos to persuade legislators to put a lid on all asbestos liability.


bruceman@stargate.net

You have a beautifull dream, and one day, perhaps, it will be a reality, but I'm not holding my breath, (even if I think there might be fryable versions of said substance colse at hand.)

Sincerely,
David Ackerman

david_ackerman@yahoo.com