Bartman-TN appears to be suggesting that we need to re-visit the training and qualifying aspect of the boiler business. I don’t disagree with this proposal, but I don’t think that is the problem here. It appears that in this instance it wasn’t a case of ignorance that lead to the current situation. It would appear to be intentional bad work and corner cutting. I saw Mr. Rimmasch lecture at the CSRM Restoration Preservation Symposium in the late 1990’s in Sacramento. He seemed to be knowledgeable and passionate at that time and I would think he has become more experienced and knowledgeable in the ensuing 20 years. With Steve Lee, recognized as a leader in the industry, they should have been a formidable team. So, in the current situation a rational person must conclude that this was an intentional attempt to defraud the contracting party. I can see no other explanation. If there is one I would very much like to hear it.

So was some of the work performed by the first contractor?

Was the second contractor engaged to complete the repairs and return to service?

Some of the problems shown in the photos look like they were the result of work performed many years before the second contractor became involved.

It does look like corner cutting. But why would they cut corners to the point where their work fails inspection? Why cut costs to the extent that it violates the contract with the result of not getting paid for the work?

If they did that, it seems that they must not have realized they were doing faulty work.

Weird, right?

Didn't there used to be a lawyer that posted on here? I really wish he was back, as I keep having to ask my neighbor questions about the case. What happened to him?

They ran him off. Didn't appreciate his matter of fact tone. Yet allowed said contractor in this thread to continue to post. That should tell you a great deal.

There is NO excuse for the poor quality of work that has been documented. From the various postings, here is my synopsis:

Restoration is begun by well meaning volunteers with limited experience. After some time, a contractor is brought in under a time and material relationship to assist the volunteer efforts. The available funding dries up for the contractor who leaves the job New administration comes in and wants the job completed and thinking that they need to control costs, issue a firm fixed agreement to a second contractor Well into their performance, the second contractor discovers their bid, now a contract, is severely underfunded.

There are so many variables in a locomotive boiler work. While the contractor selection may have been poor, the use of a firm fixed agreement only accelerated this downward path.

Equally important with the choice of contractor is the type of contract issued for the work.

All this, "who are you to question ME" stuff at the front of this thread is hilarious. As in any hobby, there are going to be those who consider themselves as God-like, and those who do that for them.
All that said, there are people I would trust not to have to check their work three or four times, but I have yet to meet one that I wouldn't check their work at all.
You only have to look up last year's crash and destruction of the Colling Foundation's B-17 bomber. According to who you asked, they had an excellent rep within that field, depending on who you asked. I flew with them a few times in the 90s and saw some really odd things being done, by people who had the "who are you to question ME" mindset. I saw something similar in 2014 when the CAF landed their B-29 way down the runway at Olympia, leading to more than one blown landing gear tire. Their crew lost their minds when I posted photos and direct comments from their crew after it happened, leading to three of them accosting me at the airshow the next day (one of whom came within an inch of having the holy [bleep] stomped out of him by myself and one of the guys in my group who was an off-duty state trooper).
Trust, then verify, I think the saying goes?
The most dangerous firearm handling I've ever seen was by those who always knew better. It was always by veterans, police officers or people who'd been around firearms enough to get complacent by them. It cost the life of a guy I went to elementary school with, something I never forgot.
I won't name names, but I have seen steam operators do some pretty odd things, from places and people I would have expected much more. I've also seen people considered 'shady' who did everything by the book when you stopped and watched.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but binding arbs don't normally have to be confirmed in this manner, unless it's some odd venue. A binding arb is just that, and once it's decided, that is supposed to be IT. Most arbs are non-binding and those have to be supported further to be enforced. They're usually just one of many steps that have to happen before something goes to court, to see if a jury or judge doesn't have to handle it.

Hi All

For background information on this topic, this locked thread may help.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=42278

Bartman-TN brings up the issue of the qualified individual. I have to say many of the track people I have had to work with have been quite dedicated to their work. In the case of track work it is not glamorous and not seen as a money maker. An issue that showed up in my experience was the executive director that decided that he could create over the radio an 18mph speed limit for a passenger train on class one track. When confronted about this the director stated that there was a part of the CFR that allowed this. To this day I can not find it because it does not exists. How do you deal with a boss willing to circumvent the regulations or rewrite the rule book on the fly?

My current employer hires Professional Engineers for many management positions. Unfortunately, in many engineering schools, management has not been a subject of study. The results have been predictable. People not trained on the task to be performed typically do not handle it well. Having a BS in metallurgy, who working up thru the ranks I see the value of the degree in explaining what is going on and the limits of education like the designers who said the yield strength and ultimate tensile strength were hard numbers not understanding that those numbers are averages. At the same time field people who do not understand technical items such as heat affected zones when cutting or welding steel. Having an understanding of both is critical to be a success. No matter your level of experience or education it is important to understand your level of competency.

The college I mentioned earlier is Davis & Elkins. The description of the classes needed for the minor are here,

https://www.dewv.edu/academics/majors/r ... anagement/

I encourage you to take the time to go thru the class links.

Robby Peartree

“ There are so many variables in a locomotive boiler work. While the contractor selection may have been poor, the use of a firm fixed agreement only accelerated this downward path.”

Well said.

When you have an honest owner and an honest contractor what’s wrong with T & M ?

To rewind this discussion back 20 years: was this engine a good candidate for restoration in the first place? Or was it worn out, and already subject to some questionable work? Should they have had a new boiler made?

Did they keep chasing the restoration by throwing more labor/money at it, instead of stopping when they kept running into more and more issues? There has been more than one restoration where problem after problem come up, and instead of making the hard decision to stop, the easier decision is to keep spending more money and keep the project running. Is that what happened here?

I believe this locomotive is a 0-6-0? If that is the case it might have been cheaper to have made the locomotive from the ground up by now. Considering how many times the firebox and boiler have been butchered, it would make sense just to start with a brand new boiler and firebox

One of the things I learned in the military is there is often only one or two people who really know what is going on when you are doing a project. It's no different with these companies big or small. Once you lose those core people it can really sink a business. From what I have been reading the Wasatch contractors at one time had some talented personal who could do these projects. It's obvious that they have been replaced with people who are not familiar with the railroad industry. I am just speculating, but the hired help coming out of Cheyenne is likely welders coming out of muffler shops, grease monkeys, tech school graduates, and others with little real experience.

I am also pretty sure the pay is not good. Probably in the $17.00-20.00 per hour range. Few qualified people will take that pay, and you will be left with entry level, junk yard welders. I have spent a good deal of my career as a welder and fabricator mostly for the wages posted above. Welders are a dime a dozen and there is no shortage of them. Good fabricators and welders are few and far between. At one point I was a military contractor working with some of the best welders in the nation. People qualified to weld on nuclear reactors and submarines. It was a world of difference in the work. It payed well and got the best talent.

I am also pretty sure Wasatch got into the same hole most contractors get into. Half way finished with a project and they are out of money. So they take on another project to keep things going and project one stops. Then project #2 runs out of money and that one stops. Then they take on project #3. Pretty soon there is several projects with no money to pay for them. Years can go by with really no work being done on the original project. What can you do but hire the cheapest labor you can to finish job #1 at some point.

I have been reading that the previous contractors share some responsibility. Not true. If you take on this project you are fixing all the problems by anyone who has ever worked on it good or bad. The blame game ends with the last people working on it. This thing is a gigantic mess with a lot shady work by who knows how many people involved. You need to wipe the slate clean and start over.

Since a brand new topic was created about this, I'm going to link to it here, it's SOC's comment on the K&T #14:

http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45058

The person in question violated forum rules and was disciplined accordingly.
The contractor in question has not.

Performance in the real world does not have any bearing on qualifications for membership in RYPN. That is the only "great deal" to be taken away from this.

Okay - so lots of talk, information and opinions here.

Now the real question.....so what? Moving forward, what are the impacts and changes?

I brought the 213.7 qualification practices up because these are required knowledge, skills, and experiences that are required to be documented (and kept up to date) to inspect and supervise track restoration and repairs. They are required to be done by each railroad and they can be pulled by the railroad, and if there are serious enough issues, can be rejected by the FRA (yep, I know of several people, including several former owners, who aren't in the industry anymore because of long histories of issues involving non-compliance with FRA regulations). However, what impact does this judgement and finding have on future steam locomotive work within the industry?

The problems were found by the FRA before the locomotive was put into service, so no fines or other actions - just a carrier-contractor suit. No Emergency Order was issued, so no immediately enforceable action by the FRA. Friendly comments were made, however, that probably prevented larger issues. So, are there any long-term impacts from this as they relate to railroads and the contractors?

So, will the judgement impact the boiler certifications of the firm, or those who directly worked on or supervised the work?

Will new training be required of the firm and its employees, or of the railroad?

Will independent supervision and inspection be required for a period of time?

All of these are fairly common for other areas of specialty within the railroad industry. Will they apply here? Besides this specific carrier-contractor issue, does it go any further? Will this be like the infamous bad contractor that shows up after storms, makes bad or incomplete repairs before heading off with the money to the next disaster, or will this be a learning lesson for the contractor and the industry that can lead to better practices and work in the future?

I'd love to see a "So you are thinking about restoring a railroad steam locomotive" workshop or handbook that can be made available. This would have information about funding, budgets, resources, regulations, and positive and negative experiences. Get the FRA involved so they can make sure any carrier thinking about it gets the materials, or at least a contact. Word will not spread too far about this case, so any improvements will have to be pushed into the industry.

Think about all of this - has anything really changed? Is the industry any safer today or tomorrow?

Bart Jennings