And part of the reason that RyPN is still "adrift at sea" with no real ability to update and modernize and improve the site is because of one or two abusers here--one still active and registered here, for impossible-to-rationalize reasons--with a proclivity for such litigation, or at least threats of doing so.

And to the guy who knows damned well who he is--[BLEEP] off and leave already.

Hey now! The moderators invited me back!

The idea that the presence of certain members of this forum being part of the reason why the forum has not updated is flat out wrong. And no we are not worried about threats of frivolous litigation.

Personal attacks are prohibited here and furthermore represent the lack of an argument. If one has to attack another to make a point, that argument will fall on its face. Healthy debate is welcome, but lets keep it focused on the facts and actions, not the people.

Thank you Mr. Rowlands for that strong clarification to TGB 4's posting. I'm shocked to learn that there is anything he's wrong about but this case makes it clear that he is.

Back to the issue of the WRRC bankruptcy filing. If there were people who knew that WRRC/John Rimmasch were doing boiler work on steam locomotives that violated boiler codes and/or FRA Part 230 requirements they certainly should have brought that to the attention of the FRA in a timely manner.

It's the regulators job to follow up if alerted to a potentially dangerous matter and I'm confident that they do.

Bringing such issues into the public light on an internet forum is not the place to get them effectively addressed.

As I've stated, we are lucky that the very bad issues brought to light by the K&T lawsuit against WRRC were discovered before the locomotive went back into service.

Very lucky.

Ross Rowland

The work performed by WRRC, by nature, could always be debated one way or the other depending on who you believe, or how you read into things, etc. There are some disturbing legal documents and not-quite-substantiated accusations all over the place, but if things were undisputed facts, we wouldn't need lawyers and court cases, right?

What is plain and about as undisputed fact as you can get, to me, is John Rimmasch's posts on this very forum. You can go read them, they are in his own words. What I see in those posts, is if things don't go JR's way, things may quickly get ugly. Good companies with good customer relationships should never look like that. Does he use the same tactics with his big RR contracts? Employees? Suppliers?

We all make mistakes, it's how you handle those mistakes that often defines who you are.

Yes, the only ones who win this case, are the lawyers. ALL the other parties are getting a piece of the short end of a very rotten stick.

Not their mere presence.............

The one's past threats. Causing certain administrators to defect/abdicate.

I stand by what I said.

From usually very reliable sources it is reported that Wasatch lost its AAR shop qualifying stamp 18 months ago but continued to do freight car repairs despite being disqualified.

This has caused the AAR to notify those car owners who had work done by Wasatch during this period to get those cars immediately into an AAR qualified shop, and seek relief from Wasatch for the costs.

It never just rains.....it pours.

Ross Rowland

It also appears Wasatch let their ASME certification to Build boilers expire, only renewing the NBIC repair certification.

Does the Association of American Railroads publish a list of AAR qualified shops that we can use instead of the "usually very reliable sources"?

See: https://aar.iirx.net/registry/registry

Thanks Eric. That AAR listing shows that Wasatch's AAR certification expired in May 2020. That would jibe with what I posted.

How many cars did they repair and get paid for after they lost there certification is an unknown as is how many of those car owners will go after Wasatch for the costs of them getting those repairs redone in an AAR certified shop.

As is always the case the facts will come out in due course.

Sad. Ross Rowland

It helps to read the whole page:

As I read this the AAR considers the qualification current.

GME
(Who learned to read the whole document almost a decade before a certain Greenbriar was laid out on the erecting shop floor!)

Why waste the time reading the whole thing when you can just project that it will say what you hope it says?

Thank you for clarifying this situation.

That’s how I read it. If it was expired, they’d be removed from the list.

I just sent an email inquiry to the AAR ( aar.org) requesting the current status of the WRRC shop in Wyoming. I'll share the response when it comes.

Ross Rowland