Notes from the March 15th meeting of the Loop Park Coordination Committee have been posted on the website of the Colorado Historic Railroad Preservation Association. ( http://www.savethetrain.org )

Recent photos of #74 and #111 have been added to the 'CHS Equipment Photos' section.

Jim Poston, President
Colorado Historic Railroad Preservation Association

Is the CHRPA the same outfit that was fighting tooth and nail with the State organization that owns the property not to seek a new operator?If my memory is serving me well, there were voluminous predictions of doom and gloom(i.e. no trains at all for '05) when Railstar was awarded the contract.
From what I can see Railstar did an outstanding job their first year and seem to have tastefully brought renewed life into the operation.
Do I have the facts right??
Thanks, Ross Rowland....no s please...........

Ross - I have no current formal affiliation with either the state or Railstar, but did help them out a bit last year. I also worked for the previous operators and have remained on friendly terms with all involved.

I can't hope to understand, much less explain, the vast political and emotional hoopla that followed the business decision made by the Ashby family not to enter into a new operating agreement with the state under the new conditions required. We all sat down together at the last TRAIN convention and shared impressions and stories pleasantly. Hopefully, that is enough said on that subject.

I do know that the state has invested a lot into capital improvements - primarily in terms of rolling stock - and just how and what the results will end up being can be debated on many levels, however, the trains did run with very few problems in Railstar's inaugural year. While I have no issued statements to back up this personal impression, i think (and hope) the state HS is getting a very fast education about railroading, tourism, and the private sector, and will allow Railstar a greater role in policy and fiscal matters henceforth.

My visit coincided with a derailment caused by some very old ties giving way under the heavier axle load of a 4 wheeled diesel (relative to the many wheeled steam or 8 wheeled diesels) that treaded much more lightly since the line had been first rebuilt. While rerailing the diesel, we saw a 1938 date stamped into one of the failed ties. A subsequent inspection by FRA, despite the lines insular status, resulted in their taking no exceptions to the operation at that point. Given their fast and furious entry into the railroad, I think that speaks well of Railstar.

I'd also like to point out that, debatable points aside, if the state does eventually finish carrying out all their rolling stock plans, the result will be in a lot more useable and operable steam locomotives and cars generated than has been done by any other entity in the USA in recent memory.

So, while a lot can be quibbled with, I fear that the majority of hoopla was as much a matter of personalities as the genuine interest in some citizens of the state to assure their historic railroad resources were under good stewardship. I have no dog in this fight any longer, will be happy to assist if I am needed again, and wish all parties well.

dave

1) With the #12 reported as performing for all but two days of the 2005 operating season, what were the dates the monthly boiler washes were actually performed? What procedure was followed, and how much time was taken for this maintenance?


Boiler washes were done on steam locomotive #12, following an industry standard checklist, on June 28th, August 9th, and October 11th of 2005. This was deemed adequate by outside consultants, given the limited number of miles (4,300) the locomotive operated during the season. As an insular railroad that is not under FRA jurisdiction, monthly boiler washes are not necessary or required. In each case, the locomotive was cooled overnight and the wash was done at dawn the next morning, so that it could be refilled with water and fired up again in time for the scheduled departure that day.

*Thermal shock is the name given to cracking as a result of rapid temperature change.
Thermal shock occurs when a thermal gradient causes different parts of an object to expand by different amounts. This differential expansion can be understood in terms of stress or of strain, equivalently. At some point, this stress overcomes the strength of the material, causing a crack to form. If nothing stops this crack from propagating through the material, it will cause the object to fail.

Now that I have gotten that out of the way. WHAT THE HELL, they are following an industry standard for a modern day package style firetube boiler, not a steam locomotive boiler. There is no standard for washing steam locomotive boilers per any modern day code, only in vintage texts and in the minds of those that know proper practice. And in addition, a PROPER boiler wash will take a full day to perform, it simply cannot be performed in a couple of hours. Not to mention all of the other NECESSARY tasks REQUIRED if one does not want to blow them damn selves up, such as cleaning out sight glasses, sightglass valve spindles, tricocks and other various SAFETY appliances of scale and other build up that could lead to another 1278 if not properly attended to. Should the unthinkable happen does anyone here think that these supposed "industry standards" or the opinion of the consultant which is contradictory to proper practice will protect CHS or Railstar from the victims attorneys?
Also, note what is stated, they are not under the FRA and as such boiler washes are not NECESSARY or REQUIRED. Due to the significant difference between the operation of stationary versus self mobile boilers, common sense and a desire for adequate safety would dictate steam locomotive boilers need washing regardless of whom one is regulated by....and god forbid that anyone dare force CHS to perform necessary preventitive maintenence in a manner that has the safety of the public in mind.

The consultant that stated this to be an acceptable practice is wrong.....not my opinion, FACT. Those that get it will not argue, those that don't never will.....I am done!

I have to disagree with you on one point, Jason. I have done boiler washes including all the reaming out water glass fittings, lapping in the gage cocks, and required paperwork with one part time helper in about 4 hours on a locomotive about the size of 12, without trying to rush things. I truly don't see taking a whole day unless there are problems with the engine or the process.

During my tenure at Georgetown Loop, we eliminated about 90% of the scale found at boiler washes by installing a water softener in the line filling the tank. Reducing the amount and kind of chemical treatment, and instituting a weekly testing to determine treatment and blowdown schedules kept things very clean. It is concievable to me that a bimonthly washout schedule could work well under these circumstances. I don't know who the outside consultant was, but hopefuly there were test results that he used to back up his program. Without knowing the details, i would be reluctant to make any assertions to the contrary.

Wouldn't it make a nice test bed for Porta treatment?

dave

I also have to disagree with Jason at least in regards to the time needed to do a boiler wash. The railroads did them in less than a day all the time in the good old days. With enough men assigned to a crew to do the necessary work and everything in place the wash can be completed in a matter of hours. It would help reduce stress on the boiler to use warm water for the wash and refill.

As far as the time needed between washes I think the quality of the water being used and the chemicals involved would determine that. I think hot hours on the boiler would be more of a factor in determining the time period although a running engine will boil more water than a standing one.

Just my opinion.

John Bohon

I think much of the stink was that the CHS seemed to want a bigger part of the action from the former operator and then ended up spending more to get less. How this was a better deal can only be explained by those who know how to use the smoke and mirrors. Wht ever you do ignore the man behind the curtain.

Tom Gears nailed it right on the head. The thing to remember now is that it was a choice (rightly or wrongly is not the debate here) and that another operator was able to make things work. One should hope that all parties concerned have learned something from the whole affair and apply it to their future endeavors.

A nice hats off to Railstar (the current operator of the Georgetown Loop) for coming up to speed under such adversarial circumstances and continuing safe operations at this unique site.

Boiler washes were done at the appropriate time. We have a aggressive blow down practice, put water going into the water tower through a water softner, used boiler compound, washed the boiler with hot water AND just like the D&S, accomplish the wash and other tasks overnight so as to not lose a operating day.

Hi, Ross,

Several concerns of CHRRPA (we put two "R's" in our acronym *S*) were:

1) the Colorado Historical Society's claim of "The Train Is Alive in 2005" without concrete evidence of any kind of motive power or rolling stock;

2) the CHS claiming to follow State of Colorado requirements for Request for Proposals, while in truth, they did not;

3) the CHS offering the Georgetown Loop Railroad, Inc., a 'non-negotiable' contract with a term of only five years (Railstar got ten), requiring the turnover of an increased percentage of profits, and an increase in insurance coverage.

We did not 'fight' with the Society. Instead, we desired to hold the CHS accountable to RFP regulations and make sure the 'seamless transition' (CHS's words) from the original operator and to their successor wold take place. (Note that Engine #12 did not arrive from Idaho until late March 2005, giving Railstar only two months to prepare that single steam locomotive for a full season's operation on the Loop.)

The predictions of gloom and doom were not solely from the railfan and tourist railroad community. Instead, concerns ranged from the travel industry, to historic preservationists, to local merchants (the "Desparate Merchants Association" in Clear Creek County was formed due to the uncertainty of the Railroad's future).

This link will take you to letters received by CHRRPA regarding the change of operators: http://www.savethetrain.org/id28.htm

Indeed, Railstar did a remarkable job during their first year, thanks to the personal committment and investment by the 'hands-on' people, and Marlin Uhrich's deliberate work on #9 will bring another fascinating piece of Colorado railroading history back to life.

Thanks for writing,

-Jim

Clearly the rules of the game changed between the departure of GLR inc. and the awarding of the contract to Railstar, as the CHS found their original expectations infeasible but were unwilling to accept this until GLR's departure.

One example: one item of dispute was the distribution of profits between GLR and CHS. Under the present scenario, there are no profits. CHS is actually having to make a net investment or subsidy to the operation ($900,000 for 2005 according to the meeting minutes).

I agree, using hot water could make a difference. As mentioned previously, railroads did do quick boiler washes "in the day" with a significant crew of workers and a substantial amount of water heated to just below boiling to accomplish the task. For railroads that lacked these hot water facilities, they did have a full boiler shop to immediately repair any structural damage resulting from this "drive through" service.

I am curous as to what high-flow, continuous-duty hot water generating equipment Georgetown has installed since my last visit 2 years ago. If none of this equipment is in place, what temperature water is being used to perform these washes, and what size crew is doing the work?

From the perspective of an outsider looking in from a long ways away,it's apparent the for whatever the reasons, there developed some serious personality issues between the CHS(landlord) and the Ashby family,resulting in the operating contract going elsewhere. It's also apparent that the CHS materially mis-judged the true economics of the operation and were prospering better with the Ashbys then they realized.
As someone else posted,let's hope everyone came away learning some important lessons for the future and that Railstars initial success will be followed by many years of good operations.
Ross Rowland