Narrow Gauge Discussion :  Narrow Gauge Railroad Discussion Forum The fastest message board... ever.

Narrow Gauge Railroad Discussion Forum

This is a forum for the discussion of narrow gauge and steam railroading with a primary emphasis on railroads operating in the US. While discussions of modeling are welcome, please try to limit such discussions to issues relating to the prototype. This forum is not associated with any organization or group, and the authors of each post are solely responsible for the content of their post.

The forum is open to anyone to read, however if you wish to participate, you will have to register, and to provide a valid e-mail address. When you do so, you will be sent a confirmation e-mail with a link which you can use to activate your account. You are free to use a handle as your screen name should you wish to do so, however we do ask that you provide a real name in the profile associated with your handle. Beyond that all we ask is that you accord yourself as if you were visiting a friend's house, or roundhouse. Remember, you are responsible for anything you say.

Rights to all posts are owned by their respective authors. All other content copyright 2001- 2010 NGDF, all rights reserved.

This board is owned and operated by Don Richter. Others who have contributed to the upkeep of this board are (in no particular order): Herb Kelsey, Everett Lueck, Bill Ramaley, Rod Jensen, Russ Sperry (El Russo Loco), Josh McNeal, John West, Jim Armstrong, Bob Bergstrom, Greg Scholl, Blake Forbes, and Doug van Veelen.  
Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka"
Posted by: Dan Markoff (IP Logged)
Date: June 15, 2008 12:38PM

Many have asked me over the last couple of years when Eureka may be able to run on the Durango & Silverton, the Cumbres & Toltec or some other railroad outside of Nevada. In 2005 I applied to the FRA for a waiver of the removal of the tubes due to the minimal time Eureka had run,the care which it has received and the ideal conditions under which it is stored when not in use, as well as further detailed inspections by both FRA inspectors and Nevada State boiler inspectors. After thorough inspections, discussion, and examination of all the circumstances surrounding the minimal use, storage and condition of the locomotive, the FRA has granted the waiver request for Eureka. There are specific requirements and limitations in the waiver ruling which must be observed. It has been a long process, but the FRA has recognized the unique situation for the locomotive.

I do want to say, that in spite of the length of time it has taken to obtain the waiver, that it has been a pleasure working with the FRA. I am grateful to the FRA for allowing me the opportunity to again share Eureka in other venues than Nevada. To those that supported the waiver, I thank you. For those that did not think it should be granted, I respect your input nevertheless. However, the FRA rules do provide for the waiver process for special situations of which ALL the railroads from time to time have found it necessary to pursue for one reason or another. On a case by case basis, the FRA grants or denies them, depending upon the evidence. The FRA rules recognize that a given "rule" may not necessarily be a one size fits all situation. This goes not only for the FRA rules, but the Federal Aviation Regulations and many others.

I should also note, that the fact the waiver was granted was not something I planned on making any public comment about. However, inevitably, the word has leaked out and I have seen it published elsewhere on the internet. So, in light of the many inquiries I have received, and the current photo and article in Trains magazine special colllector's edition of "STEAM TODAY," I figured it was an appropriate time to say something.

It is not my desire to start a debate again whether a waiver should have been granted or not. Nor should this waiver be considered carte blanche for other steam locomotives to get a waiver. Considering the time, effort, and analysis that must be experienced in the process, in most cases I think that it is far more expedient to do the inspetion by pulling the tubes to get the engine back in service. This is particularly true when a locomotive is in more or less regular use, and many other factors. However, for Eureka the waiver process was the best course of action.

Anyway, for those that follow Eureka, I thought you would like to know the current status.

Dan Markoff



Subject Written By Posted
  Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" Dan Markoff 06/15/2008 12:38PM
  Re: Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" mesaman3000 06/15/2008 12:48PM
  Eureka at the Sacramento Railfair bcp 06/15/2008 12:52PM
  Re: Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" Fred T 06/15/2008 04:12PM
  Re: Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" Dan Markoff 06/15/2008 04:35PM
  Re: Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" John Cole 06/15/2008 09:40PM
  Re: Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" Eric Bolton 06/15/2008 04:16PM
  Re: Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" nscaler2 06/15/2008 09:16PM
  Re: Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" Herb Kelsey 06/16/2008 01:41AM
  Re: Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" Consol 06/16/2008 08:57AM
  Re: Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" Phil Reader 06/16/2008 10:32AM
  Re: Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" Steve Singer 06/16/2008 11:21AM
  Re: Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" Everett Lueck 06/16/2008 01:08PM
  Re: Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" Steve Stockham 06/16/2008 05:37PM
  Re: Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" rmontgomery 06/16/2008 06:15PM
  Re: Eureka & Palisade #4 "Eureka" Steve Hughes 06/16/2008 11:56PM


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Montezuma Lumber Co. engine number 271 with 7 cars. Photographed at McPhee, Colo., June 18, 1942.

Photo courtesy of the Denver Public Library Western History Collection catalog number OP-13259.

This forum powered by Phorum.