Randy Hees Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 1) Ownership, It appears that the group restoring
> the locomotive does not have the paperwork in
> place... ? (loan paperwork, ownership paperwork)
> Are they working on a hand shake deal and if so,
> who shook hands with who..
>

The Golden Spike Chapter never intended to own the locomotive. Read my earlier response in this thread; it was not a "handshake deal", the Golden Spike Chapter took on the project as a "friends" organization for the Union Station Foundation who took on stewardship as the state of Utah owned the locomotive but could not care for it. The ownership of the locomotive was an agreement between the Foundation and the State, and the restoration was an agreement between the Foundation and the Chapter.

> 2) They have been working on the locomotive for
> how long? with what to show? Would a rational
> state/city official see light at the end of the
> tunnel?
>
If you want to know what there is to show, please see the chapter's website at save223.org. The restoration progress is slow because of limited manpower and parallel projects (the chapter also fully restored two standard gauge passenger cars, an RPO and Army Hospital Car, as well as maintaining other Utah State Railroad Museum equipment pieces, while also working on the 223. While I've heard the accusation numerous times, we've never been sitting on our hands - just spreading our efforts over many projects).

> 3) A conversation with C&TS (not an agreement, or
> a draft agreement) might let it leave the state
> for operation elsewhere... what does the UtahOgden
> get? (think like a state official)
>
Ogden Utah has no say in this, they do not own the locomotive and should not make decisions regarding its fate unless the Utah State Historical Society decides to transfer full title to Ogden City which has not yet happened.

> It appears that Ogden has issues with the depot,
> and the groups formerly managing it, and their
> lack of performance... So Ogden has taken over
> depot operations, and is making alternative plans.
> Those plans are not as railroad-centric as we
> might like... but we (railroad community) didn't
> deliver so we don't get a say...
>

As far as I am aware, Ogden City had no problem at all with the Union Station Foundation. The chapter had no part in management, and "lack of performance" has never been mentioned by Ogden City or their representatives. The City never once checked in on the work being done until they pursued the option of having Union Pacific donate a large portion of their Ogden Yard facing the Union Station for commercial development. The problem was that they came up with a development plan which did not include the Union Station Foundation or supporting organizations and thus are trying to eliminate them from the equation.

> Does every engine need to run?
>
In this I agree, while I want it to run, it doesn't necessarily have to...but the elephant in the room is that an entire year's worth of restoration work has been lost and it will continue to lose time until Ogden City allows the chapter to resume work, or to remove the locomotive to a place where work can be performed. You mentioned that work has been slow, but of late the pace has picked up and all of the drivers, frame, cylinders, etc. minus the boiler would have been re-machined and completed by now, leaving only the boiler to do. This was the home stretch, we were so close to putting it all back together, and suddenly we were presented with a cease and desist order.

> So before we gather with torches and pitchforks,
> ask whether railroad preservation may have failed
> in this case....
>
> This looks a lot like several failed railroad
> museums in Ohio and Indiana...
>

Not really, but the details are too numerous to review again. In my opinion there are very few similarities between this situation and those.