Re: Utah state trying to stuff and mount D&RGW #223 a different view
| September 09, 2019 07:47PM |
Randy Hees Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Issues around 223... (or playing devils
> advocate)
Good questions. I hope I'm able to answer them accurately
> 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..
If you read D&RGW 223's post above, he states that the GSRLHS had a written agreement with the Railway and Locomotive Historical Society (a Utah state agency) to restore 223 to operation condition. The paperwork was found and presented but both the state of Utah and City of Ogden have chosen to ignore this agreement. +
> 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?
With limited resources (and AFAIK, no financial support from the state), the GSRLHS fully restored the tender, separated the boiler from the running gear, and restored the running gear.
> 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)
I have not seen the proposal, but I believe it was more then a conversation. I believe it was a formal proposal. I don't believe the state chose to make a counter-proposal.
> 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...
This is a different issue from #223. The GSRLHS was not responsible for managing the depot but did help out when needed.
> Does every engine need to run?
Certainly not, but when an engine, especially one of this historical significance, has a chance to run, it should be taken.
> So before we gather with torches and pitchforks,
> ask whether railroad preservation may have failed
> in this case....
I wouldn't call an active and resourceful group making progress on a project a failure.
I don't advocate torches and pitchforks, but I do think calls and letters are warranted.
Greg Coit
Bayfield, CO
-------------------------------------------------------
> Issues around 223... (or playing devils
> advocate)
Good questions. I hope I'm able to answer them accurately
> 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..
If you read D&RGW 223's post above, he states that the GSRLHS had a written agreement with the Railway and Locomotive Historical Society (a Utah state agency) to restore 223 to operation condition. The paperwork was found and presented but both the state of Utah and City of Ogden have chosen to ignore this agreement. +
> 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?
With limited resources (and AFAIK, no financial support from the state), the GSRLHS fully restored the tender, separated the boiler from the running gear, and restored the running gear.
> 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)
I have not seen the proposal, but I believe it was more then a conversation. I believe it was a formal proposal. I don't believe the state chose to make a counter-proposal.
> 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...
This is a different issue from #223. The GSRLHS was not responsible for managing the depot but did help out when needed.
> Does every engine need to run?
Certainly not, but when an engine, especially one of this historical significance, has a chance to run, it should be taken.
> So before we gather with torches and pitchforks,
> ask whether railroad preservation may have failed
> in this case....
I wouldn't call an active and resourceful group making progress on a project a failure.
I don't advocate torches and pitchforks, but I do think calls and letters are warranted.
Greg Coit
Bayfield, CO
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
488 stops for water at Los Pinos tank on closing day Oct. 1979. Photo courtesy Don Richter
The NGDF was started by Don Richter and is currently operated in his memory by Nathan Holmes and others. Others who have contributed to the upkeep of this board are (in no particular order): Charles McCandless, Everett Lueck, Ted Wilton, Cole Adams, James Bane, John Moellmer, Jon Bentz, Linn Moedinger, lloyd lehrer, Rod Jensen, John Craft, Steven Forney, Herb Kelsey, Bill Ramaley, Russ Sperry (El Russo Loco), Josh McNeal, John West, Jim Armstrong, Bob Bergstrom, Greg Scholl, Blake Forbes Doug van Veelen and Mark Fuller.