Kelly,
You are correct. It would seem that there could have been a miscommunication and that the request was not needed under the circumstances. However, what happened was that I was called by the FRA and specifically told "you cannot operate in Durango." That sounded pretty clear to me and left no room for misunderstanding.
Also, you are correct in that the removal of the tubes is to allow for an inspection. I do not have any disagreement with the rule and think for a locomotive that has accumulated the allowed service time or a substantial amount of that time it should indeed be checked out.
The situation here, as you note, concerns a boiler with minimal time on the tubes, that has been boiler washed far more than is necessary, is thoroughly dried and stored in a very dry climate. The question is, should the rule have some leeway under those circumstances or should the rule be absolute. If absolute, then what of a locomotive that is restored, operated one day, and then stored properly for 15 years indoors. Should all the tubes have to be pulled for an inspection and removal of scale that could not have possibly accumulated?
As for the current tubes in Eureka, all inspectors have known when the tubes were put in. And I did in fact write the FRA about them. We are now coming up on the 15 years from when installed. The inspectors have been very reasonable in that regard. The current type of request for waiver would be made at the 15 year period in 2015 even if the tubes were put in the year 2000, assuming all other factors remained the same. If the FRA disallows the waiver, that is certainly within their power, and I will abide by their decision. If they deny it, as I mentioned earlier, then the questions becomes whether I will go through the expense to re tube just to operate one week per year on a railroad under the FRA. It does not make a lot of practical sense to do so. That is the reason for the waiver request.
You observations are very good, and I too have thought about them at length.
Dan Markoff