The bidding process was halted by the city. That's all I know.

The latest from Trains.

This development is a shame. The council should just do what's best for the locomotive. If they want to keep it in Texas, the only people I think could take her would be the Museum of the American railroad folks...and they didn't put in a bid, to my knowledge.

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/20 ... adam-queen

This makes me think of whether a generalized letter could be framed for municipalities "stuck" with a locomotive which they either are incapable of maintaining, dealing with as an insurance issue or public hazard, or just wishing to relocate or dispose of with preservation in mind.

There are some great locomotives which stand on a knife edge, to be decided by parties who have absolutely no understanding of the technology or issues related.

Of course, would be preservationists must prove themselves first.

Just a thought.

Is there a local report to confirm this? The search I was able to do produced nothing. Very interesting.

Robby Peartree

I have not read the Trains article, but the news suggested by the title and synopsis sounds like the status several months ago when the caretaker group failed to submit a bid or proposal to the latest public request for bids by the City last summer/fall.

As I understand, the caretaker group was interested in acquiring the locomotive and had made a proposal for purchase some time prior to the request for proposals last summer/fall, but that was turned down by the City. It is not clear why that first proposal was refused, or why the caretaker group failed to submit a proposal to the latest request for proposals.

Since the caretaker group has an interest in acquiring the locomotive; has made a proposal; and had demonstrated an ability to care for the locomotive; it is hard to understand why this deal cannot be put together.

I believe that the City expected to make that deal with the caretaker group, but wanted to go through the formality of placing the locomotive open for bids in the interest of public fairness. In reading their request for proposals, it seemed to me that there was a lot of leeway for a buyer to make commitments of care and public education about the locomotive and its story in lieu of a high purchase price with no strings attached. In other words, I think the City intended to work with the caretaker group to give them title to the locomotive. I recall that the City seemed sadly puzzled by the fact that the caretaker group refused to offer a proposal to the latest public request.

More restorations have been killed by politics and bureaucrats than lack of money. This seems to be the case. They seem to think there is a lot of money to be made ( AKA tax receipts ) in restoring a steam locomotive, or selling it for whatever reason. The group which has been taking care of it should be given the title to it. This should not be as hard as it is...

I don’t think this is about politics, bureaucrats, or a lack of money. I don’t think the City or their politics is spoiling the deal here. From what I have learned about this, the City wanted to convey the locomotive to the caretaker group. But the group has declined by not responding to the City’s Request for Proposals.

When the City first issued their RFP, the group’s reaction indicated that they felt the City’s RFP conditions were so stringent that it would have been impossible for the group to have met them. This perceived problem, plus the fact that the City was extending the offer to competing caretaker groups, was perhaps misunderstood by the Amarillo caretaker group as intentionally blocking them from acquiring the locomotive. I do not believe the City intended that at all. Indeed, I think the City preferred to convey the locomotive to the Amarillo group.

When I read the City’s RFP, I did not interpret it to mean what the caretaker group described as their interpretation. It certainly does not require a specific price that is beyond the ability of the group. Most of the requirements are about good faith commitments to caring for the locomotive and giving it a good home in Amarillo.

As far as I know the City has no need or plan to move the locomotive from its present location. The caretaker group apparently has some type of agreement to maintain the locomotive. So the City has no need to physically dispose of the locomotive.

This whole story began by a news article that was largely interpreted as the City trying to sell the hometown locomotive out from under its caretakers. In discussing this with the public information contact at the City, I was emphatically told that the City feels that news article conveyed a perception about the City’s intent that was not accurate.

Sounds like they are at it again. From Train Orders:

As of June 30, 2018....

RFP Process for "Madam Queen" on Track

Earlier this year, the City of Amarillo’s Purchasing department issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) after various groups or individuals expressed interest in the “Madam Queen,” a 1930s Santa Fe 5000 steam locomotive that was gifted to the City in April 1957. One bid was received and it was determined non-responsive, meaning not enough information was provided to fulfill the RFP requirements. An RFP was issued once again and two proposals were submitted by the RFP opening deadline, which was Thursday, Aug. 4. Those two proposals are currently going through the evaluation process. There is no statutory requirement for a public hearing in this process.

In the past, there have been agreements between the City and other groups for preservation and maintenance of this asset, but none remain in effect, and none restricted the City's authority to sell it.

Recent news coverage of the RFP has attracted nationwide attention, as well as questions. For instance, while the locomotive is on the National Registry, it is only a list of railroad equipment and that designation follows it regardless of location and ownership. The Texas Historical Commission has given the locomotive an educational marker and no other status.

“In fact, the locomotive has been moved before, including to its current location, which was and is a temporary location for it,” says City Attorney Mick McKamie. “Plus, it’s important to note that the land on which the locomotive currently sits is not now, nor has it ever been, a park or historic site.”

McKamie adds that the City has full, unrestricted ownership of the locomotive and that Texas laws related to the disposition of City-owned personalty are being followed in this RFP.

Boy, these Texas cities really hate their display locomotives. Maybe they should move the locomotive to Port Arthur to join the 503.
How can this be from 2018, it's still July, not August.....this looks like an old report just dredged up again.

No worse than plays with Trains magazine hates safety inspections of steam locomotives.
Why is this just a Texas thing? After all there are plenty of examples of neglected properties in other states.

Robby Peartree

A quick Google search (filtered for results within the last month) shows no new updates on the 5000 saga.