In order to clear up some confusion regarding the recent debacle involving a project in Stearns, KY, Steam Operations Corporation offers the following comments:

Steam Operations Corporation (SOC) was not a party to the recent lawsuit regarding K&T 14. SOC was brought into this project in 2003 and found a locomotive already disassembled by others and a much of the budget already spent. Following an initial assessment and UT testing, a letter outlining the scope of work was sent to the McCreary County Heritage Foundation on March 27, 2003. This scope of boiler work approved for this project was:

Replacement of the Dry Pipe
Replacement of the Rear Tube Sheet, Firebox Side Sheets, Firebox Crown Sheet, and Firebox Door Sheet including all Staybolts and Mudring Rivets
Installation of Two new Huron Washout Plugs on First Course
Installation of a Second Water Glass
Replacement of Existing Washout Plugs to Huron Washout Plugs
Determination of Carbon Content for 1st and 2nd Boiler Courses

A full engineering report provided to the McCreary County Heritage Foundation and the FRA Regional Inspector on January 12, 2004. The report including the Form 4, boiler calculations, certified mill test reports for all new material, UT results, ASNT inspector certification, a full set of proprietary boiler drawings (generated new as no original drawings were available), and witness forms for the hydro and steam test (when performed). Boiler work was authorized as well as a new tender tank, tender frame repairs, and rolling bearing trucks (tender was ready to go). Running gear work included new tires, new shoes and wedges, quartered crank pins, new crown brass and rod bushings, valve cages bored and new valve rings installed, appliances rebuilt and new air reservoirs purchased (only pistons and crosshead work remained). Work continued until all remaining funds were exhausted. Requests for additional grants to keep the project moving forward did not materialize and SOC left the project around October, 2004.

What happened after SOC left the project was beyond the control of SOC and we cannot speak to those actions performed by others.

As for this talk of lowering the crown sheet, the drawings approved for this project as submitted in the engineering report show the crown at the ORIGINAL location. SOC was concerned about water level over the crown sheet due to the 3.5% grade on this railroad and produced a drawing (Drawing 117) to locate the water glasses and determine the minimum water level needed in the sight glasses before ascending the grade. In addition, drawings 104, 105, and 114 show 320 tubes in the front and rear tube sheets. Furthermore, the firebox sheets fabricated for this project were test fit and all bolt holes were in correspondence. The holes were drilled undersize for reaming and tapping to final diameter prior to the installation of threaded staybolts.

This concludes all comments by Steam Operations Corporation on this project.

I'm very pleased that SOC has caused to have the above remarks posted. They have earned the highest possible reputation in the industry and this statement certainly illustrates why that is.

SOC has done a number of projects in the past for me and their work has always been done to the highest degree of professionalism possible and ALWAYS with safety as the number one concern.

Ross Rowland

I have no argument with the scope of work outlined by Mr. Ray representing SOC. I was never privy to the documentation as I stated in my other post. I will stand corrected on the crown sheet final location, but do remember discussion about it's "new" position, either lowering it or leaving it as built. However, I HIGHLY disagree on the spending of the budget. The disassembly of the locomotive did not consume the budget.

I did see the original front tube area that was removed, and did see photos of the new patch, and do know that two sets of five tubes (10 total) are missing from the bottom.

As stated earlier, I'm past debating. It is what it is.