Good Explanation Eric!

The better the operator/owner maintains the locomotive and performs quality periodic maintenance and (31, 92 service day and annual) inspections, the better the locomotive will be when the time for the comprehensive/1472 inspection arrives, reducing costs in the long run.

During my time as a steam inspector, I have seen all levels of maintenance, but those railroads that arrive at 1472 service days before 15 years have figured out that it is all about proper proactive maintenance and not running components to failure.

MD Ramsey

We've now been through multiple 1472's on multiple locomotives in Texas.

It's been all over the map. All paid staff, with some specialty contractor work, and we've never re-used tubes. You're going to get into at least $50K now for tube material cost.

You may get lucky on the boiler survey and not have thin sheets, we were doing good on one locomotive until the rear firebox sheet was thin, that was a $120K surprise, but it was done very well.

The current work being done is by choice, far more than a basic 1472, as a lot of deferred running gear work had to be done, along with wheels, axles, etc. It's really getting up there, but we budgeted for it, and at least on the boiler, no surprises, it's measuring out OK.

Whether your funding sources are public or private, they really need to understand that while the bare-minimum may be done, there's always 'other stuff' that may not be federally required but is still responsible stewardship of a locomotive, and may bite you.

One client locomotive several years ago had the unfortunate event of actually having a driver fall off the axle in service - it had actually been welded on a broken axle by a previous owner, and the welds were not visible unless you would have dropped the wheels. Whoops. Caveat emptor, but no injuries or even a significant derailment. As anyone will remind you, Federal standards should be considered as minimum. If you can get away with over-budgeting, you can usually find more things to do that should be addressed anyway.

For the SP 982, we are assuming that everything is going to need work, with a very rough estimate of 2.5 million to get a top notch ground up rebuild, including tender rehabilitation. We will know more once we move and start disassembly. One thing we do know for sure is the flues and tubes go in as late as possible to keep the clock from starting too early.

I too like this kind of thread where we talk about how to do things, why we do things and what happens as a consequence of our choices. Instead of demonizing each other in an adolescent attempt to make us look superior like a bunch of "mean girls".

So many variables on cost whether it be a follow up 1472 or a park engine rebuild. Chuck Hamm and I both helped extensively with the Polson #2 rebuild, not as shot callers but as boots on the ground swinging wrenches and fitting new and used parts back together. But the shot callers were there with us be it Skip or Gary B. I can't speak for Chuck but you get a very different perspective when you are actively involved rather than forming an opinion from your computer chair or gleaning info off your smartphone. Does not guarantee your any smarter but it does give you a different perspective when your up front and personal. You get to witness surprises and have a better understanding on why "it" was a surprise. How, after an ultrasound, can you have a surprise? So the variables go on and on.

What I liked and saw in action was working with two contractors who are well known and respected in this arena. The coolest thing I witnessed which was a real eye opener having come from the 1960/1970s era of patch and repair cheapest way possible to a modern 1472. Never was a master mechanic more a mechanics helper so I knew my way around but never the shot caller on major repairs. What impressed me was how anything that was still within minimum limits was repaired or replaced. The thought behind it was we have this thing torn down to a skeleton now is the time to address the issue as we will have to come back and address it next time or sooner if the system in question craps out. It was a whole new perspective after years of keeping things running versus a full blown rebuild or restoration. It felt so good to repair things even if though it was above condemning limits but close. So back to Chucks question and the many answers how was the original form 4 completed. Was the attitude similar in scope to the 1970s attitude of C&NW {cheap and nothing wasted} or was it "were leaving nothing to chance if it is suspect of not lasting or being left at near acceptable limits". "We won't worry about that this time, we will address it next time". Sometimes that is the correct decision. Sometimes not.

I think back to two boilers I worked on. The Polson #2s barrel been treated with Ephixer. The Western Coal and Coke barrel had not been. Right there two comparably sized boilers had uneven playing fields. Both suffered from severe pitting but overall the boiler on the Polson #2 was in better shape. The Polson boiler could of been done cheaper but extensive work was done in order to do it right. The WC&C it just had to be or still needs to be done. Proper boiler tx after the the park engine is run or after the first 1472 will save thousands of dollars and a pile of man hours/labor later. Possibly as soon as the next 1472. As had already been stated some RR can do a 1472 way more cheaply because of good shop practice or taking care of say running gear work or a new cab or tender in the off season. This will not be added onto the cost of the 1472. The cost of the 1472 may not be the total cost of the restoration. If you keeping accurate books anyway. You would or at least I would think the second 1472 would be less expensive. But the same variables arise as did the original restoration. Think the industry has come a long way in understanding many of these things now. The cost has made it necessary to take a more professional view. On the same token throwing money out the window and thinking that spending money is the same as doing things right is equally stupid. Dicy business getting and keeping a locomotive both safe and compliant in todays world. I thank all for contributing as maybe some armchair mechanics might glean some perspective on some of the variables you face in keeping or getting a steam locomotive running. Getting involved is the best teacher and your perspective evolves from experience rather than opinion or worse yet, popular opinion. Regards, John.