not trying to stur anything up, but is there any news on when 1361 will be moved back to Altoona?

Not trying to stir things up either, but is Altoona the best place to move the locomotive? It seems like an expensive move that will only require repetition in the future. Would a better use of the movement funds be to negotiate storage at a proven shop facility, like Strasburg, and send her their until the necessary funds are garnered?

Hey, don't yell at me! I have no ax to grind and I don't represent a group other than those who love Pennsy K4's! Just asking a question!

Well, I would guess we should all wait and see. The last substantive plans and announcements were made before the management changes at Altoona. I expect the new team has their plates full, and will let us all know in due time, schedule, changes, etc. I just hope they hold the line and continue to work toward completing this landmark project.

Bob Kutella

I agree,there needs to be a plan laid out before waisting money on moving her multiplr times. Strasburg sounds like a good place.

IMHO the wisest thing that could be done with this sad saga of a project is to send the pieces home to Altoona, reassemble the machine cosmetically for permanent display and put it in the front yard at the ARRMM and be done with it!
The other choice is to spend at least another million on top of the two million already poured down this hole and then you'll still have a house built on a VERY old foundation with extremely important open questions as to reliability, structural integrity etc.- for mainline duty!!
As the classic C&W song goes--" you gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em"!! Seems to me with the 1361 it's long past time to fold 'em!
IMHO-Ross Rowland

Several weeks ago, I became aware of a "posting" which sought an Audit Specialist 2 in the Comptroller's Office through which the RACP program that is funding the K-4 is fiscally administered and evaluated. A good deal of state auditing is done through the six Comptroller's offices, a part of the Office of the Budget, although most people think all auditors are part of the Auditor General's office, which is an independent agency, with a different mission.

I strongly suspect that the K-4 financial issues are the result of an audit. I'm willing to bet further this is a highly visible issue that might have gotten very high attention.

The requirements for this position are here:

http://www.scsc.state.pa.us/scsc/cwp/view.asp?a=392&q=129314
For those who don't feel like linking:

Audit Specialist 2 - One (1) year as an Audit Specialist 1; OR two (2) years of professional auditing experience and a bachelor's degree including or supplemented by 18 credits in accounting or auditing. Equivalent combinations of experience and training that include 18 credits in accounting or auditing are acceptable.

In part, it read:

[b]Recommends solutions to identified program management issues. [b]

You will note than audit specialist 2 needs 18 credits in accounting to qualify for that job title. However, the type of audit that would be performed over a project like the K-4 isn't what you would normally think (balance sheet, income statement) but a "performance audit". A performance audit is governed by the standards issued by the Federal GAO, and involves basically attempting to determine whether or not a project is meeting the requirements of its funding authorization, whether that is a grant, loan, guarantee whatever. Obviously, very few government performance audits are done on multimillion dollar steam restorations, so experience will be limited. The audit team would have likely gotten a crash course in locomotive design, maintenance and rehabilitation during the course of the audit.

As for a performance audit, the final product is (usually) a written report that identifies "findings". "Findings" can be succinctly broken down into five elements: I've added example language, which aren't massaged but will still give you an idea how this works.

Condition: What currently exists
K-4 project has expended X dollars (over original estimates) and due to several mechanical issues, is not operational.

Criteria: What should be
The K-4 should have been operational in T year, and completed at a cost of blank.

Effect: Why the difference between the condition and criteria matter.
The project has not produced the expected results of an operational steam locomotive, despite the expenditure of X dollars. (there'd likely be language about public funding being needed to be spend only under effective and effecient circumstances)

Cause: Why the difference between condition and criteria exist.
This is where the performance audit becomes a little bit of a detective game and requires creativity. Inevitably, when outside issues or unexpected things don't create the condition that's being analyzed in the finding, the cause will be considered to be a need for improved management, whether its operational or financial. In this case, the issues are mechanical and there were several individuals in charge of the project. No doubt the auditor identified this as a cause. Now even though WE KNOW that every restoration is an art project and asking when, how much would be a bit like tracking the painting of the Sistine Chapel, the fact is people need some progress to track, measured against some goal post. Ironically, you'll probably set your own goal post when you make predictions of when something will be done. Your predictions become the criteria (what should be) that'll be tracked. Even when government money isn't involved people set expectations based upon those predictions. Unfortunately, you can't put a sign on it that says "don't asK" as one popular road is rumored to have done.

Recommendation: What changes should be made to improve the program.
Given that there is a distance issue that precludes frequent personal oversight-and that some isses-like the rivet stock may have arisen because of miscommunication-recommending that the locomotive be brought to Altoona would be a no brainer.

Now, who'll contact their state rep to see if they can get a copy of any audits that might have been issued. Perhaps this would be something the Altoona Mirror would be disposed to obtain.

Superheater brings a very interesting new development to light. As most everyone knows this project has been surrounded with rumors/innuendos of missing/misapplied funds,misappropriated tools,machinery etc.,etc. for years and these (to date unproven) allegations have only grown as the money has added up and the progress has not kept pace.
Perhaps now, with a complete audit performed by qualified third party professionals those issues will be addressed once and for all.??
Let's hope for all concerned that the audit finds nothing more than well intentioned mis-management ? Lord knows there was ample amounts of that from start to finish!!! Time will tell.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!!
Ross Rowland

I have to disagree with the statement of mismanagement of the project from start to finish. For what it is worth I think those who made the decision to end the project after finding the problems with the wrapper sheet made a very prudent decision. I see no reason not to return the engine to Altoona. At least there the project can be managed on site. They have already got a lot of experience managing it from a hundred miles away.

John Bohon

Dave L
I wholeheartedly agree with you and Richard G. Strasburg is where she should have went in the first place, but Steamtown won the "issue" and now look where we are...tons of lost money, man hours, and all those years...STILL no steam!
Normally, I am a Ross Rowland fan and pretty much back him up with everything he has to say and did up to this point, but I totally disagree with him on this issue. 1361 was MEANT to run. Unlike the engines at RRMPA which will probably never run again, I believe that the 1361 should not be cosmetically restored and put on permanent display. I admire the RRMPA for having an awesome display of historic equipment; in fact 2 of my favorite engines are there. D16sb #1223 and E7s (E2) #7002 repectfully. I also despise the fact that many of the pieces, including my top two will never run anymore. This fact just cannot be held true with the K-4. What good is having a State Locomotive if people are going to just look at her and not be able to ride behind her? What good was all the time, effort and money when she ran in the 80's if that was the case? What was the use in her current rebuild if she is going to be on display? Someone said in a less than recent post, why have a museum that just says "here are our dead engines. Come look at them and imagine what it must have been like to see it operate. Now go home..." (Something like that)

There are other working museums in the US that have both static displays and operating engines; steam, diesel, electric, what have you...Why can't Altoona be one of those museums? Granted NS would have gripes about running steam on their lines, but hey! Didn't she run on The Nittany and Bald Eagle? I'm sure there are a lot of people there that would welcomd her back with open arms.

Over the past good number of years, a couple times each week, I would check The Railroad City website for progress on the 1361 and when I learned of this site where people from everywhere talk about everything, I thought, "this is a great place to get information about the progress".


Seems to me if there was any logic to this issue, progress would be a 6 letter word. I know that statement probably makes no sense but keeping the K-4 sidelined and withheld from running certainally doesn't make sense either!
Lets all just hope and pray that the new auditing works out for the best as well as the new administration in Altoona. I hope that someone out there reads ALL the chatter on this engine and does the right thing...
Run her.

I have managed an on-going restoration off-site as well as two contract restoration projects on-site. I would agree that having the work done on-site allows for much better communication and management.

Wesley

as far as the K4 being over budjet, and way late, how many government road, housing, etc projects do the very same thing. what amazes me is that it comes to this BEFORE things get put under a microscope. why are things kept in check while the money is being spent? I'm not bashing, just trying to understand.
I too believe 1361 was meant to run. I hope before I meet my maker to see big Pennsy steam run. I would dearly love to see 6755 and 4483 run too.

I concur. There were certainly some challenges and probably a few errors along the way, there's no plausible way to conclude this situation is attributable to persistent/pervasive mismanagement of the project. Undertaking such a project is in fact a bit like going into battle and its really unfair to second guess decisions made in the "fog of war".

While I think its a "no brainer" that auditors might conclude bringing the project "home" would improve oversight, my not so clear implication was that it might be picked because proximity is a well-known way to improve oversight of anything in general-but it may not really change anything in this matter. Unfortunately, you can't write a finding that says "due to the uncertainties involved in a project of this magnitude, it is impossible to affix a specific cause this project.

Additionally, lest I be misunderstood, the purpose of a peformance audit is administrative, not investigative. It focuses on objective things and is dry and dispassionate. Inspectors General or Attorneys General only become involved if there's fraud such as misreporting of results or misreporting of assets which meets a materiality threshold. (That doesn't mean Jones took a case of office paper)

I seriously doubt you would ever have a finding where the cause is listed as persistent or pervasive mismanagement in something like this. There's too much of the process thats an art and a seasoned auditor is going to understand that this is a different matter than paying for medical procedures or even building a new building, In those cases, the matter is going to be subject to well established, in many cases repetitive or routine procedures, with clear and established rules.

The paradox is that while its difficult to apply audit procedures to unique ventures, its the only tool of fiscal oversight and accountability we have available. Unfortunately, government is a creature that is almost completely set up to break things into little uniform widgets. Its mission on order and consistentcy is precisely what makes it gag on the uncertain and indefinite.

The central lesson is this: If you must use government funding for a restoration, use as little possible. When you take the money, ensure its being received for a carefully scoped out project, which is routine and well understood.

Using money to purchase raw materials is, in my estimation a good idea. Its very easy for an auditor to see the grant specs, examine your purchase order/packing list and receiving report and walk away happy. They don't need to know the gritty details of the ASME standard, just need to see pertinent documentation.

Big money grants bring questions that sometimes require answers that government simply isn't set up to handle.

Again Dave, I agree! But where would you run 6755? That would be MY next candidate for full restoration, but then again I don't have close to if not over a million dollars to spend (yet) nor will RRMPA relinquish The M to the public for excursions considering its the only one of its kind.

A gorgeous engine despite missing rods and appliances. The 4483 is another awesome engine that deserves run time too.

More pipe dreams I'm afraid...

Trust me Mr. Bohon, if you knew half of whats been brought to my attention you'd more than totally agree with my mis-management statement.
But that's water under the bridge as those individuals are no longer involved,which IMHO is a very good thing.
As far as moving it back to Altoona it probably makes sense especially if you're going to cosmetically finish it for display.
It will certainly be interesting to see what the audit uncovers.
Ross Rowland

A critical question in the restoration of a functional K4s is whether Altoona, despite its history, has the capability of rebuilding what remains undone today? If the boiler can be made sound, then run her.

Regarding the RMPA collection, I understand the line of preservation thinking that remands them to static status, but I think there are sufficient modern techniques available to document the construction of the locomotives and allow functional restoration. Of those in the collection, I'd like to see the E6s, and perhaps the M1b run. The K4s should be restored no matter what. The Western New York Railroad Historical Society hopes to one day operate the I1sa. I'll be dead by then, but I've left distinct orders to have my dried corpse thrown in the firebox!
Okay, it all defies logic, but it's great to think we might see the locomotives in their natural element one day.