Railway Preservation News :: View topic

perhaps complaintants would like to help when the project restarts. I think AFBoone would be able to point you in the right direction as to contacting the park. You'll have to fill out a volunteer services form but that's no more difficult than penning a nasty missive on the internet. Any takers?

Author:	tyrok1 [ Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Union Pacific 4012
m3ohwell wrote: THIS IS PRESERVATION! Hmmm...no, I don't think so. :)

Author:	car57 [ Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Union Pacific 4012 NOT preserved
NOT preservation..... This is being given totally irrelevant stuff for nothing, and not caring about it. UP should be really embarassed and remove it from here. mike

Author:	Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Union Pacific 4012
Quote: UP should be really embarassed and remove it from here. Ummmmmm........... 1) At what point does UP have the right to take back a previously donated object? I don't think even a "must maintain in good cosmetic condition" clause would stand a chance in a court proceeding. 2) The cost of shipping that monstrosity to the West on 2009 railroads would be bigger than the size/weight of that loco.......... Would it not be much more cost-effective for UP to donate the cost of a good repaint? 3) Even if UP donated that cost, who's to say it would speed up the repaint? Furthermore, once it's repainted, wouldn't SNHS promptly put it out in the open again as a prime exhibit and "billboard"?

Author:	car57 [ Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Union Pacific 4012
It bears their name on it, of course they have a right to say what happens to it.

Author:	Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Union Pacific 4012
car57 wrote: It bears their name on it, of course they have a right to say what happens to it. I would hate to think what this "policy" would mean for any UP, CN, or CP equipment sitting anywhere in preservation. Or, for that matter, since UP retains trademarks on predecessor road names, any SP, WP, or other predecessor-UP equipment out there. Heck, if we apply this approach to an extreme, wouldn't the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have something to say about derelict ex-PRR rolling stock? Look, the donation to Steamtown occurred 45 years ago next month. The Big Boy, as I recall, looked far worse up in Vermont for a spell. If every loco donation bore with it restrictions such as these, no one would ever accept the obligation and long-term fiscal responsibility of such a donation.

Railway Preservation News https://rypn.org/forums/

Union Pacific 4012 https://rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27193	Page 1 of 2

Author:	superheater [ Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Union Pacific 4012
It bears their name on it, of course they have a right to say what happens to it. Not to be blunt, but you either have no knowledge of the mechanics of property conveyances or you are kidding. I hope the latter. Steamtown used to have a retired volunteer named Irv B., who took a special interest in the engine. Irv passed away several years ago and nobody else has stepped forward with a bucket of paint..so perhaps complaintants would like to help when the project restarts. I think AFBoone would be able to point you in the right direction as to contacting the park. You'll have to fill out a volunteer services form but that's no more difficult than penning a nasty missive on the internet. Any takers? [url]If every loco donation bore with it restrictions such as these, no one would ever accept the obligation and long-term fiscal responsibility of such a donation.[/url] Lets be real. Our precious artifacts were SCRAP to the donor. Some RR's were very active in donating engines (UP, SP &ATSF). Assuming that Mr. Blount had a tax-exempt in place (you can't get a deduction for donating to a regular company or individual, just tax-exempts and government entities) , you can bet that UP's accountants were looking to obtain a charitable deduction in lieu of a check from a scrapper. You only get a federal tax deduction for the fair market value of donated property if your donation involves a complete and irrevocable interest in the donated property.

Author:	joneau261 [ Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Union Pacific 4012
Aren't some of the other engines going to be repainted as well?

Author:	Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Union Pacific 4012
superheater wrote: perhaps complaintants would like to help when the project restarts. I think AFBoone would be able to point you in the right direction as to contacting the park. You'll have to fill out a volunteer services form but that's no more difficult than penning a nasty missive on the internet. Any takers? And let me advise you, as someone who has been there, done that, on much smaller locos: About six hours into the first day of scraping rust and old paint, you will find out first-hand why it's called a "BIG Boy". <:-/

Author:	mikefrommontana [ Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Union Pacific 4012
Since the original post said that painting work started last year, perhaps some of what we see (especially on the cab) could be prep work that was not primered before weather stopped the work. Interesting to notice how the tender paint is holding up much better than the boiler, and that the smokebox and running gear are holding paint (more or less) better than the sheet metal lagging and cab. Pretty? No. Instructive, yes. Makes a pretty good case for some kind of shelter--even if open sided. Michael Seitz Missoula MT

Author:	Stationary Steam [ Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Union Pacific 4012
It seems that castings always seem to hold paint better than sheet metal. On the various stationary engines that I have worked on the areas that were made of rolled steel always rust and flake paint before the cast areas. We all know that cast iron doesn't oxidize as fast as steel does. I've also noticed that tender sides usually hold onto paint for a long time. Perhaps its because of multiple layers of paint due to the application of lettering, or perhaps the flat sides have fewer protrusions, seams and other stuff that can be missed by the painter and cause a rust formation point. The paint job should last indefinately. The shingled or steel roof should be taking the weather, were it to exist!

Author:	Afboone [ Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Union Pacific 4012
Hi gents!!! Steamtown has a contract to have all 8 locomotives out front painted. This should be done before the summer. I think they got some stimulus money to re-build the burned out building out back. They are going to make into a shed for the cars and some of the engines. I can't wait for next week to move 565 to the pit. If the folks with the K4 could get that thing out of there I would have a bay to work on 565.

Author:	Richard Glueck [ Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Union Pacific 4012
"Our precious artifacts were SCRAP to the donor."- Superheater. Absolutely true. Union Pacific had 4023, in excellent condition, in the Cheyenne roundhouse for years, alongside the 844 and 3985 ( and a sacrificial 838, and the 2-10-2). They discarded the 4023 to a park where it is essentially irretrievable. The Challenger went on display, then was pulled out only by the good graces of management and work crew who donated time and effort. Had U.P. cared about a Big Boy, 4023 would have seen steam long ago. I doubt U.P. cares too much about what happens to the steam locomotive off their own property, at this point. It is nearly 50 years since the last Big Boy saw heat and the giants remain only as curiosities, and not as investments. What happens at Steamtown, or any other display site is the museum's business, not U.P.'s. If the locomotive is well kept, it promotes the company's name. If it falls into disrepair, it faults the present owner or custodian. 4012 is a big responsibility. I think we are far more interested in the locomotive than is either U.P. or the NPS.

Author:	ctjacks [ Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Union Pacific 4012
I need to comment on two themes in this thread: 1. About UP not "caring" about artifacts such as the 4012: actually, UP has been very touchy in recent years about what their name goes on, as I am sure anyone who reads this board knows. 2. The bigger issue here is that only 15 years ago these engines got very nice paint jobs, and after only 10-11 years they looked ready for the scrapper again. Is it an efficient use of limited funds to paint these engines again without a sheltered place to use them? Chris.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/