The Pennsy K4 constantly brings up allegations of mismanagement about the restoration/rebuild process. Most comments by people who lack steam experience. Similar complaints are widely heard about many, many other projects.

Moving away from that project, and towards a more positive note, what is the best example of recent (last 15 years or so) planning for a steam loco restoration…. Planning, budgeting, problem solving once work is started?

I hear the phrase, “you can’t plan until you have taken it apart, you don’t know what you will find” way too often. This tends to result in a ongoing, never ending, maybe stalled project which looks way too much like a rusty boiler and frame, surrounded by pallets containing rusty barrels of misc. parts, well hidden by weeds. The "old steam guys" seem to be better at wrenching than at planning... they work toward a goal until derailed by a problem.

There are ways of planning for the unknown… defined phases which include limited disassembly and tests, with a chance to redefine the work needed. Informed speculation on what might be expected to be wrong. Something like “Typically we find we need to replace some firebox sheets, which in a locomotive of this size/design could cost $x.xx” or “this locomotive has 98 flues which will cost $x.xx to replace….

Clearly the Union Pacific has a system to manage its locomotives in a modern corporate environment.

What secretes do you know?

Randy, whether steam or diesel, the needs are similar. You need a realistic business plan, to assure that the project has sufficient potential for an economically viable outcome to justify doing it at all. Then the project requires the input of a knowledgable technical person or persons right from the beginning, who can conduct inspections, determine the scope of repairs needed, and evaluate the availability of suitable materials to accomplish that work. Then it needs the services of a skilled planner to contact prospective suppliers and establish prices and lead times for both the on site work and for any components that will have to go to outside service shops so that a realistic budget for the project can be developed. Failing to execute these preliminary steps can result in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars going in the wrong direction, as has been done on a number of memorable instances in the preservation field. A particular diesel project in the Northeast, and a steamship restoration project, come to mind immediately.

Finally a restoration project needs leadership with the wisdom to know when to call it quits and put the equipment on static display if unexpected costs are going to run the price of restoration for operation into the stratosphere.

I could go on about this hobby and industry, but some of the audience might be offended by what I would say. I explained rather bluntly the common mistakes at the ARM meeting two years ago in Washington PA.

PC

The Pennsy K4 project is IMHO the worst "managed" loco. project in the history of the industry. Matter of fact the malfeasance involved here was so wide spread and rampant as to make this a must see case study for any proposed future loco. restorations.

Anyone who carefully studies this sad 12 year saga will clearly see the major mistakes made by its series of "managers".

From my involvement over the years in a number of total rebuilds I'd say that it is true that you will not be able to establish the scope of work until/unless you completely disassemble the machine and then, and only then, will you see what needs to get done.

The strongest advice I'd share with anyone contemplating a steam loco. restoration is to vet the small handful of pros in the business who have well documented successes, hire one of them, and then stay OUT OF THE WAY!!!

IMHO-Ross Rowland

In regards to the boiler phase of the restoration, leave your passions at the door and let the boiler survey (done properly) provide you with the work scope for this phase of the restoration!!!!

My 2 cents,
Mike Tillger

Too add to Mike's comment. Before you pull the engine out of the park have the firebox survey done. The firebox is the most common place you are going to dump a ton of money and for the most part you can get to most of it without a major tear-down. If you find paper thin sidesheets then figure out how you are going to replace them before you doing anything else. You will never find all of the problems without a total tear down but thin firebox metal is very common and also very costly. If you can't afford to deal with all of those rivets, staybolts, and mudring leave the old girl in the park.

There's a limited amount of potential planning that can be competently done based on a limited amount of necessary information on which to base the plan. The more work is done in gathering information, the better the plan......and in this business, a lot is learned from exploratory surgery.

In my progressive approach article, I listed several steps in progressively gathering information through stages of disassembly and inspection, at the end of each of which a decision was made as to whether to continue to disassemble and explore or to reverse the process and reassemble. I'm not recommending it as the only way - but it can be a useful tool for managing the specification and estimation part of the process in digestable bites.

Even if done through the process, until the metal is actually being worked on, some conditions might not be brought to light. There isn't a method of practical use available to us that will gusrantee all potential conditions requiring repair can be discovered in an inspection / disassmebly phase.

In terms of long term projects and their management - especially publicly funded ones - targets move and funds are tied up in straight jackets of red tape and requirements of performance not directly connected to the job itself. Regulatory requirements can change during the course of a project - remember the dome lid "crisis?" Great technicians and engineers aren't always great managers. great boiler guys aren't always great running gear guys. Competences vary from individual to individual, and having more than one expert at work under a good manager isn't a bad way to get complex projects done.

Managers can work well in one structure but not another.

Lots of variables, and any finger pointing about one particular set of circumstances isn't necessarily applicable to any other.

dave

Folks,

i am a simple historian with no knowledge of the engineering involved with the boiler, running gear or whatever.

But I have to comment that before you take that steam locomotive off static display you should thing about where it is going to operate after it is restored.

i have been watch the preservation field for almost 25 years and steam locomotives seem to have many fewer places where they are welcome than in years ago.

The modern corporate culture of main line railroads knows from nothing about steam; the UP being the one great exception.

So where are you going to run except museum owned trackage that is basicly seperate from the "real" railroads.

i find it pretty amazing that some of the longest distance steam powered railroads are the narrow gauges such as the C&TS in Colorado, the Sumpter Valley in Oregon.
They are in the heritage business and not in the freight moving business.

So the way to go is thing small; especally if that locomotive you are interested in is small enough to move around with a highway truck.

I hope that the future brings a successful conclusion to many more locomotive restorations; but I expect to see a lot more 2-6-0s than 4-8-4s.

Ted Miles

The answers above are for the most part just not working for me… We have deviated into business plans, valid for tourist operations, or if the management believes that revenue will be generated, and needs to test cost against revenue. We have had a post calling for smaller locomotives. This still does not address how people are planning and managing successful steam rebuilding projects…

This is not just park engines… the issue seems to affect engines every time they need their FRA 1400 some day mandated boiler inspection. Do we all truly believe all we have to do is strip off the lagging, cut out the tubes, test the shell and put the tubes back in… and while we are at it we will look at the rod bearing that is making noise… then act surprised when the firebox sheets are thin, and there are cracks in an axle.

So many steam projects seem to fall into one of two general planning concepts…

Option 1, “You can’t possibly plan and budget until you take it apart”

Option 2, “Get someone good and give him the keys to the safe”

Neither is planning, They are excuses to not plan.

Having been on the board of several museums, I wouldn’t be comfortable with either option. I was hoping for a description of the work expected, with costs, and time, along with predictable possible issues, with possible costs.

Both of the above models seem result too often in a locomotive being disassembled, some work started, then the project abandoned as the scope and or cost is understood, leaving the locomotive unsuitable for static display (no jacket, cab off, parts piled on skids in the weeds) as the group starts work on some other engine which it is hoped doesn’t need as much work.

I have seen projects which start with a “blue sky” low ball estimate, which was never defendable but satisfied the group’s board. Rarely have I seen a plan which says take it this far apart to determine if it is reasonable to go further, with resources identified in advance to put it back together if rebuilding for operation is not financially possible.

At least two posts suggested early boiler or firebox testing to identify issues. At least this is a step in the right direction.

Clearly Strasburg and the Colorado Railroad Museum have some sort of contract to cover RGS 20, and previous work on D&RG 346, with work and costs, along with occasional opportunities to revisit the scope of work (and authorization to increase the cost of the project as experience warrants). It appears that the Colorado Historical Society (Georgetown Loop) signs hard contracts, then gets a locomotive with as much work done as they paid for, whether the appropriate job or not. )

One poster discussed the specialized nature of the work, and how some who are skilled craftsman are not good at communication. This seems to be too often true of both paid professionals and volunteers.

It seems that these issues revolve around steam projects more often than they do railroad car, electric streetcars, or diesel projects.

There are lots of non railroad projects, for example historic buildings where the scope of work is unknown until the project is underway. These projects seem to succeed much more often, although I have seen projects building so over engineered that they really take the building apart then reuse the salvage to build a new code building… at great cost, but in those cases the (great) cost is generally known in advance.

Back to the original question, who is planning, and managing steam projects well, and what is their system?

I'm not privy to the agreement between CRRM and Strasburg, but I'd venture to suggest it is somewhat open ended and evolves with the progress of the job. CRRM has a lot of knowledgeable people involved and as a private sector non profit, they can make any legal agreement as they see fit.

I can attest to CHS being a state agency with no knowledgeable people (in railroad preservation technology) involved. They are bound by inflexible state agency rules for procurement which force projects into structures which aren't based on the realities of the nature of the job. They rely on the services of vendors and consultants of widely divergent abilities and integrities, without consulting with their operator. Based on my experience, the consultants most valued by CHS are those with whom a personal comfort factor has been developed with their staff, rather than through proven quality and reliability.

Others mileage may vary........

The article I cite in the posting above specifically is about forcing decisions to be made in a step by step process as the survey process progresses, so that it can be halted and reversed if necessary before an artifact is turned into a kit. Might review it.

dave

If you are going to rebuild a locomotive, then rebuild a locomotive. If you want to collect railroad history, then don't try to rebuild a locomotive.

I currently don't have a direct answer to Randy's question, but will offer a "big picture" viewpoint:
The best approach to a restoration is education. There is a dividing line between the full-time steam railroads and the new restoration single project folks. Whereas the full time organizations have their own track record and know, or can guess with a fair amount of certainty what their costs will be, the beginning-a-project or once-in-a-blue-moon efforts are usually the ones that get into trouble.

For the beginning a project folks, I offer the following comments:

1) The managing Board of Directors and/or General Manager usually doesn't know about these type of projects and their costs. The senior management must educate themselves and do a comprehensive study of recent similar projects to determine their own project's boundries, and understand the potential pitfalls therein. There is no way that any person(s) from within their organization or hired help can function without the management being able to understand and communicate.

2) The project manager can be a person from within the organization or hired. The senior management must also understand the pros and cons of this person being from within or hired. The project manager must understand his/her scope of knowledge and limitations, and when further specialized craftsmen and resources are required.

3) The Board of Directors and the Project Manager must develop an initial project restoration plan based upon recent similar projects and the timeline and costs involved. This plan is tweaked to suit hired and volunteer labor, and suit the financial resources at hand. The plan must be flexible and be reviewed periodically as the work progresses.

4) The use of contractors must be monitored to make sure that the project timeline and budget is maintained. Deviances must be addressed as needed.

The actual nuts and bolts assessment and restoration costs are a part of this larger management issue.

The Article Dave refered to is found in the articles section of RYPN. He wrote it in 2003, and it is exactly what I was looking for...

http://www.rypn.org/RyPN/articles/viewa ... 021732.txt

Thanks, Randy

Thanks.

Apart from seriously old wooden custom built carbodies most of what we find in the nonsteam categories falls into the noncustom, mass produced "stock model" category. Think interchangeable parts, mass produced components, etc. Makes working on them less complex and each project more alike than unique.

There is also working modern infrastructure still manufacturing cars, light rail vehicles, replica trolleys and diesel electric locomotives, and remanufacturing components like traction motors and power assemblies. Problems generally are heavy structural stuff (weld in new hunks of steel) or are finding that little fixture that hasn't been made since Pullman shut that plant down in 1964. Newly built steam locomotives - the few there are - are still pretty much custom built. Manufacturing techniques have improved but each part still must be custom crafted and fit.

Knowledge about steam is mostly lost, but a lot of IC and electrical knowledge remains in practical use by lots of people every day.

I think steam locomotives are unusually challenging for these reasons - Ted will probably add steamboats to the equasion as well.

dave

Call it a wild guess, but it seems to me that, steam diesel or otherwise, the complexity and mismanagement of restorations seems proportional to the level of foam and romance (foamance?) surrounding the object at hand.

It seems like when people are serious about delivering "on time and under budget", they plan for the black-sky worst case scenario, then suffer a series of pleasant surprises...