I think this is a great project. The 103 is a handsome little engine with many admirers, and is probably just the right size for RMNE's operations. As other groups around the US have shown, the Baldwin logging engine design is well suited to low-speed excursion service, even if 103 may have been too small for the Valley RR.

RMNE's press release says they are hoping this project will be a catalyst for new member and volunteer interest, and I hope and expect that will be the case. I live just 45 minutes from Torrington now and it's certainly gotten my attention.



I think Ed may be alluding to Youngstown Steel Heritage's recent problems with the state of Ohio, which has deemed the 2-foot gauge railroad an "amusement ride" and is requiring original engineering specs for the equipment which Rick doesn't have, so he's no longer permitted to offer public train rides. I hope this is just an Ohio problem (given the presence of Cedar Point) and not something that groups in other states need to worry about.

-Philip Marshall

Hi
I am glad too see that the Railroad Museum of New England does plan to restore this locomotive.. Yes she is small and has limited pulling capacity but if it fits for what the museum has in mind for the locomotive then do it.
Also this will give the full time members and the ones that volunteer at the museum to work on this locomotive,,,
and Maybe someday we will see CPR # 1246,,, back under Steam again which the museum also owns..
But for now let the museum get the Sumter & Choctaw # 103 back under Steam,,, again...
The following information came from Steam Locomotive information,, on the Sumter & Choctaw # 103,,, along with photo... Pat.
Note the boiler pressure of this locomotive is only # 200 psi,, according to the book put out by J.David Conrad ,,,The Steam Locomotive Directory of North America Vol # 1..

Only? This is a shortline and woods lokie, not a superpower Berkshire. I'd expect anything from 160 to 200 PSI.

Youngstown Steel Heritages problems are primarily due to the track gauge. The State of Ohio Dept of Agriculture Amusement Ride Inspection division is following the ASTM standards for amusement park trains. The standards involve "a train that runs on a track gauge of a minimum of 10" to a maximum of 24". Anything under or over is not under their jurisdiction. Cedar Point and Kings Island railroads are under the jurisdiction of the State Dept of Industrial Safety.

Thank you for the clarification.

-Philip Marshall

Agreed, however I knew the reference.

And this is no doubt the part of the Ohio Code the regulators are relying on.

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-993.01

Mothing in that language would exempt anything on two rails because of the location of a prior owner. Then again, RMNE runs a railroad and the FRA doesn't care who owned a locomotive, they only care that it complies with the rules under their jurisdiction (Part 230)

Here he claims there's a "higher standard", but can't cite it, and instead alludes to situation a which he should know is irrelevant to the bee in his bonnet.

Post Script:

Was sent this link which provides context for the apparently aggressive enforcement. Always remember, every time a horrific tragedy results in "there ought to be a law", a bureaucrat smiles, because no doubt such a law will be vague enough to expand their petty little fiefdom.

https://farmoffice.osu.edu/blog-tags/tylers-law

I don't understand how you don't see my point: there are people in this world who don't support railroad preservation organizations and will act against them. Preservation organizations need to be prepared to defend against those people and their actions.

Staying "on mission" is critically important to have a leg to stand on when those people start making trouble.

Take a look at the history of operations like the ones in Noblesville, Pemberton, and Youngstown to see this the case, and the bad outcomes that can happen when organizations don't pay attention to this stuff.

Do I think restoring 103 to operation by the RMNE is a bad idea? Not necessarily. I DO think, however, that it's important that the RMNE and its friends have smart answers ready for when someone asks about what restoring a locomotive that ran in the Deep South has to do with "telling the story of the region’s rich railroad heritage".

If that answer is only "because steam engines attract visitors", so be it, but know that that answer might not satisfy everyone who's asking the question.

Ed, I think you make a valid point, especially given that RMNE/Naugatuck leases its railroad from the State of Connecticut (as does the Valley RR).

-Philip Marshall

Because bluntly, you don't have a "point", you have an indignation-or more correctly a series of itinerant indignations. How do you expect anybody to understand an emotional reaction in search of an objective reason?

Your initial comment:

'Hate to be the devil's advocate, but... what does the 103 have to do with New England?"

Was a question of geographic relevance (which adds an element historicity but doesn't have any particular advantage in educating the public about railroads or locomotives generally) and when multiple citations of well respected operations operating locomotives originally built for service in far away places was given, you distinguished between private ventures and museums.

Then examples of museums with equipment from other areas was provided; so you cited by allusion, Youngstown, which is a problem of jurisdiction based upon whether or not it is an "amusement" that has absolutely nothing to do with the place of original service.

So, returning to your original post-how do you think geographic connect is going to mitigate against the threat of existing or emergent public antipathy, which will likely be based upon NIMBY concerns such as smoke or noise?

Just be honest an admit you have an idiosyncratic, emotional reaction to a NE operation running a locomotive from "somewhere else".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Deg7VrpHbM

This is the first time that I have seen Pemberton referred to as an 'operation'; it was a static display of mostly some steel mill equipment and paper artifacts in an old station. Also, the Naugatuck, which operates trains on behalf of RMNE, is a common carrier railroad, under the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board, with equipment maintained to FRA standards. Hardly an amusement, to be sure.

Returning to 103, here she is in Google Streetview, image dated May 2019:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6373107,-73.0774795,3a,69.9y,265.37h,96.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNcOAcX7BQBTst2fseUMgqA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

-Philip Marshall

There's ample practice and no valid limitation of having a collection based on the expressed function of being used in demonstration service having a different geographic history that the one on which strictly preservation rather than use is included in the mission statement. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a part of an accessioned defined collection. Consider it as a generic demonstration and interpretation tool that's the right size in the right place needing it for that purpose and welcome it back. RMNE knows what it's doing and why and there's nothing malicious or unprofessional about it. Have any objection to RMNE using a brass hammer to test the staybolts that came from the D&RG rather than the New Haven?

I understand Mr. Ed’s concern, but I don’t think it’s relevant under the circumstances. I’m not aware of any agency having the jurisdiction or authority to question or prevent RMNE from possessing, restoring, or operating any piece of equipment it owns on the basis of provenance.

People can question 103’s place at RMNE all they want. RMNE is one of many museums that own items not directly tied to their collection focus. 103 is appropriately categorized within the collection and I’m sure certain members are prepared to answer questions when and if the time comes.

RMNE owns two steam locomotives, 103 and CP Pacific #1246. 103 is simple and more manageable in comparison to 1246. The price tags for restoring those engines differ accordingly.

103 affords RMNE an opportunity at a goal that is realistically within its grasp. It’s really just that simple.

I look forward to the 103 restoration project and its operation over the NAUG. This will be a great learning opportunity and an exciting chance to collaborate with some other organizations.

There are a couple of videos on Youtube of the 103 when it was running between Middletown and Slate Hill, NY.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9uSeQYO_zk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIxqtERu53A

I fired the engine 6 or 7 times on those trips, in the 1960s.

By the way, as I recall it is a 45 ton engine.

The way things used to work in those days was, on Friday afternoons, a wood fire would be made to warm the engine up slowly. Then we would go out for dinner, etc. When we got back, some more big chunks of wood would be added. We slept in an old troop sleeper. In the morning, the engine would be just about ready to build steam pressure. Then the coal fire would be made. Sometimes, some switching of freight cars would be needed. After that, the passenger excursion would be run. I fired for a 72 year old retired NYO&W engineer who had spent most of his career with steam. At the end of the day, the engine would be run into a little tin engine house. The injector would be started and run until there wasn't enough steam pressure to keep it going. Then, when a vacuum formed in the boiler, that would suck the boiler full, so the next weekend we would start with a full boiler again.

Geoff Quadland