Steam & Excursion > Polson Logging #2 and Mid-Continent

Well, it's been almost 9 months since this locomotive was given the green light to be fully operational, but the museum still refuses to allow it to run.  there was a Trains news wire story about a few weeks ago.  It seems that the museum feels that if they allow it to run, they will be responsible for the cost of the restoration.  I don't know the details, but it is a real shame that a museum that states that "Steam will always rule at Mid-Continent"  has been without a working steam locomotive for almost 17 years and now has one on the property but will not allow it to run.  Another reason I have heard is that the water system is no longer in service.  I would think that in as much as they are having a new boiler built for the 1385 that they most likely will be needing a water system for that locomotive.  I hear no posts on what is going on, and very little on the web about how to settle this situation.

Steve

I am curious what the museum's side of the story is? I haven't seen the Trains news release. Seems like an odd situation.

I am representing the owner of Polson #2 on the issues with the Museum. 

The Museum has obligations to the engine's owner that are being enforced by a judge.  We have received his initial ruling in our favor and am waiting for his final ruling.  We can announce more at that time. 

As for now, we are in the process of finding a new home for Polson #2.

Martin



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/17 05:46 by LoggerHogger.

Thanks Martin for adding your post!  With you involved, I am sure we will be getting information of the highest integrity.  I have been going to Mid-Continent since 1990.  I took my fiance on a ride there behind #2 back in 92, the year before we were married.  I have seen a lot of changes there, but it was always a wonderful place to visit.  I think that I have taken my son there at least a dozen times since he was an infant.  He is now 18!  In that time,  I saw the boiler of #2 with the mud ring torch cut out of it and the boiler sitting on a flat car thinking that this is going to take some real work to ever get back together.  I followed Skip in his daunting quest to get her back together and his goal of doing it right!  I really hope that he will be able to run it again, and in an environment where it would be appreciated. 

Steve
 

Not taking any issue with anyone here, obviously Martin knows but is also logically and obviously constrained from commenting due to ongoing legal proceedings.

I don't have the back history, just pieces I've picked up at long distance over time, so someone more in the know, please politely correct me if you feel it necessary.

As I understand it, the original operating agreements for several Mid Continent locomotives now out of service were that the Museum would be responsible for repairs to operating condition. My theory: As would be typical of small organizations, that part of the contract was not spelled out in detail.

My theory is that the owner of Polson #2, having done a first class job of a full rebuild, would like full reimbursement from the Museum, and the Museum is disputing that their operation did not create all the wear that was corrected during the rebuild or at least that the Museum is being billed for. So, at that point, logic ceases to reign and it degenerates into a legal fight.

Which is unfortunate for all involved.

Editorial: My observation is that all small organizations (less than 200 people) run the risk of two or three personalities conflicting and setting the entire organization on it's ear. Professionalism is required just as much in a small organization as in a large organization, maybe even moreso. MCM is hardly the only museum to suffer from this, and I'm willing to venture an observation that all museums and historic railroads have at various times suffered major meltdowns over one topic or another.

SRK

LoggerHogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am representing the owner of Polson #2 on the
> issues with the Museum. 
>
> The Museum has obligations to the engine's owner
> that are being enforced by a judge.  We have
> received his initial ruling in our favor and am
> waiting for his final ruling.  We can announce
> more at that time. 
>
> As for now, we are in the process of finding a new
> home for Polson #2.
>
> Martin

Steve Krause
Chillicothe, IL

Steve,

Your assumption, while logical, are not correct.  The museum's obligation to repay #2's owner for the wear on the engine was resolved by agreement with the museum back in 2003.  The museum acknowledged then it's responsability for the repairs and agreed to pay a set price for them at that time.

Martin



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/17 03:51 by LoggerHogger.

Situations like this are why some railroad museums have adopted the policy of not operating or even storing equipment owned by private individuals, whether they be members or not.

Illinois Railway Museum had a nasty situation back in the 70s with equipment that was owned by their (then) General Manager Herb Hansen, but I'm not sufficiently educated on the details to speak about it with any authority. Also not a legal representative of the Museum, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night....

What I do know is the fallout from that whole deal made the Museum VERY gun shy about having privately-owned equipment as part of "the collection." IRM does have a few privately-owned pieces on the property at the moment. All have very specific agreements (drafted by actual lawyers!) governing each.

​NZ