Steam & Excursion > Looks like the rumors are true about NS

Found on Bluesky tonight. It sounds like the rumors that NS won't entertain under-steam ferry moves is not only true but worse. Supposedly 611 is unable to return to Roanoke for reasons similar to what SRI is citing here about 1225 but I can't confirm that. If true it may also mean 765 might be stuck on the INER as well.

---

I understand they wanted to move 1225 to Virginia, but 611 is still on the Buckingham Branch at Fishersville.  Could they use 611 again, with the approval of the Virginia Museum of Transportation?

Jim

SRI had an internal deadline for a decision to be made, and had to call it after months of deliberation. Their move request was a much longer and more resource intensive trip than typical ferry moves.
from legal following the recent tour.

Moving dead-in-tow is otherwise a new requirement for the balance of the year.

Sounds like the cold and dead requirement is from the new, "placeholder" COO.

There needs to be some clarification here regarding 611’s current situation.611 is not “stuck” in the Staunton area, nor is it unable to return to Roanoke. As nathansixchime stated, the new requirement for the balance of the year is for these ferry moves to be made dead-in-tow.

The 611 management team is currently evaluating the available options and logistics associated with returning the locomotive to Roanoke under that requirement, including the possibility of dropping the main rods for the move. That is not as simple as just sending a crew out and doing it espeically when dealing with roller bearing rods. It requires scheduling and travel arrangements for the necessary and qualified personnel coming from their respective home bases, getting the required equipment and tooling in place, and coordinating with the host railroad to safely perform that work in an active rail yard, among other considerations. So, to sum that portion up: 611 is not stuck. The management team is evaluating the logistics and determining the best option for returning the locomotive to Roanoke.

As far as the possibility of using 611 for additional fall trips, there are several other factors involved as well.611’s current FRA annual inspection card is due in September. Trying to add a fall operating schedule would therefore be pushing the timeline considerably. The locomotive would need to complete its annual inspection, which carries many of the same crew, travel, scheduling, and logistical considerations mentioned above. There would also need to be coordination with the FRA to have the appropriate personnel on site to witness the portions of the annual inspection that require their presence.It is also important to remember that 611 was only scheduled to operate this summer for the four weekends of public excursions. Based on that operating schedule, the management team has already planned and scheduled the locomotive’s off-season maintenance and other work. Adding another five weekends of heavy operation (particularly mountain railroading) was simply not part of the operating or maintenance plan for 611 this year. Unfortunately, for all of those reasons, additional fall operations were not in the cards for the locomotive this season.

So 1225 was going to pinch hit for the fall. Makes a little bit more sense now.

I wonder what brought this about. I don't see much difference between dead in tow vs towed under steam from a liability standpoint especially with an unannounced/unscheduled ferry move. The "balance of the year" language seems a little odd too. Seems like a new policy would be just that, but this implies that it will be re-evaluated. Or does it mean that dead in tow will be allowed to get locomotives home this year before an outright ban going forward? Certainly not a promising development.

Large railroads, no matter which one they are, just keep finding new ways to make themselves a pain in the caboose to deal with. I wonder if their executives lay awake in bed at night thinking of new ways to screw their customers? Sure seems that way.

bmoore765 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder what brought this about. I don't see much
> difference between dead in tow vs towed under
> steam from a liability standpoint especially with
> an unannounced/unscheduled ferry move. The
> "balance of the year" language seems a little odd
> too. Seems like a new policy would be just that,
> but this implies that it will be re-evaluated. 

Indeed. Given the number of changes that can and have occurred over the last year or so, today's requirements may not be tomorrow's. Equating a deadhead move to the most recent high-profile steam tour is definitely a choice, but one legal has made. 765 is only 46 miles from its home shop, so it's trip between the short line and shop is less complex for a variety of reasons than 611. 

These rides have a powerful economic impact on many communities. I hope the various levels of government, the train operators, and NS can reach an agreement which works for everyone.

 

I'm wondering if whomever made this decision actually understand just what "they" have accomplished. Towing any steam locomotive "dead" will require the main rods be removed, thus creating an "out-of-balance" condition of the drivers, which will require a slow move.

After the 4014 crowds and associated shenanigans, I can't help but wonder if the dispassionate decision makers in the legal department "felt" that a cooling off (more like a deep freeze) in interest directed toward their properties is in order.  While the "Coast to Coast Tour" wrapped up with out any death or dismemberment, all the craziness recorded on camera and seen in person by officials may have left a sour taste.  Hopefully not the case, but just sayin.....

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Towing any steam locomotive "dead"
> will require the main rods be removed, thus
> creating an "out-of-balance" condition of the
> drivers, which will require a slow move.

Interesting, I would not have thought of this.  Is it reasonable to think that such a move would have to be done *very* slowly to avoid track damage from dynamic augment, especially with an engine with a very large driving wheelbase like 611?  If so, it seems like the legal department is probably ignoring/overruling the operating people, who presumably want to not gum up the works more than they need to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/26 09:59 by pennsy3750.

The legal / risk management side of the house undoubtedly saw some of the antics widely documented with 4014. While this isn't typical (yada, yada, yada), it does offer an opposing counsel a very strong argument against NS.

"You saw this exact behavior occur on your lines just a few weeks ago, and chose to do nothing to prevent it with 611" therefore I ask $10 billion dollars in damages for my client's future care and to serve as a warning to NS...

pennsy3750 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Towing any steam locomotive "dead"
> > will require the main rods be removed, thus
> > creating an "out-of-balance" condition of the
> > drivers, which will require a slow move.
>
> Interesting, I would not have thought of this. 
> Is it reasonable to think that such a move would
> have to be done *very* slowly to avoid track
> damage from dynamic augment, especially with an
> engine with a very large driving wheelbase like
> 611? 

Well, not "very slowly", but probably not over 20 MPH. Also, 611 does not have "a very large driving wheelbase", as her drivers are only 70 inch diameter.

If so, it seems like the legal department
> is probably ignoring/overruling the operating
> people, who presumably want to not gum up the
> works more than they need to.

I agree, i.e. the legal department is surely behind this.

Hotwater is correct. When edicts like this come down from up high 99.99% of the time it’s from the legal department.

Us in operating look at steam moves as just another locomotive, but with different fuel.
And hey, let’s get that thing to pick up some excess tonnage out of the yard. Lol.

Regards

Posted from iPhone

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The legal / risk management side of the house
> undoubtedly saw some of the antics widely
> documented with 4014. While this isn't typical
> (yada, yada, yada), it does offer an opposing
> counsel a very strong argument against NS.
>
> "You saw this exact behavior occur on your lines
> just a few weeks ago, and chose to do nothing to
> prevent it with 611" therefore I ask $10 billion
> dollars in damages for my client's future care and
> to serve as a warning to NS...

Hopefully this is not happening in the UP legal department also after this trip. Don’t want to see anything happen to the steam program.

The UP Steam Program will continue to exist as long as the people in the C Suite think it's helping the company.

Nobody in the NS top brass wants anything to derail the merger. There is a lot of buyout money on the line.

The last thing you need is a last minute hold up.

its only 2 Billion......they got that somewhere..........