Maybe you fellows with deep pockets would like to bid on the 1744 in New Orleans. She's up for auction on eBay right now. Type "1901 Baldwin" in the eBay search engine and it should pop right up.

runner@i-55.com

Here's the link.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayI ... otohosting

#1744 on Ebay
jnewenhf@pacifier.com

> Here's the link.

>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayI ... otohosting
It's interesting to note that the price seems to have dropped dramatically since going on ebay. This raises the fundamental question, how do you set a value on a steam locomotive? There are virtually no comparable sales so are you left with a calulation of the amount over time a locomotive can earn or is there some other way? Or seat of pants tempered by size of wallet?


davidwoodbury@adelphia.net

There are virtually no
> comparable sales so are you left with a
> calulation of the amount over time a
> locomotive can earn or is there some other
> way?

Whenever we've discussed this, the consensus seems to be that it is nearly impossible for a steam locomotive to earn back anything much above and beyond its maintenace and operational costs. This would imply that the value of a steam locomotive as a rational investment is its realizable scrap value--since actually operating it is likely to be neutral to negative for one's net worth.

Obviously prices for steam locomotives are higher than that, which indicates that an emotional rather than a purely business committment is being made when one changes hands--and who can qualitify that with predictive accuracy? I guess it comes down to, an engine is worth whatever a buyer and seller agree it's worth on any given day.

eledbetter@rypn.org

The sellers have certainly provided a good descriptive writeup of its history and repairs. Personally, I'd like to see it go back to California.

http://www.railroadart.com/sp1744.jpg
ryarger@rypn.org

On the other hand, has anyone ever attempted to calculate the value of the economic draw of steam to an excursion operation? Places like Strasburg, Durango & Silverton, etc. have built their entire reason for being around their steamers. If Strasburg attempted to "dieselize" with a GP9 and a pair of FP7's for a year, I'm certain ridership would plummet.

On the other hand, operations like the Grand Canyon RR, Cuyahoga Valley Scenic, Conway Scenic, etc. manage to lead a dual life, and no one that I know of seems to propose that the Napa Valley Wine Train (just as an example) should be steam-hauled. (Hmmmm, is the Napa Valley line ex-SP? Could 1744 handle the train?)

Steam is obviously a major marketing tool for many of the excursion lines today. Given that, however, can anyone demonstrably show that steam's additional tourist draw is worth the additional expense? I might look at Strasburg and say "heck, yes", and then look at Ohio Central and think again.......

LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

> On the other hand, has anyone ever attempted
> to calculate the value of the economic draw
> of steam to an excursion operation? Places
> like Strasburg, Durango & Silverton,
> etc. have built their entire reason for
> being around their steamers. If Strasburg
> attempted to "dieselize" with a
> GP9 and a pair of FP7's for a year, I'm
> certain ridership would plummet.

> On the other hand, operations like the Grand
> Canyon RR, Cuyahoga Valley Scenic, Conway
> Scenic, etc. manage to lead a dual life, and
> no one that I know of seems to propose that
> the Napa Valley Wine Train (just as an
> example) should be steam-hauled. (Hmmmm, is
> the Napa Valley line ex-SP? Could 1744
> handle the train?)

> Steam is obviously a major marketing tool
> for many of the excursion lines today. Given
> that, however, can anyone demonstrably show
> that steam's additional tourist draw is
> worth the additional expense? I might look
> at Strasburg and say "heck, yes",
> and then look at Ohio Central and think
> again.......

Alexander, there’ll always be major problems in attempting to “demonstrably show” in terms of the management accounting for one product over another, because your results depend on how you treat fixed costs. A good example would be allocating track maintenance for example. I could develop a standard cost per trip, or I could split it pro rata by the gross revenues produced or a myriad of other ways. Ultimately, your cost accounting should make economic sense and support rational decisions- but two equally reasonable costing methods can produce wildly different results. This assumes of course that senior management is not pressuring the accountants to produce numbers/anaysis that supports a predetermined decision.

Of course with track, part of the inevitable degradation will depend on useage and part will depend on the weather and thatÂ’s an allocation thatÂ’s amost impossible to determine.

Moreover in comparing Stasburg and Ohio Central, OC is a large regional with significant freight traffic. ThereÂ’s intangible and opportunity costs associated with running steam, not quite as true with Strasburg, where freight opportunities are much more limited.

Incidentally, I just visited Strasburg yesterday, I forgot how immaculate they keep their equipment. 475 and looked and sounded great. Consist was sharp.



Superheater@rrmail.com

Hi
I would think it would be more of a historical than Profit based reason for running Steam Locomotives. With all the Federal and State Laws regulating Steam it will always be hard to Run a Steam Locomotive for Profit.
Andrew Martin


amartin@wlu.edu

> On the other hand, has anyone ever attempted
> to calculate the value of the economic draw
> of steam to an excursion operation? Places
> like Strasburg, Durango & Silverton,
> etc. have built their entire reason for
> being around their steamers. If Strasburg
> attempted to "dieselize" with a
> GP9 and a pair of FP7's for a year, I'm
> certain ridership would plummet.

> On the other hand, operations like the Grand
> Canyon RR, Cuyahoga Valley Scenic, Conway
> Scenic, etc. manage to lead a dual life, and
> no one that I know of seems to propose that
> the Napa Valley Wine Train (just as an
> example) should be steam-hauled. (Hmmmm, is
> the Napa Valley line ex-SP? Could 1744
> handle the train?)

> Steam is obviously a major marketing tool
> for many of the excursion lines today. Given
> that, however, can anyone demonstrably show
> that steam's additional tourist draw is
> worth the additional expense? I might look
> at Strasburg and say "heck, yes",
> and then look at Ohio Central and think
> again.......

As to the technical question of whether #1744 could handle a consist such as the Wine Train, the locomotive would have no problem. I was involved with operation (as part-time engineer, fireman, mechanic, etc.) of #1744 from 1984 through 1989 at the "Heber Creeper" in Utah. I also had a chance to fire her on one run in Belle Chase, LA in 2001. #1744 is a fine engine and could do a respectable job in the proper application.

In regards to the question of economy of a steam operation, significant financial commitment is required. The Heber Valley Railroad is a "mixed" operation, with steam engines running most of the time, based upon availability and the application. On some night trains, where other entertainment overshadows the motive power (e.g. comedy murder mysteries, certain charters, etc.), diesels will be used. One estimate is that a coal-fired steam engine costs approx. $550 more per day to operate. It is tough to quantify the dollar value of the steam engine's "draw".

There is no right or wrong answer -- only that the operator must understand the fixed and variable costs before committing to a steam operation, and ensure that the operation's income can sustain long-term steam.

Craig H. Lacey
Executive Director
Heber City, UT

clacey@hebervalleyrr.org

Nearly impossible? Don't know that I would go that far.....

Certainly steam costs more to run than IC - no argument there. And, lines like Grand Canyon rely on the scenic gandeur more than the form of power to draw their audience.

Strasburg-like operations provide high quality product in an area intensively visited by tourists at an impulse buy and time cost to consumers - thay can afford to run steam and they do, although they could probebly do well with diesels or trolleys or doodlebugs as well.

Nevada Northern sees a great difference in ridership between steam and diesel - given their remote location, steam seems to provide the draw.

So, yeah, if you have a fairly intensive operating program with good passenger loads you can more than pay the higher costs of operating steam.

The question is, how much less would you sell with diesel. Looked at from that POV steam is probably an emotional rather than rational choice, but then why should we be entirely rational when we can afford a little pleasant irrationality?

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

The way I see it is this: Why do most people ride a train, to get somewhere? No, they drive or fly. When most people ride a train they do it to ride The Train, ie the experience, right. Now doesnt it follow that the most unusual and exciting train ride is steam? You can see or ride desiel trains anywhere. The value of steam is its nostalgia and its rarity, which is really hard to put a dollar figure on.

Alan

> Nearly impossible? Don't know that I would
> go that far.....

> Certainly steam costs more to run than IC -
> no argument there. And, lines like Grand
> Canyon rely on the scenic gandeur more than
> the form of power to draw their audience.

> Strasburg-like operations provide high
> quality product in an area intensively
> visited by tourists at an impulse buy and
> time cost to consumers - thay can afford to
> run steam and they do, although they could
> probebly do well with diesels or trolleys or
> doodlebugs as well.

> Nevada Northern sees a great difference in
> ridership between steam and diesel - given
> their remote location, steam seems to
> provide the draw.

> So, yeah, if you have a fairly intensive
> operating program with good passenger loads
> you can more than pay the higher costs of
> operating steam.

> The question is, how much less would you
> sell with diesel. Looked at from that POV
> steam is probably an emotional rather than
> rational choice, but then why should we be
> entirely rational when we can afford a
> little pleasant irrationality?

> dave


adofmsu@aol.com

If steam power isn't universally recognized as a major draw, then why have some diesel operations used steam locomotives in their logos, equipment descriptions, and marketing? Nothing infuriates me more than to travel sometimes long distances to find that an allegedly-steam railroad is really diesel, or that the advertised steam operates only infrequently and, of course, not on the day I happen to be there. But if I know and expect diesel power, from the railroad's publicity, that's fine - and a mark of integrity for the railroad.

The Swiss Locomotive Works (SLM), now succeeded by DLM, managed to provide a convincing economic argument of the viability of new steam over old steam or new diesels for the tourist rack railways in Europe to which they sold new steam power in the 1990's.

If you go to their page at the link below, click on "modern steam", then click on "economics" you can see some of the data. Roger Waller (chief engineer at DLM) also published a paper this summer documenting the results of using modern steam locomotives in this service.

Basically, these small tourist rack railways had operated old (~1930's vintage) SLM-built steamers for many years. These engines were expensive to operate and could not carry the loads that new diesels could. As these railways started using diesel power, their ridership started declining. SLM was able to provide new, efficient oil-fired steam locomotives which cost about the same to operate as the diesels, provided superior performance, and which attracted the riders like the old steamers had.

Fairly recently, DLM tried to interest the Mt. Washington Railroad in new steamers using this same argument, but Mt. Washington chose to retain their old home-built steamers. As I understand it, the decision was based largely on the results of a survey. Mt. Washington management asked their riders "Would you rather ride behind old steamers or new steamers?" and the results naturally came back in favor of old steamers. I doubt that most of them could have told the difference.

Regards,
Hugh Odom
The Ultimate Steam Page
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp

> Nearly impossible? Don't know that I would
> go that far.....

> Certainly steam costs more to run than IC -
> no argument there. And, lines like Grand
> Canyon rely on the scenic gandeur more than
> the form of power to draw their audience.

> Strasburg-like operations provide high
> quality product in an area intensively
> visited by tourists at an impulse buy and
> time cost to consumers - thay can afford to
> run steam and they do, although they could
> probebly do well with diesels or trolleys or
> doodlebugs as well.

> Nevada Northern sees a great difference in
> ridership between steam and diesel - given
> their remote location, steam seems to
> provide the draw.

> So, yeah, if you have a fairly intensive
> operating program with good passenger loads
> you can more than pay the higher costs of
> operating steam.

> The question is, how much less would you
> sell with diesel. Looked at from that POV
> steam is probably an emotional rather than
> rational choice, but then why should we be
> entirely rational when we can afford a
> little pleasant irrationality?

> dave


DLM
whodom2001@yahoo.com

> Nearly impossible? Don't know that I would
> go that far.....

> if you have a fairly intensive
> operating program with good passenger loads
> you can more than pay the higher costs of
> operating steam.

Hence the weasel word "nearly"! I would say that D&S, Strasburg, and Grand Canyon all seem to operate steam in a private, for-profit context at a reasonable internal rate of return. It can be done, it just takes great management and the utmost care in market selection and marketing.

> why should we be
> entirely rational when we can afford a
> little pleasant irrationality?

Hear, hear! Long live steam! Just trying to point out that it's hard to develop an economic model for the cost of a steam locomotive the same way one might for a new lathe or what have you.

eledbetter@rypn.org

> I would say that D&S, Strasburg, and Grand
Canyon all seem to operate steam in a private, for-profit context at a reasonable
internal rate of return.

Sadly, the recent trend at the Grand Canyon has been toward reducing their steam schedule year over year. Futhermore, GCRwy's marketing program remains focused on a "train ride". Both indications that the GCRwy management is aware of their costs related toward steam locomotive operations.



kamiddle@rockwellcollins.com