In evaluating wheither a project is worthy of public support, the first question to ask is public support being used to provide a good/service that the market cannot provide efficently? If the answer to that question is yes, the next question should be is this the best use of government funds - or can they be used more efficently and effectively elsewhere.

Everything that I have heard about the Texas State Railroad suggests that they are operating a tourist train - not a museum. Tourist trains are clearly in the domain of the free market as their focus is on providing entertainment - not historic preservation or education. Countless operators operate profitably - most notably the Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountain Railway and Strasburg are great exaIn evaluating whether a project is worthy of public support, the first question to ask is public support being used to provide a good/service that the market cannot provide efficiently? If the answer to that question is yes, the next question should be is this the best use of government funds - or can they be used more efficiently and effectively elsewhere.

Everything that I have heard about the Texas State Railroad suggests that they are operating a tourist train - not a museum. Tourist trains are clearly in the domain of the free market as their focus is on providing entertainment - not historic preservation or education. Countless operators operate profitably - most notably the Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountain Railway and Strasburg are great examples of this. Other operators may use volunteers and/or non-profit status in order to support operations. The Austin Steam Train Assn. is a great example of this.

If the Texas State Railroad were focused on historic preservation or education, I would have no problem supporting continued public support - as these are services that are generally not provided by the private sector. Operating a steam locomotive in itself does not constitute education or historic preservation. Instead, the Texas State Railroad is providing a tourist train - with a higher level of capital investment than exists on most other tourist railroads. As such they should be privatized - and succeed or fail at the behest of market demand.

For the sake of discussion, lets assume for a moment that the public support is justified on the basis of historic preservation and education. The question then becomes - is this the most efficient use of government funds. I would argue no. There are other organizations in Texas (most notably the Galveston Railroad Museum and the Age of Steam Railroad Museum) that have a proven record of providing both historic preservation and education using rail equipment that have carried out their missions with far less support than has ever been given to the Texas State Railroad. A redirection of Texas State Railroad funds toward these organizations would allow the construction of indoor storage facilities necessary if the collections at these museums are to survive into the future – and the construction and support of better educational programs and interpretive exhibits.

If the Texas State Railroad wants to survive as a publicly supported operation, then it should direct its mission toward providing a service that warrants the expenditure of public funds.

Tom Cornillie

Seems to me that both Dave and Tom make a number of valid points above. I'm not familiar enough with the Texas State RR to feel comfortable commenting in detail but what Tom said in particular has the ring of truth to it.
I've long felt that Steamtown could do a much more effective job of its primary mission(preseving living history and being an economic tonic to a depressed area) if the Federal Gov't. would outsource its operation to a private sector operator who would be free of all the bureaucratic restrictions that make it near impossible for the NPS folks to do an effective job of it (i.e. very limited marketing leeway,absolute aversion to liability risk=no runbys,stay in your coach etc.,etc.) and have the Feds provide sufficient annual funding to properly maintain the physical plant ( and any downsteam capital projects=restoring additional equipment) and the private operator be given a modest operating stipend. Using Steamtowns example let's say that the Feds were to contract with the Strasburg RR (just as an example) to be the DO and agreed to pay them an annual operating stipend of $750,000 and further agreed to an annual capital contribution of $1,250,000 to be used exclusively for capital projects(loco. & car restorations, physical plant maintenance etc.) for a total outlay of $2,000,000. Based on the latest #'s I've seen that would "save" the gov't. about $3,000,000/year vs. their current $5,000,000 annual outlay for Steamtown. I'm absolutely confident that the DO would dramatically increase visitorship/ridership(thus helping meet both goals) by using their free market savy, and that in a very few years under this model a number of additional loco's. would be returned to life.
I submit this NOT as a knock against Steamtown but because I truly believe it would be a win/win for all concerned. Perhaps a like arrangement could also work for the Texas State RR?
Respectfully, Ross Rowland

I don't know why Txhighballer is getting so angry, no one, not me or anyone else here advocates closure, but we have expressed opinion and the facts.

I have seen the original proposal from Ed McLauglin, complete with depot and enginehouse renderings and do you know what it lists as the projects priority? Job creation!

Comparing the TSR to the C&T is like comparing an all original 1930 Pierce Arrow Pheaton to the Caddy Johnny Cash describes in his song "One Piece at a Time." It may be a fun ride, but it isn't a real, genuine historic experience.

The C&T preserves the equipment, aritifacts and railroad that are from a specific time and place-the genuine article. Despite its authenticity, I bet ifyou asked the frolk and politicians in the area why they support the C&T, it would be the economic benifits. The TSR is a tourist train; just how authentic is a Santa Fe Pacific painted red pulling Erie RR Stillwell coaches to the East Texas piney woods?

Would I have allowed someone to pay for new, although unneeded boilers? No, I wouldn't have, I would have placed such resources where really needed. Those concrete bridges still cost money. Taxpayer money. And we have never gotten any of it, and in Texas any stray RR preservation resources were already spoken for by the State's railroad.

Texas is now ruled by real estate developers and soccer moms in the suburbs, and rural projects of any kind are not going to get much support like they used to.

I know that it is sad and frustrating to see people lose their jobs. Last year, when several plants closed in rural Fannin County Texas due in part to Yew Pea's contractor refusing to serve them and 500 folks lost their jobs, did you worry about that?

Respectfully Tom, I would argue that the public sector engages in many expenditures that do not fall into education or preservation, one of which is economic development, which can range from building roads and infrastructure for industrial parks to tax benefits for industrial location to operating attractions to enhance tourism. The fact that the one we are considering is a railroad doesn't necessarily imply the requirement of historical authenticity, just bringing in many people to ride and spend money in the area.

Smoky Mtn, Grand Canyon and Strasburg are where tourists are going anyhow. If that were the case in Rusk and Palestine, the railroad would have been operated privately for profit from day one. You posit an apples and oranges comparison in that context.

If viewed as an economic development operation rather than a railroad, would you judge it on the basis of education and preservation, were it perhaps a theme park, KIA factory, Nascar Hall of Fame, whatever?

dave

I have never, ever advocated shutting down the TSR. I have never even advocated privitising the thing.

But I know that the past attitude was to "get all you can while you can," and they sopped up a lot of resources.

I know the TSR has cried crocodile tears over their inabilaty to advertise, but there are TSR flyers in about every rest stop, tourist info center, travel stop gas station, and any where else such promotions take place from Texarkana to ElPaso, and the anywhere the TDP&W is promoted so is the TSR.

What should be done with the 610 and the 201 if the TSR folds? They should go to T&P country. The ten wheeler spent its entire life running out of Bonham, Texas while owned by T&P, and spent the last years of its working life on the Paris and Mt Pleasant. Anywhere around there would be a good home, and the locals have just bought the old T&P transcon from the UP.

I don't want the TSR to close, but the political reality in Texas is such that I don't know if it can be supported in the manner it has been. My real fear is that the Parks Dept. is acting to run interferance for Dallas on the Lake Fastrill project. If the RR is cut back or eliminated, that ends a huge hurldle for the lake.

It may be the TSR will return to going from Rusk to Maydelle, and in the long run that may make more economic sense.

My 2cents.

The first part of this sentence is true, the second represents a misunderstading of the purpose of the Interchange.

Our Guidelines explicitly state "The Interchange's primary purpose is to facilitate the exchange of information, advice, and suggestions, not to serve as a forum for debate."

As a government operation, all of Steamtown's finances are public information. I would be really interested to see an article going through their budget and discussing what is good and bad. A lot of complaints about Steamtown appear here. Has anyone actually reviewed their management and budget?

I too would think that it would be very instructive to be a able to see the Steamtown budget in detail. I tried many years ago and gave up. The best I could get at that time without further struggle was a summary amount which as I remember it was approx. $5.7 million(1998). I'd be very interested if you're able to unearth it.
Ross Rowland

Who said anything about display for the 201? The Fannin folks have a depot and a railroad. And I will just bet they would pass the hat enough to build a shed for the 610.

What you don't get is that the Parks Dept. attitude toward the TSR is being dictated by suburban politics and the need for Yuppies to have green lawns in a Texas August.

(Lake Fastrill is a proposed impoundment of the Neches River that has been fastracked by Dallas for water supply. If built it would inundate much of the TSR)

All I have stated is the what may be considered "sins of the past" have provided an excuse unrelated to Lake Fastrill to curtail the railroad's traditional operating pattern in order to facilitate the lake's construction.

I was at a recent, non railroad related political function recently, with ears open and mouth closed, and I am here to tell you that Fastrill is coming sooner that East Texas knows. The US congressman that represents the area (which just "happened"to be jerrymandered to include the Lake Fastrill footprint with a Dallas district) supports the lake, and is working for its construction.

The solution you seek does not exist in a form you and many of us would like it to be. It may well be that a run to Maydelle is the only option other than a static museum. Shorter run=less expense, and, believe it or not, for the avg. tourist, 25 miles of tree farm and half a day is a bit much.

Quit shooting the messenger. Dallas and Lake Fastrill are the culprit, not me.

The Texas State Railroad had a problem sometimes called the “two-legged stool.” The railroad gets a small, greatly insufficient amount of revenue from visitors and a large, perhaps over-generous amount from State appropriation. It needed and if not, too late will still need, a couple more legs to stand on.

An active Friends of TSR could solicit tax-exempt donations, which the state cannot. These funds would be free of restrictions, allowing for needed advertising or other non-budget items. Best of all, it would show politicians that there is broad public support for the project.

Second, if it is truly a economic development project, the local community has to throw money in the pot. No one will believe that the local constituency believes in the project unless they put at least a token payment toward its existence – otherwise its just pork from heaven. I don’t know Texas law, but in many states tourist related economic development is funded by a special district that collects a hotel-motel tax. The greater the distance of the tourist attraction from metro areas, the more the likelihood that visitors will need an overnight stay. I hate tax increases as much as the next person, but there is a certain logic to such a tax. The local populous might support creation of such an authority and a related tax if they think that they aren’t the people paying the freight. Again, local support translates into political support in Austin.