I'd also state with some certainty that there's a real element of 'folks, don't try this at home' about steam in that you have to have the on-site talent or facilities to properly maintain and operate one, let alone handle the operating costs over time. Many, many of the volunteer organizations don't have that. That doesn't mean there isn't a locomotive they own or are restoring, it's just a realistic self-assessment to their credit. We don't need people that truly don't know what they are doing attempting this. I've seen that happen myself. Do it right, or don't do it, please, and all the professionals here on this board certainly know that.

I'm also all in favor of visiting steam as a market tester and Kelly's CVSR September excursions with 765 are right on top of it as a shining example. But 765 isn't just a piece of iron, it comes with it's own staff skills and a virtual 'shop on wheels' with it. It isn't just 765 pulling trains, it turns into a steam event, and that's different. Best runby shows I've ever seen done, bar none, with big crowds and safely executed.

One of the real disadvantages for 734 (and will be for 1309) is the absence of a drop table in Ridgley, it was a WM car shop, and it is leased - not owned - from CSX. They have learned to do driver and truck swaps with contract cranes, but it doesn't make life any easier or less expensive.

To (briefly) drag this even further off-topic: Having been an Amtrak LSA when Amtrak switched from Coke to Pepsi (and not being a cola fan myself), I can absolutely assure everyone that people DO care, A LOT which one is available, since I heard the grumbling. Especially those who drink diet. To the point that if I am buying the supplies for a group meal event, I'm buying Coke, because I don't want to hear the complaints. Amtrak got a huge financial incentive from Pepsi to switch at the time. It is not just saturation, although I'm sure what one grew up with greatly skews preference. May well apply here.

So THAT explains the original paint scheme on the GE P32-8BWH motors!

Phil Mulligan

I have never understood the brand loyalty, but yes I know plenty of people who will rather just go without liquids than drink the 'other' brand of soda. When I was in college, a class covered a blind taste test that proved that people couldn't consistently tell which was which among Coke/Pepsi, but that almost 100% of people said they could. I stopped bringing that up with the "I'll only drink that soda and no other" types and a couple of times, people tried to get violent.
Yeah, violent, over an ancient taste test.
Sure, there is a difference as they're all made from slightly different stuff, but I have never understood why people make such a big deal out of it. Maybe it was because growing up, we didn't get sodas very much (growing up in the South, every soda is "Coke" and you then say what type you want) so I'm easily pleased.
I remember at a summer picnic event I was at years ago, there was only Coke or Pepsi products, I don't remember (or even care) which they had. There was no water. One guy, so adamant that he never drink the 'other' brand and went without drinking anything. The heat got to him and he started feeling woozy. Folks tried to get him to drink the only liquids on hand and even then he wasn't having it. Someone drove to the nearest pay phone and called an ambulance when he passed out. the EMTS were running an IV, noticed all the colas around and one said to him, "Seriously, you couldn't drink that, and it's not because there's a medical reason not to? What are you, retarded?"

Jeez, I wonder what the guy who would get violent, and for that matter the other guy who got dehydrated, would do if you had WATER available?

Crazy off subject, but that bit about the taste test tickled some brain cells, and I recalled a story, almost certainly apocryphal, that took place on a passenger train, not the 20th Century, but one of its predecessors out of Chicago.

A lot of businessmen rode this train, among them packing house moguls like Phillip Danforth Armour (Armour and Company) and Gustavus Franklin Swift (Swift and Company).

Reportedly these two gents would order a ham dinner in the dining car, and both would ask the waiter if it was a ham from their firms. "Yes, sir, it's an (Armour, Swift, as appropriate)" would be the reply.

On one such trip, one of these eminent gentlemen exploded back at the waiter, "Well, it's a damned bad ham!"

There's just no pleasing some people.

Hi guys: getting back on track, is there a long term plan for the WMSR for both steam locomotives? Anyone on here from the WMSR want to chime in? Thanks , David Notarius, R C Cola drinker

All this talk about whether people care if there is a steam locomotive or not makes me think of the Mount Washington Cog. They replaced most of their steam locomotives with politically correct biodiesels a few years back but they run one or two steam trips per day for the foamers. There is a slight fare premium but it is not much and our (fairly young) train crew was totally into it. I am glad I scheduled my day around it, but most of the riders are there for the mountain and could not care less what is pulling the train.

I simply must know: what is it about biodiesel that makes them "politically correct"?

1) Not using "fossil fuels";

2) Using what would otherwise be a "waste product" from human activity--often/usually derived from vegetable oil, so bonus on the "carbon footprint."

A couple things about a couple points:

Steam can burn waste products, bio oil or used fossil derived lube oil. IC does it more efficiently if also more selectively. I can't envision a bagasse powered diesel, for example.

If you have Mt Washington or the Grand Canyon or the Royal Gorge outside the car windows, what you are selling isn't motive power, it's scenery. If you have ordinary scenery or not attractive scenery, you need to use something else to build your business, and steam can be a something else. So can events.

The use of sustainable fuels that don't make a significant difference to operation is hardly politically correct. I find it hilarious that it is now "politically correct" to do something slightly better for the world that we all live on. Were the biodegradable cleaners I used on the locomotives at GCRY also politically correct?

They started about 5 years ago with one trip, but they have increased it to two trips due to demand, which is a good sign. You would think: they already have the engine hot, why not make a mid-day trip? The report has always been that the slower steamer disrupts the schedule of the diesels, which make the trip faster.

It is not just about bio-diesel: the diesels make a faster trip, which allows a longer visit time at the top, which really is of value to many of the tourists. The diesels are a win-win: a cheaper train operation with more value add time for the riders.

We could argue endlessly and unproductively as to whether such actions (which you note only "do something slightly better") are actually productive towards the professed goals, or simply "window dressing" marketing campaigns/strategies.

But the general purpose behind all "political correctness" is, and has always been, about "feelings" and emotional reactions as opposed to quantifiable results.

The website of the Mt. Washington Cog Railway touts the diesels as being "More economical, easier to maintain and environmentally friendlier," in that order.

On dieselization in general, I suspect the last point is often an easy PR benefit to cash in on, while the first two are the real reasons.