Less expensive than the cost of several steam operations done independently.

Moving one the first time is a logistical nightmare - after that, it becomes easy.

A small locomotive can be set up to take its show out on the road with a dedicated low loader it can live on between engagements. the low loader can be equipped with a winch for loading, and a few compartrments for tool, parts, and supplies storage for such things as valve oil and packing rope that are always needed.

Moving then becomes a phone call to a trucker who will pick up the trailer, get routed, and make the delivery.

dave

The best way is for us to get in direct contact with each other to explore the possibilities, Jim. Doing that inside this forum could be awkward, so we can start with a PM or two, and bring the concept back here for comment once we have some definite ideas in place. I shall be in contact.

That is NOT to say, however, we cannot or should not continue with a general discussion of theory out here in public. This sort of thing all but demands input from as wide an audience as possible, so I would like to continue to hear from anyone with anything at all to say on the matter.

What do all the rest of you think about this? Maybe we should open a specific topic for this discussion away from the idea of sharing steam locomotives.

In general favor of sharing everything apart from narrow-mindedness and STDs. Strengthening any of us strengthens us all.

Bob, speaking of sharing steam - Great Smoky is importing a 0-4-0T from Michigan while yours works only one weekend a month and is in their backyard. Might this be a missed opportunity for NHVRR to build a bridge with a sucessful tourist railroading machine and generate some more in-state publicity?

dave

[quote="Dave"]Less expensive than the cost of several steam operations done independently.

Exactly.

Chris .

It might, Dave, but the concept of moving our 0-4-0T (#17) to another facility has never been discussed with our Board, so I cannot speak to the general willingness to do it at all.

Having said that, however, we can take this as a hypothetical, and at the moment purely hypothetical, case for discussion. None of this constitutes any offer or suggestion of willingness to do any of this.

Start with a key issue here. Moving a steam locomotive, regardless of its size can be a major undertaking. It is not a task to be taken on willy-nilly on a whim. The transportation itself is one factor, but as you well know, steam locomotives are finicky beasts, and such a move is fraught with danger even under the best of circumstances. I daresay most museums, including us, are unlikely to cast about for places to send our equipment on off days.

Second, if a borrowing museum wants to borrow a piece of equipment, they could start the process by approaching the museum owning the equipment with the idea. Unless that happens, how is the potential lender to know they would be interested in doing it?

Again, I am not saying we would have jumped at the chance to lend out our #17 at all. I am only speaking to the concept. We are always open to considering ideas like this.

You make a reasonable point, Brian, but some of us do have indoor facilities, even on a limited basis, for such exhibits. We can each do what we can according to our abilities.

We have 3600 sq foot exhibit hall that is used for nothing but temporary exhibitry. Consider us very interested. In fact, we are considering the creation of a traveling exhibit concerning the history of Horseshoe Curve.

If Bob Crowley believes shipping locomotives is intimidating, bright as he is, i am obviously underestimating the extent to which those who haven't done this sort of thing must believe that to be the case.

The fact is, shipping a steam locomotive of limited size and weight isn't very different than shiping a large bulldozer, or any large hunk of durable machinery.

Steam locomotives, particularly the simplest sort such as saddletankers, are pretty hard to injure when handled in transit by people who know how. A rollon - rolloff scenario is easiest, but lifting with cranes at the correct points and knowing what to be careful about when setting down isn't rocket science either.

Please don't anybody allow concerns about this to prevent consideration of entering into a steam partnership. There are many people who would be pleased to advise and assist.

dave

The steam crew at NHVRY had put some thought into taking Engine 17 on the road. When we first started operating the loco, we were approached by the NCTM to have 17 at Spencer. We loved the idea, and the crew "blue skied" ideas about taking 17 all over the place. Sounds like fun!

Then reality set in. We have the expertise and the capability, but we don't have the time. Our steam crew consists of just four volunteers working weekends out of the back of our pick'm up trucks (no shop). IMHO, it is remarkable we are able to run steam at all on our own railroad, let alone be available to also provide a quality traveling exhibit. It’s still a really cool idea, and I think this discussion has great merit. Perhaps after we initiate some more pledges into the steam fraternity we’ll have the manpower to share 17.

I would love the opportunity to speak with the Gramlings about their experiences taking 75 on the road. Are they regulars here on RYPN?

Great thread y’all. Cheers,

Mike MacLean
Manager, Steam Operations
New Hope Valley Railway
www.nhvry.org

I am in agreement with you in principal, Dave. The mechanics of it all are not as difficult as it may seem at first, but there are other considerations in this beyond the simplistic act of rolling (or lifting) a locomotive onto a highway trailer (or flatcar) for transport. Those "other considerations" is where the difficulties lie, and overcoming them takes money, time, labor, and organization. Some of us are easily able to do this, and I hope they will. Others may be less able, and that is fine as well. We each do according to our abilities.

The real issue is not just "moving heavy stuff" as the message title here might imply. It is conceivable to move even the Empire State Building if it had to be done. The issue is the decision to do it based upon the return being greater than the cost in money, time, and labor. When those factors come together in the right way, we will all be doing it.

Cool. Let's assume the lessee pays directly for rigging at both ends and shipping, and provides fuel and water.

Then what?

Transportation, lodging for crewman - could be directly from lessee.

Insurance - how much? Liability and casualty.

Consumables - lubricants, pretty much, maybe water treatment?

Any income covering these charges, and whatver cost (per ton mile?) capitalizes wear and tear, is your overhead. Given you won't come near to running out of calendar days, a daily charge isn't critical, but it could be a way of figuring.

Anything above and beyond that is pretty much gravy.

If you can get a ballpark on this stuff, and let that number out, along with a statement of interest in recapturing more capital out of 17, you might find yourself solicited with some interesting offers.

Assuming you can spare the time to administer it, of course. I am keenly aware of the need for an influx of additional talent into your organization.

I'd be interested in knowing what John and Barney have determined is their base cost per whatever unit, and how it was determined.

dave

The question is NOT "Can museums share exhibits?"........

..... but "Can museums be persuaded to share exhibits?" or "Would rail museums share exhibits?"

Ask any of those two, and I'll answer differently.

You are dead on with the factors to be considered, Dave. All of that is part of the deal. We should also consider whatever additional time on the boiler and flues so that can be amortized into the cost of doing the re-tubing sooner than just the time it would have running for only us. Anyone contemplating this sort of thing should indeed do a fully allocated cost analysis to determine just what will be required for such a program.

I accept all of that without question. You are correct, and frankly, I have not disagreed with you in the hypothetical cases we have discussed. I have even discussed the matter in some detail with those running our own steam program.

That leaves us at the end of all this.

If the expected return (cash and/or image) is greater than the fully allocated cost of doing this, then any museum or tourist line should consider sharing.

I think what you are attempting to say here is you really agree with Alex Mitchell in a response to this above where he says, "The question is NOT 'Can museums share exhibits?,' but 'Can museums be persuaded to share exhibits?' or 'Would rail museums share exhibits?'"

That is a very different question, and I believe, the real core of this discussion. Would any of us actually be willing to share in this manner?

I think the bottom line in all this discussion is; MONEY!

For those who have a locomotive to lease, whether it be Flagg # 75, or New Hope Valley # 17, or narrow gauge Eureka & Palisade # 4, or whatever, they know how much they are going to lease out their locomotive for. The BIG question is; will the railroad/museum/tourist line that pays that price get a satisfactory return on their investment? There have now been a couple of these "visiting locomotive happenings." Can we possibly hear from those groups who have had the locomotive come to their location? Was it worth it? Money wise? Also, publicity wise?

Thanks.

Les Beckman (Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum/North Judson, Indiana)

The realities of todays railroading are such that this concept only has a chance of working with small loco's. that are transportable via truck. To attempt to move a larger loco. via rail is prohibitively expensive both in money terms and in the incredible amount of time it takes to get a class1 to even agree to move it money not withstanding.
Smaller (truckable) engines make sense and in the right situations could give a good ROI to the sponsoring organization.
IMHO-Ross Rowland