I am not the one complaining on this thread about the lack of motive power for trips that aren’t being done/won’t be done.

The stated aim of restoring 1 is to “keep steam at Steamtown.” As hard as this is for some of you to swallow, “steam at Steamtown” can be as little as the yard shuttles. I am in no way indicating you shouldn’t have opinions on what should be done up there, but you’re all claiming this is the wrong decision based on said opinions.

There’s already several things in the pipeline up there that have never been considered before, or haven’t been considered in a while. The NYC steam generator was dragged out of the deadline for evaluation, the L&NE caboose is being worked on to allow road operations with a caboose, Erie 3 is in the shop for overhaul so that premium excursion seating is once again an option, and #1 is being restored. I’ll be the first one to stand up and say I want to see 2317 run again, but as you yourself stated, most people don’t care what’s pulling the train. To that end, I’m excited for the moves being made to try and bring the non-foamer into the park and on the train, and if that means I have to wait awhile longer for big steam, then I wait.

When Steamtown was created, the recommendation for funding was something like $6 million a year for the museum and $12 million for rail operations. They got $5 million.

Since that time, yearly funding has increased to a little over $6 million, which has almost $4 million less in buying power than it did 30 years ago.

Your tax dollars are paying to keep the place open, not to run mainline steam excursions, and even that’s not cutting it. Steamtown has a deferred maintenance list that’s over $80 million. If you want Steamtown to succeed, you have two options: annoy the hell out of your local congressman to increase funding (good luck with that) or volunteer/donate.

You are perfectly entitled to express an opinion, but unless you’re willing to put your money where your mouth is, your opinion does nothing useful.

I'll take that as sarcasm. As a general rule, I don't PO Navy Seals.

While there is a certain number of people who are indifferent to what's upfront, I don't know and doubt if it is "most". In all candor, there's some don't even know-and one that insisted that there was a diesel in in the tender providing the power, like those old department store Tycos that had the power unit in the tender. Conversely, there is a group that objects VIGOROUSLY to the absence of operating steam. And we know from the visitation figures from 2012-2016 that visitation jumps when there is steam.

I certainly agree with you about the inadequacy of funding and the need to understand that nominal expenditures over time without understanding the erosive effect of inflation, especially over time. Even a tepid constant inflation of 3% over 25 years reduces your purchasing power to 46.7% of the stated amount. Don't believe me. Drop this in a spreadsheet.

=1*((1-.03)^25) Watch what happens as you raise the inflation beyond 3% (.03).

So, no, there isn't enough money (staff) to keep two road engines running (190+ excursions annually)-and quite frankly, there isn't the visitation to support it, either. Forget that for the foreseeable future.

Worse, long time staff and volunteers just shake their head at things like the NYC tender, the new construction tender for the 3254, the CNJ 1021 fiasco, and the fleet of Diahatsu mini-trucks (not street legal) and "bubble cars"-but that's "spilt milk under the bridge".

If you are going to preserve operating steam (and part of that is providing sufficiently varied operations to keep Brian and the rest of the T&E/mechanical crews qualified and sharp-plus train their replacements for the future), then you need a versatile engine, not a "unique" one. As I wrote, I have received off-line comments about the decision-that make me question the process.

Yes the Shay is unique and perhaps low hanging fruit. But it is extremely limited. And having just one engine is at odds with what the former Superintendent stated publicly.

“We need more operating steam locomotives to fulϐill our mission; to keep the operation going. 3713 is a key part of the strategic plan we are developing. Along with Baldwin 26, which will handle yard tasks and tours, we need several more powerful engines in order to reach the surrounding communities.”

https://ogrforum.com/topic/four-operati ... steam-town

Also there was a big pronouncement in Trains about needing three of four operating Steamers.

https://forum.trains.com/t/steamtown-he ... ity/284120

(Can only find the discussion)

https://theroundhouse.libsyn.com/047-st ... bie-conway

The only way this happens is if Steamtown is open-sourced. The pilot project would have been a visit by CNJ 113. It didn't happen and it was quite frankly flubbed.

So here we are ten years later. What you need to understand is this is a bit a Markov process where what happens next depends only on what has happened in the past. It's not quite only, but it's like 75%.

Theres nothing specific I can talk about, but don't assume that visiting power isn't a part of the conversation around here. We're all keenly aware that the 113 visit was flubbed, badly.

Should I be concerned about all our agreements of late? :)

This explains much in few words.
~Wesley

Although the numbers cited are somewhat jumbled, the essential conclusion of "explaining much" is true.

In 1988, when the Comprehensive Management Plan was introduced, $12.332M (see page 12) was listed as the cost to restore locomotives and cars, although the document doesn't distinguish between operating and static operations or how many of the then in the collection 40 locomotives and 100 cars (see page 12) were to be retained. That was low even then.

https://npshistory.com/publications/stea/cmp-1988.pdf

Also worth reading is the 1991 GAO summary of Congressional testimony that examines and takers issue with some of the costs.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/t-rced-92-6.pdf

As for annual operating costs, the same schedule states Other U.S. rail facilities of similar scale have an annual operating budget of between $2 million and S3 million. (doesn't state the "facilities" used for that estimate, so we can't examine the estimate)

Assuming the higher level of $3M and a geometric mean inflation of 3%, (and I think that's low, especially considering the growth in employee healthcare costs represents a significant source of annual operating costs) in 37 years, you would need just about 3X(2.99) the money just to maintain "purchasing power parity". The FY25 request was $6.8M for 42 FTE (full time equivalents). Certainly not the 50-75 uniformed personnel discussed in the CMP.

See Overview P. 60.

https://www.doi.gov/media/document/fy-2 ... reenbook-0

I note that the 1988 CMP included the "Excursion Experience" as part of site management objectives.