[redacted]

First of all: can we all agree to post news reprints in flimsies? Second, I think this topic has appeared in flimsies, and the latest news was that a regional legislator had obtained additional state funding for resumption of bi-directional schedules.

The Republican machine in Texas depends heavily on these small town, family values voters, so I think the trains will keep running. They just need an occassional stoppage to scare them into action.

Two words:

Election Year

As a 6th generation Texan and steam railroader, there are certain things that one should keep in mind.

The TSR is where is is simply because that was the stretch of railroad the state owned. Not very many recall, but at the very beginning, about 1970 or so, there was a private operator on the TSR, and they ran some tank engines pulling one or two cars sans airbrakes. As guessed, it failed.

However, that was in the day of Texas being a rural state, with rural politics and interests dominating Austin, and the state was awash in oil revenue.

Long story short, the TSR was created as a make work project for an economically challenged part of East Texas. It has always had more employees than many a good sized regional carrier, and despite having one of the better equipped shops in this neck of the woods, has farmed out much of the steam locomotive work since the beginning.

There have been several projects to do other steam/tourist projects in Texas, in areas closer to population and tourists, that couldn't get any air at all because it was widely claimed that for every ticket sold on the TSR, the taxpayer subsidized it about 20-25 bucks. Many times, good, viable rail preservation projects in Texas died because "the state cain't make no money at it."

There are many in several levels of govt. in Austin (esp. since oil revenues died in the 80's) that have looked at the TSR and wondered how did so much money get spent.

Every bridge on the TSR is concrete, and built according to MP bridge standards...basically has been rebuilt enough to haul coal trains.

Please don't flame the following:

The TSR has never,ever been supposed to be a representation of Texas RR history; it operates in a wholly artificial environment. Both depots are new construction, you get on the train miles outside of town. It is, lets be honest, a steam RR theme park. I can't imagine what was spent to build the depots.

I know that we have bid movie work against the TSR, and I found that my taxmoney was being used against me. Several times the TSR would provide an engine and crew for less than we could fire one up at our own place.

When did I get wise to the reason the TSR is under the gun?? Some years back I was visiting with one of the principles, standing between the 201 and the 400, both hot and under steam, when I was told that they were getting 8 million dollars to install new boilers on three locomotives (two of which I was next to, one popping at 180, the other just under 200 I believe).

When I asked what was wrong with the extant boilers, I was told "Nothing, but if we quit asking for money, they'll quit letting us have it."

That my friends, for the good or ill, the Texas State Railroad is in trouble.

How many of the TSR locomotives have new boiler? Are they all still servicable?

as stated it would be a shame if the railroad were to close.

hopefully this is just sabre rattling as suggested in the 2nd post. I think in a previous thread someone said that TX has an annual budget surplus overall.

there would probably be a higher ridership if the railroad was in another location - Rusk is about 2 hours drive from Houston. You can't change history though.

speaking of which the river Neches is a long way from Dallas - like 3+ hour drive - that's a long pipe to build with tax dollars.

does TX still 'sell' water to Mexico ?

John

I don't see what jealousy has to do with anything. i was just making the observation that the TSR has been at the public breast, and was created to do that very thing.

I also believe that there are many who would maintain that the TSR, as great as the experience has been, has consumed resources at a higher rate than it should have.

I also maintain that either the state is running the TSR or it isn't... they made a commitment to create work for that part of the world so its there baby now.

Gentlemen,

This discussion is getting a little heated. Let's let tempers cool so the topic does not have to be locked. Thank you.

Has anyone ever seen photos of this line in its pre-tourist days. (Im on a French computer in Montreal, so a question mark looks like this - É). Did SP 4-4-0 220-260 now at Stone Mtn. ever run hereÉ

http://www.steamlocomotive.info/vlocomo ... isplay=382

The regulatory strictures on TSRR are a valid point. I remember the presentation by TSRR at a T.R.A.I.N. convention ten years ago on low budget marketing. TSRR was prohibited by law from purchasing any advertising. They could not pay for brochure placement, newspaper advertisements, television, or anything, even though they had money in the bank.

Unfortunately, legislators who oppose government management of an enterprise will create restrictions such as these as a back door effort to ensure failure.

[redacted]

CATS and TSRR, while not traditional WPA style make-work projects, are by design subsidized ways to increase tourism, and local economies as a result, in areas otherwise berift of much in the way of business - as was Steamtown, to some extent.

The double edged sword about marketing is that privately operated attractions which benefit from the traffic caused in part by the railroad operations can also see themselves as competitors for the tourist dollars which result, and believe their taxes support their competition - hence the prohibition on marketing. If the privately owned attractions voluntarily promoted the railroad with part of their advertising dollars, would it benefit them with an increase (or lack of loss of) revenue from tourists? Interesting problem - how dependent is tourism on railroad operations?

Privatization isn't a cure-all, but may be an idea worthy of consideration. A private operator can't exist without adequate revenues to operate and promote, plus provide a profit. It seems to me that, the question may be, if marketing isn't restricted, would adequate traffic be generated to fund the operation profitably by a private operator?

And here's where the situation gets cloudy - what about a subsidy to make it possible for the private operator to operate profitably?

Looking over the situation with a couple operations in Colorado, the answer is maybe. It isn't unreasonable for the state to wish to assure the ongoing health of their assets (rolling stock, buildings, track, etc) with capital improvements, which are a different kind of money than operating expenses - that difference seems to have been so far overlooked in this thread. Money that can buy a new boiler or replace a bridge can't be used to buy more employees time, for example. However, it can lead to less down time and greater operating profitability in the long term.

It is about balance - how much state subsidy can be adequately recovered in increases in local economic activity relative to whether or not the railroad runs. If the state privatizes operations, can that subsidy adequately maintain the railroads assets, and with only operating costs to be borne, can increased marketing efforts by a private operator increase traffic enough so that everybody wins? Alternatively, could enough revenues be generated for a private operator to handle all the costs including maintaining the states assets, without running them into the ground? Or, again, what if the state were free to market like a private operator - could it be a revenue generator for SPS?

Another loaded question: Is the RR being considered apart from or as a portion of the state parks service in the case studies? What can appear a weak sister in the parks system as a narrow whole can actually be a productive asset in terms of local economic benefit, generating better tax revenues to the state that it costs the state parks to run it. It would take somebody like Superheater to work this out.

Hopefully, somebody has studied the situation enough to make some pretty good guesses. I'd like to know what they have learned, before I can decide what seems to me most practical for the railroad.

dave