NOTE FROM ERIK LEDBETTER--

pennsy3750 posted here about Steamtown leasing engines.

In trying to reply to his post I accidentally used my still-active moderator controls and edited it when I only intended to quote from it. In the process I destroyed the original post.

I sincerely apologize to pennsy3750, and I hope he can recreate the post.

Again, sincere apologies.

Erik Ledbetter

On the face of it, it sounds brilliant.

In reality, though, I see slim chance that such an arrangement will transpire.

The problem, or at least the challenge that I see as insurmountable in my eyes, is that rail enthusiasts in the USA are incredibly provincial. It would not be enough for, say, NKP 759 to be restored to operation on Nay Aug grade. Oh, no. The contributors wouldn't be content until it was running on NKP track. Ditto the Maine Central loco--the money towards restoration would go towards the one at Conway, not the one at Scranton (and Conway has a place to run it as well). Reading 2124? There's already a fully functional T1 in a roundhouse in the heart of Reading territory that hasn't felt a fire in, what, ten years?

I would propose that if B&M 3713 were being restored for operation at a railroad/facility in B&M territory, it may have steamed and operated by now, although I don't know if the restoration would be particularly up to snuff (see PRR 1361, 1987-1989).

Now look at another possibility: private leases. Say that Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Pete Waterman, Richard Branson, or some other millionnaire decides to adopt the project to restore some big steamer to operation. How many folks of this mindset do you think wom't want to maintain some degree of control over such a project? I recall that Pete Waterman of Britain (possibly richer than Branson) personally bankrolled the operating restoration of the National Railway Museum's LNWR "Super D" 0-8-0 49395, with the condition that he be allowed controlled use of the loco after restoration. Do you think for one moment that if, say, I found a benefactor willing to rebuild N&W 1218 for a movie project and leave her in operable condition that they shouldn't be allowed to move the loco to Pennsylvania for the movie project, provided they find willing railroads and enough cash?

In the cases that pennsy3750 gives as examples, 4449 has since restoration made it as far as Miami, Florida. Milwaukee 261 is currently in the Quad Cities with a pair of Chinese steamers, and has operated at Steamtown, Galesburg, and a multitude of other locations (New River Gorge, am I right?). If NRM in Green Bay had restricted 261 to running out of Green Bay to Algoma or Stevens Point, or even to ex-Milwaukee trackage (as if they could impose such a restriction), do you think it would be running tomorrow? Fat chance.

Having said that, however, I fully support private/museum or private/public partnerships of the type that have brought SP&S 700, MILW 261, NKP 765 and 759, SP 4449, and other such locos to operation over the decades. If only the mainline rail environment of today made more such operations feasible..........

This is the reply I meant to make when I accidentally destroyed the parent post:



You piqued my curiosity so I went to find the text of the Steamtown National Historic Site of 1986. I can find no such restriction in it. Full text appears in the pdf linked here:


http://www.nps.gov/legal/parklaws/2/laws2-volume_2-national_historic_sites.pdf#search=%22Steamtown%20National%20Historic%20Site%20Advisory%20Committee%22

Apparently a proposed restriction limiting Steamtown to maintaining no more than three operable steam engines was almost real--it did appear in a bill, H.R.3519 for the 102nd Congress, that Joe McDade got though the House in February 1992. However, the bill was not passed by the Senate and therefore died.

So, to the best of my knowledge, there is no statutory restriction on the number or type of engines Steamtown NHS can maintain in operating condition.

Alex says:
>It would not be enough for, say, NKP 759 to be restored to operation on >Nay Aug grade. Oh, no. The contributors wouldn't be content until it was >running on NKP track. Ditto the Maine Central loco
OK then, suppose a group wanted to restore DL&W 565, which currently resides in the ST roundhouse. She'd be on home rails, which would eliminate that issue.

>If NRM in Green Bay had restricted 261 to running out of Green Bay to >Algoma or Stevens Point...do you think it would be running tomorrow?
Well, an engine need not be restricted to the Scranton area. If the lease were written properly, the engine could be made available for a certain number of ST trips each year, say once a month - and then the other three weekends of the month, the leasing group could run on whatever railroad will accomodate them.

Erick says:
>You piqued my curiosity so I went to find the text of the Steamtown >National Historic Site of 1986. I can find no such restriction in it.
This is what I was told by an NPS employee when I was there last, it was the first I had heard of it too.

>I sincerely apologize to pennsy3750, and I hope he can recreate the post.

I can and will, but as I'm running late it will have to wait until after dinner.

<ignites fuse>

Here's an idea, restore steam under the umbrella of Stemtown and lease out the locomotives. Since the locomotives belong to the National Park system and thus the federal government and since you can't sue the government, the locomotives would not need to have the additional liability insurance required by many operations.

Wouldn't be far from that to make all of the train set and operations fall under Steamtown no matter where in the US they operated and the insurance problem would cease.



<runs away>

Here's another idea: Let's not restore more big mainline steamers until those we already have serviceable are kept very busy and can't keep up with the demand.

dave

Unless I'm missing something the non-existant 3 loco.limit is academic as they're only able to keep the one 2-8-2 somewhat road worthy despite the enormous nearly $6 million/year subsidy.
As to the real chances of ever working out a leaseing deal with the Feds-you gotta be kidding-right???
Now, maybe someday the Feds will outsource the operation of the place to save a chunk of that 6 mil. and then other things are possible. Until/unless that happens-forget about it!!!
IMHO-Ross Rowland

My original post (going from memory, so not verbatim).

Ross Rowland has gone on record advocating that Steamtown be leased out to a private operator, who would then theoretically be able to devote more time and resources to restoring engines than the Park Service does. While I don't want to start a debate on the merits of that theory, it did get me to thinking:

What if a group/organization were to lease an engine, say, the Maine Central 2-8-0, and raise their own funds to restore and maintain it, with the caveat that the engine be available at least some of the time for ST trips? This would bypass the issues that prevent ST from doing so on their own (I'm sure Mr. Rowland would be happy to educate anyone not aware of what those issues are).

Such a lease is not without precedent - Milwaukee 261 is owned by the National Railroad Museum in Green Bay, and is leased to Steve Sandberg and Co., who have an excellent track record (pun intended) in operating her throughout the Midwest. SP 4449 and SP&S 700 are similarly owned by the City of Portland.

It would likely require the use of space and tools within the ST shop, but again there is a precedent - PRR 1361 is in there now. She is not owned by ST nor are any ST personnel or dollars involved with that restoration.

They do allow volunteers in the ST shop, so the liability issue, while a major hurdle, is not insurmountable.

While I admit that it is a little far-fetched from the standpoint of dealing with the Feds, its a win-win for them - one of their engines that otherwise would rust into the ground gets restored and becomes available for their trips, possibly with some marginal lease payments.

Such an engine need not be restricted to only ST trips, either. It could run trips to Moscow and Tobyhanna, say, once a month, and then the other three weekends of the month the leasing entity could run on any railroad willing to accomodate them.

Aside from the obvious issue of raising cash for *any* restoration, federal or private, do you guys think its plausible?

[quote="co614"]
As to the real chances of ever working out a leaseing deal with the Feds-you gotta be kidding-right???

Now, maybe someday the Feds will outsource the operation of the place [/quote]


Ross, "you gotta be kidding-right???" I would submit that NPS leasing out one engine to a group planning to restore it is VASTLY more likely than them leasing out the entire park.

What would the NPS have to lose by leasing out one of the engines currently rusting away under the footbridge?

Sounds like one of those uninformed attempts to cut government spending, along the same lines of mandating minimum fares and cutting food service on Amtrak.

Somewhat like "Gee, if they have 4 locomotives operating and we shut one down, then they ought to cut their budget by 25%!"

I think it is possible and practical for ST and any other museum to do the same thing. I am currently working on feasibility for such a project for another museum.The question is can you find enough operating days to make it workable and put some money away for repairs and some profit for the operator of the locomotive. Can you find the balance between operating days,labor for the crew and something in the kitty? If I can find enough willing museums,shortline operators or NRHS chapters willing,the project becomes extremely bankable.

Slight precedent:
When South Eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (some sort of government entity) allowed Buckingham Valley Trolley Association (a non-profit organization) to "get" early Philadelphia & Western Railway car 46, they reserved the right to occasionally take it back and use it under certain conditions and time limits. Later, when a contractor approached my employer, New Hope & Ivyland RR, to rent a work train to run on the P & W and convince S.E.P.T.A. that it would meet the clearance envelope, I suggested that car 46 might serve as the locomotive, pulling former P & W freight cars now owned by the museum! Unfortunately for this Group, the winning low bidder chose to use off-road construction equipment for the job.

When I think of the enormous amount of money required to arestore a small steam locomotive, say a branchline 4-6-0, or Consolidation, to service, I wonder if a lease could make back the original investment? If leasing out locomotives with the proviso that the lessor must have rebuilding money and and shopping services in hand ahead of time was worked out, that might bring some of Steamtowns invaluable collection back to life. Even so, wouldn't a company go to a private resource and purchase a locomotive outright? There are plenty of half-restored, and unrestored engines waiting for another chance. Small tourist roads with a backlog of engine to restore, such as NH&I's CNR 4-6-0 and ex-USA 0-6-0, might do well to lease out those locos. The danger is giving out locomotives that get halfway apart, themn left unfinished and scattered.
Plans built on promises are mighty thin, and I'd be skeptical this could work.
Look at the Big Boy 4018 that got no further than an insideous promise of a movie.

Though there may not actually be a 3 engine limit at Steamtown, I heard from a source (sorry, don't recall the name), that the "rough riding, freight engine #3254 was getting clowe to it's practical life span and was to be mothballed once the Maine Central engine was up and running.

Personally, I think in efforts to expand in two fronts, it would be wise to investigate selling the Canadian engines (which I do like), to an interested party in Canada to promote the appreciation and understanding of Steam up North and use the proceeds to restore a second or even third US engine at Steamtown.