As we enter the 21st century it becomes apparent that the world is changing at an ever increasingly rapid pace. This phenomenon is challenging our classic view of the steam locomotive and its role in modern culture, hence its future.

We can perceive this as either an opportunity or a threat, either way it will arrive on three basic fronts:
1. Economic
2. Environmental
3. Cultural Need

The steam locomotive as we know it (circa 1945) is labor intensive, costly to maintain, environmentally unfriendly (as defined by today’s standards), and inefficient regarding fuel consumption. The financial burden imposed by these issues has been, and continues to be, rising exponentially. If these costs could be accurately plotted, they would predict the end of steam power in all but a few locations within the next twenty years.

Our current population has become extremely sensitive to anything other than an antiseptic environment. The slightest amount of smoke or even perceived smoke (steam) is grounds for automatic complaint, many times in excess of the true impact on a persons well being. Ash, oil, lubricants, feedwater chemicals, insulation and a myriad of other materials associated with operating steam are considered hazardous. There is little doubt as to the significance of exposure to most of these items, however, the extent of the corrective measures to be taken continues to expand with almost complete lack of intelligent compromise. The end result on steam operations will, again if projected twenty years, be untenable.

As our society drifts farther away from our industrial heritage, the appreciation of those things that were once the cornerstones of everyday life becomes eroded. The question is then asked why continue to present living history when it can be done in less invasive ways. Will those people who want the lights to turn on but not have power plants allow the continued operation of the classic steam locomotive in the traditional manner?


Well, we’ve laid a premise, is it valid? Predicting the future is always tenuous at best, but let’s pursue some thoughts to address some of these issues. Regarding the economics of future operating steam, it can be divided into two arenas: upgrading existing engines and building new engines.
Since one of the main factors in the cost of operating existing engines is maintenance, methods to reduce this aspect should be thoroughly explored. These areas can be defined in general terms as, boiler internal corrosion, staybolt breakage, bearing wear, and component fatigue failure. There are several other items that can significantly enhance the economic viability of steam, however, the capital cost of implementing everything we have learned rapidly approaches the cost of new construction. It is believed that economic upgrading an existing engine would entail implementing Porta/TIA feedwater treatment, Tross staybolts, roller bearings, and component redesign to extend fatigue life. Beyond this point, owners of classical steam are forced into answering the question of how long they can expect to continue before succumbing to the pressures of those points listed above. The choice will be between extensive rebuilding or new construction and the cost of either will be substantial. It will take true dedication to continued use of steam to develop and commit to a program of this magnitude.

The environmental concerns are becoming increasingly onerous and difficult to resolve objectively. “Zero emissions” is the compromise when discussions with environmentalists ensue regarding smoke, there appears to be no real understanding of the root causes of the problem, nor interestingly enough, any real interest in understanding, just make it not smoke or smell. Well, here’s a real challenge to the classical steam locomotive. It has been done successfully, but not without a diligent and intelligent review of the issue from both an economical and mechanical point of view. Twenty years hence, burning oil to address smoke issues will not be viable (reference Hubbert’s curve regarding oil production), burning coal will only be viable using modern combustion systems, i.e. GPCS. A grim picture, but by beginning to research and develop new concepts now it is possible to surmount the problem for the future. It too will take a commitment by steam owners to confront the issue, it will require a radical change in current thinking, again hinging on economics.

Is there a cultural need? We believe emphatically yes, but is this true of society at large, probably not. How many societies for the preservation and operation of Roman galleys exist? The point being that sometimes what we perceive as being of major significance is not necessarily shared by others. The struggle of the Cumbres & Toltec is an example of cultural perception of historic value. If the public were TRULY interested they would make the trek to Chama, they do not. The support of society at large provides the revenue to pursue the preservation and operation of steam. Will they continue to value living history or will they be satisfied by watching a computer generated video of a Roman galley at sea while standing next to a well built replica on blocks in a museum? Time will only tell, but we must strive to make steam endurable to these forces and it will take true reformation of our thinking to assure the existence of functioning steam in the long term.

A significant part of our Company mission statement is focused on the survival of operating steam. We have been, currently are, and will continue to study, research and learn those things necessary to help solve the problems. We are prepared to implement new technology regarding drafting, combustion systems, machinery improvement, along with many other aspects aimed at developing a future for steam.

We invite your thoughts and comments, they will be appreciated.

Dave Griner, CMO
Wasatch Railroad Contractors
http://www.wasatch-rr-contractors.com

Sadly, the elements that allow you to reasonably predict the end of steam locomotive operations in 20 years are the same elements that may well destroy this country, both from the inside and the outside, before we will need to worry about steam (and indeed, historical preservation at all).

If this article is any indication, you got a lot more problem than you think.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/12/28/space.youth.apathy.ap/index.html

Dave:
Outstanding summary of the situation. I am impressed that you look at this as either an opportunity or a threat.

One major comment I would add up front involves your assumption that the change will "arrive on three basic fronts." I would suggest that it is 4 fronts, the fourth being "liability" or insurance related issues. The cost to insure an operable locomotive will only go up.

I would agree that the general public really does not care about the historical significance of steam or railroading in general. However, you ask the question "….why continue to present living history…..? I can answer this question from two angles. One as a parent of two kids, the other as a former museum trustee.

As a parent, I can tell you that my kids find stationary displays about as dull as dull can ever be. Displays or artifacts have to be interactive in some fashion in order to keep a kid's attention. Keep in mind those kids are now growing up and will find such displays just as dull when they are adults. An operable steam locomotive is about as interactive as one can get, especially if the public is allowed to be close to it. The NJMT Pine Creek RR was an outstanding example of allowing the public up close to the steam engine. As a fireman and engineer for way too many years out there, a day never went by that I did not talk to a family, a kid, or an adult about the engine. A steam locomotive reaches out to the public like nothing else can. The steam and smoke envelope the customer and draws them in. It makes no difference as to age or background. Heck, based on 25 years of experience, I'd say women ask more questions and show more interest than the guys.

Is operable steam important? Absolutely, from a business stand point for a museum or tourist operation. Why? It brings people in. Either as volunteers or as customers. There is a very basic draw to steam that nothing else has.

Is it an environmental mess? Sure. But so is throwing away your old computer monitor or driving your Lincoln SUV.

As to the C&TS, I would suppose that the customers they do get are drawn in by the scenic ride coupled with the steam operation. Cass is certainly not a final destination for a family vacation, but the customers are there for the same reasons they go to C&TS I would suspect. Where as with the Strasburg RR, families are there for a variety of tourist related reasons.

As to the Roman galley, let me ask you this. Why do people have sail boats today when technically they are a terribly out dated mode of transportation? Very simply, there is draw to such things, although the oars are now missing.

Will a diesel locomotive ever achieve such popularity? I really doubt it. They are a great fill in for when steam is not running, but the public will be touched more effectively by steam.

Is there opportunity? Yes. As the country moves away from its industrial past, and that generation dies off, there will be a need for knowledgeable people to help numerous operations maintain their steam fleet well into the future.

And is operable steam important? Yes, from a business standpoint it is important to tourist operations and museums as a customer and volunteer draw.

J.R. May

As you suggest Dave, a lot of this technology has already been invented elsewhere - and if the US weren't so far behind the 8-ball when it comes to 21st century steam, relative to, say , Patagonia or Argentina, your questions would have already been answered.

I for one will not mourn the final retirement of many of the already marginal operating hulks if they are replaced by modern steamers with the capability of operating well into the next several decades. Many of our current fleet are in their 4th or 5th economic life cycle - and fabric is only capable of a limited number of stress cycles. We have seen failures in cylinders, crankpins, axles, and rods over the past couple years - and in locomotives not necessarily used as intensively as they were built to run.

New construction is slightly more costly than a heavy overhaul of a highly depreciated existing engine that has been worked for 90 years or so. The return on investment is obviously much higher taken in the long term, and the lower costs of operation and maintenence will more than repay the cost differential in the first few years of weekend operation at any decent railroad. And this goes without outside societal pressures, which only serve to tip the balance more in favor of replication with modern materials and techniques.

We have ample reason to keep steam alive - our coal reserves are most obvious from a national energy perspective, our tourist railroad audiences request it (for economic perspective), and, intellectually emotionally, they resound on many levels to the majority of people.

We can buy time by doing what Posner did - acquiring newer engines from overseas with more life cycles left in them - but, for some reason, we as an industry turned our back on this opportunity in favor of pouring more resources back into old more used-up stuff, at far greater cost. We are our own worst enemies - but what else is new?

There are a couple low voices mumbling about replica modern steam now in the industry - hopefully those voices will grow louder over the next couple years.

About those Tross stays - please bring us up to date on them and how they are viewed by FRA and ASME. I think most of us already understand roller bearings, and are most experimenting with bearing materials. I don't know if Martyn has found a US test bed for Porta water treatment yet, but hopefully some intensively operated insular line will provide the opportunity soon.

dave

All good points in this discussion, but I think one of the deciding factors will be the ever advancing ages of the generation that experienced our transportation history, and thus are more prone to appreciate its preservation. That has to be one of the greatest challenges - to educate succeeding generations of the importance of our heritage.

It is no longer that remarkable to see a family standing by a trolley and a child asking how that bus is steered!

When we first started operating 40 years ago attendance rose through the 1960's steadily even though the line was only a half mile long and there were no barns, station, or exhibits. But the people remembered riding those cars.

Now, with far more entertainment and education value, longer ride, more choices of equipment running and almost 50 acres of displays, it is a challenge every year to just maintain the previous year's attendance - let alone grow it significantly. And the totals for general attendance, exclusive of special events, are below those fine startup years.

But many do not see a difference between a diesel powered coach train and an electric interurban, let alone between an el train and a streetcar. They did not ride them to work, school, or see them in traffic. A train, even if operating, is not a lot more exciting to them than seeing a kodiak bear stuffed and mounted in the local natural history museum.

So, yes, while I would hope that steam lives on in decades to come, I am worried about the rail preservation community as a whole if we fail to find the magic bullet that will make ANY operation sustainable.

Bob Kutella

Eveyone has stated many good things,but the one thing I have seen lacking here in the States is unity. In England it seems every one has found a way to work together for the common goal....keeping steam running. It requires a committment from all steam operators to properly maintain their equipment,work with Class Ones or regionals to operate that equipment,and somehow bring our message to the masses. We need someone,ala Steve Irwin,to show the importance of railroads and steam locomotives. Once we solve those issues,the other ones will fall to the wayside. Insurance should remain steady or fall with everyone playing by the same rules and the same responsibilities. A collaborative effort could get new steam built,as well as keeping the ones already running maintained. Perhaps England is not the best example,but it is the only one I know of,and true,steam lasted longer there and more lines were available for preservation.......but the blueprint could start there and expand further.

Bob makes a good point. On those museums that keep records, is ridership (or visitors) going up, going down or basically remaining the same?

Les

The point Bob makes, also brings us back to another frequent topic of discussion on this forum, the seeming difficulty of our "national" railroad history related organizations to promote themselves, their activities, and the hobby. We have talked a number of times about how the attendance at events is getting to be more and more those of us with gray hair. I didn't notice much happening in 2006 that will contribute to changing this. What we are interested in and what our organizations do remains unknown to much of the public.

On one hand I am very concerned about the survival of steam. On the other hand I can see no reason to worry. As Dave said when he kicked off this topic, things are changing very rapidly – except human nature – and therein lies the problem, and most likely the solution.

It has been my observation that everything is like a pendulum. I can think of nothing that has swung to an extreme that hasn’t headed back the other way and repeated the cycle many times since humans have been around. Right now history is in the closet buried under obsolete computer carcasses, but when the collective closet gets cleaned it will be found again and treated as if it were a new discovery. In my opinion the goal is to survive until then and ensure that what we drag out of the closet is the real thing.

History is supposed to be the record of what happened. Living history is an attempt to recreate what really happened and can only be successful when all conditions from a given time are recreated as accurately as possible. Fortunately or unfortunately, that will never happen. Imagine how many people would visit Colonial Williamsburg if the place smelled like it would have “back in the day”. Will steam locomotive smoke assume the same status as sewage and body odor in the 18th century? It is hard to say, but if it goes away, there is a good chance it won’t come back and I have to say that a steam engine without smoke just isn’t the real thing, regardless of how politically correct it might be. I do not believe it is possible to sanitize a steam locomotive and still have a steam locomotive. It seems like trying to create real virtual reality that isn’t as real as virtual reality.

To me the issue boils down to education. Because five people in Durango don’t like smoke is not a reason to sacrifice everything. If the silent majority is not educated, the vocal minority will always carry the day. Education is more difficult, time consuming, and risky than capitulation but it is the only way to win the war. Giving in to the minority opinion du jour may buy a bit of time, but it only makes it more difficult when the next whimsical assault is launched.

I suppose it is up to each individual to decide where to draw a line in the sand, or how much to lower the bar, but for me there comes a point where we have changed what we are trying to save to such an extent that it isn’t worth saving anymore because it no longer is what it was.

That being said, it is my opinion that the global environmental and societal impact of emissions of all types emanating from a couple hundred occasionally operating steam locomotives is not significant. I believe I can say with some confidence that the number of “politically correct” SUV’s out number operating steam locomotives by a rather wide margin and that the emissions produced from them has a far greater impact. That, I believe is reality, and if we turn our backs on reality for short term convenience we have lowered the bar to an unacceptable level. There is no doubt that compromise is necessary, but “zero emissions” is not compromise and if we give up that ground, we will eventually be forced to ground that isn’t worth having.

Gentlemen,
Thank you for your thoughts and comments, they are appreciated.

For Dave: If you pull up our web site(Wasatch Railroad Contractors) and select the library file, there is a complete disertation on Tross staybolts, courtesy of research conducted by Matt Janssen, our General Foreman, an extraordinary piece of work.

For Linn: Your comments are truly valid and I agree wholeheartedly. Drawing a line in the sand is indeed what needs to be done. Having an OBJECTIVE discussion regarding environmental issues with people who, as you note, are NOT educated on the facts and CANNOT relate to the suv comparison and in addition are not interested in even trying to learn the issue is beyond comprehension. Drawing a line in the sand implies that the other side has a capability to perceive the issue.....my experience has been they do not. Putting the history in a box to be opened when reason returns is optimistic at best......you are right that keeping steam as we know it is the only way to present it to future generations.....however, live steam verses boxed steam? I believe there are opportunities for both.
Thank you for a most insightful series of thoughts.

Respectfully to all,
Dave Griner

I don't see this gloomy picture personally.

Ridership & Interest. People are riding behind steam just as much if ever, at least in my parts. On the railroad I work at, our ridership has been going slowly up, not down, and we aren't even marketing heavily outside of our mostly rural area.

Interest, however is another matter. I'll come to that later.

Maintenance. Also not an issue. Routine maintenance is not cost heavy, it's labor heavy, and the majority of steam operations are smaller museum style ops where these people are volunteers. Heavy maintenance does cost money, but so does heavy diesel maintenance, and old diesels are just as prone to break expensively. It's a heck of a lot harder to find old traction motors than it is to find steel that can be fashioned into a radius rod.

For-profit operations have had problems with this, and I recall a CMO at a major eastern for-profit tourist op mentioning to me that diesels made just as much money as steam if not more, for altho the ridership is lowwer behid diesel, the profit margin is thicker.

Environmental. Not really that big of a factor. Yes, people get hypochondriac at places about steam and smoke, but usually thats in a highly urbanized area. Also, that's more with coal fired locomotives than with oil fired ones. (An oil fired locomotive should NOT normally produce gobs of black smoke.) Disposing of old oil, drippings from the engine, etc, those do have some impact, but it's no worse than the average non-tourist railroad, and there are ways to mitigate. Perhaps the future steam engine facility will have drip pans and oil-proof cloth down on the service tracks, for example.

All this said, I do see future problems. But they are slightly different:

Knowledge. We are now in the 2nd generation of steam railroaders. Many of the guys who now keep the steamers alive, people like Doyle for example, are 2nd gen -- they did not serve in the steam era, they began their RR careers in the 1960s. They learned from the old heads around them who had had firsthand knowledge, and those old men helped with the early restorations of the 60s, 70s, and early 80s.

The next generation, however, has no connection to steam except through excursions and tourist railroads. Certainly most of these lines do not run daily, much less under the conditions they were under during regular service. How much experience-based knowledge will die when the Doyle generation is gone? Is it critical knowledge, will it be replaceable?

Fuel. Fuel costs continue to rise at nearly exponential rates. This is one of two major increasing costs. Even fairly fuel efficient engines such as 6-coupled engines drag ungudly amounts of fuel down on each run. Many marginal and smaller operations will have a hard time covering those costs. Either fares will have to raise, or the cost be spread over greater numbers of passengers. It's unlikely that fuel costs will ever go down again, so this will become an increasingly acute problem in the future.

Insurance. Similar to fuel costs, insurance costs have been rising greatly over the last decade, and are unlikley to go back down. The same problems arise for covering the costs as well.

Metal fatigue. We are now operating locomotives in this country that are a century old, in some cases older. How much longer can they operate? What is the molecular limit to their service? How long until metal fatigue catches up and something breaks that is practically and pragmatically irreplaceable? 50 more years? 80? Will a steam locomotive be able to be reliably run at 200 years old?

Just to add my belated input to the discussion, I've had this conversation more than once over the past decade or so, usually with the begrudging conclusion that the hobby and preservation are in a state of decline (my home NRHS chapter is just thrilled to have TWO teenage members - even in my late 40's I'm still below the median age of the membership!). So, I'm not surprised that many, if not most museums suffer from declining attendance. I had high hopes my young nephew was going to be a big fan when "Choo Choo" was one of his first words (and showered him with "Thomas" toys), but he has since become very attached to his hand held "Game Boy". I'm sure I'm not alone in this frustration.

When the Washington, DC Chapter, NRHS finds it increasingly difficult to operate it's fully Amtrak compatible Pullman "Dover Harbor", what does that say for those operating more antiquated equipment? I don't know what the answer is, perhaps Mr. Moedinger is right, and that the pendulum will eventually swing back our way.

I think that it is more likely outside events beyond our control will render most leisure activities a true luxury. There's a reason that countries like China and India have not had the local preservation efforts of many Western countries. It takes disposable income and free time to have hobbies or opportunities to travel for vacations and volunteer at museums or tourist railroads. When you're living on less than $2/day, as over half the World's population does, putting food on the table takes precedence. I bring this up because many predict that we are headed in the direction of increasing privation among a broad swath of the American public. Coupled with declining real wages, increasing (over the long term) fuel costs, and the probable end of easy oil, it looks very much like the future in this country will not allow for mass leisure travel or disposible income in a time frame that many reading this will live to see. I know I'm looking for a sustainable community to move to to ride out the coming hard times. I don't consider this nutty scare tactics. I look at the figures and face the hard truths.

It has even been suggested by some (most notably author James Howard Kunstler) that there might be a roll for revived steam operations in an oil scarce World. However, I don't think he thought out the relative ineffiencies of steam engines. Using coal to generate electricity for traction is still many times more efficient than direct steam locomotion. Hopefully, we can save the most valuable collections and artifacts for posterity.

I have a less optimistic view of the presentation of living history being able to sustain steam locomotive operation. There is a little more enthusiasm in England right now because the generation who admired it (who were kids in the steam era) currently have the resources to re-enact a glorified version of what they experienced. Such is what we have had here the last 50 years. Now the nostalgic generation here is waning and it is up to younger generations to carry on their ambitions. For those who decide to continue it, they will only have second-hand stories, books, and films to create the level of accuracy of history they wish to present. It seems likely that what will be presented will be even further from the way things were. This seems true with most stories – as they are passed down they change to reflect the storyteller’s personality and maintain relevance and acceptance by their audience. What really matters is that a meaningful message is conveyed.

I’m not sure if there is one “message” for the steam locomotive to present in general as it has so many potential roles, but looking at an operator’s mission statement may help. For the museum, “accuracy” may be paramount. For the tourist railroad, factors such as “acceptance” and return to investors may come into play. For the developing nation, it may be the “relevance” of being independent of the First World. The steam locomotive can carry any of these messages. The last two situations in particular lead one to further advance the design of the stem locomotive to make it more effective at performing its work. Even in the museum circumstance a decision must be made to present a particular time or present and preserve the steam locomotive as a machine and a culture. If the latter is the case, than innovation of the steam locomotive should continue as it did throughout it’s life in the steam era – preserving innovation.

An unfortunate reality is that people are becoming further disconnected from reality in the First World. It is difficult to get the x, y, or z generations (see Wikipedia) to leave their house, and they have no interest in how things work (even more, used to work!) This is a global phenomenon, and the less people have to physically work to prosper, the less interested they will be in the physical world. It seems to me the weakest leg of the steam locomotive to stand on is historical reenactment. Resources in the world will become scarce. Reenacting something that happened a long time ago will lose support long before cheap airline flights, cheap electricity, and SUV’s.

It is true one can react to change, do battle, and even win. But, as a technology, the steam locomotive can be used for a proactive battle – one which has great relevance – that of providing motive power for developing nations with a simple technology in situations where it makes sense. New steam locomotives of advanced design that are simple to build, easy to maintain, and are more efficient when all the other factors of infrastructure of IC and electric vehicles are considered. When using easily harvested local fuel (such as bagasse) with minimum refinement (compressing into briquettes), a 15% efficient steam locomotive with carbon-neutral emissions will have a strong niche where it outperforms its rivals due to the limited refining & transport of fuel (IC) or generating & transmission losses (elect.) It is an opportunity for us to use our resources to make this niche possible. The talent and skill we need is in this group and the proving grounds we need are our tourist railroads.

Linn, beautifully stated. I wish I had the prose that you have to put that into writing. No wonder you do such good work on hardware.