Railway Preservation News :: View topic - Conway Scenic steam vs. diesel

Frederick's original post did raise a general question in my mind. Once a tourist railroad or museum has expended the funds to do the required certifications (FRA Form 4, Annual etc...assuming they are required for that operation), what would motivate them to run only a few days per year? I'm guessing that availability of experienced personnel is one critical issue. I could also see the argument that more operating days = more wear and tear = more potential for major (costly) malfunctions. On the flip side, severely limiting the number of operating days leaves those days looking very expensive on the balance sheet as they limit the opportunities to recover the fixed costs. In addition, the 15-year / 1472-day inspection clocks keep on ticking, even as the engine sits cold in the shed.

/Kevin

Author:	Frederick G. Bailey [ Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:48 am ]
Post subject:	Conway Scenic steam vs. diesel
They hardly ever run steam there any more. Their Operations Manager posted a message about the cost and difficulty of operating steam on their web site earlier this year--look under "steam locomotive #7470". Supposedly, the 0-6-0 was to be available for "specials and charters" during the Summer season and then operate regularly for a month during the peak fall foliage season from mid-September to mid-October. I called them yesterday to confirm a September 25th date for steam operation (per the Operations Manager's suggestion in a Wheel Report a while back: "IF MOTIVE POWER IS IMPORTANT TO YOU, CALL TO CONFIRM WHEN THE LOCOMOTIVE WILL BE RUNNING"). The person who anwered the phone obviously had to ask someone else, and I was told "it's most likely it will, but its not guaranteed. That's the best we can tell you at this time." The Operations Manager says the best way to keep steam alive on the Conway Scenic is to buy tickets when its running, but they can't even tell you when that'll be any more. Inside sources tell me #7470 hasn't even had its FRA annual inspection yet this year, so the railroad isn't saying for sure on the phone it will run this Fall. Also, in New Hampshire, the Mt. Washington Cog Railway has converted over to "mostly diesel' operation without any noticeable decline in ridership--but maybe the Cog should be considered in the same category as Grand Canyon. Frederick G. Bailey

Author:	John E. McNamara [ Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Conway Scenic steam vs. diesel
No railroad can guarantee that a particular piece of motive power, especially a steam engine, will be operating on a specific day. In my experience, the Conway Scenic (and especially their Operations Manager) have always been very forthright in their communications. They periodically post on at least one of the railroad interest lists, and they publish the "Wheel Report" on a regular basis. It's a First Class operation.

Author:	softwerkslex [ Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Conway Scenic steam vs. diesel
The information on Conway's site now seems very specific. Maybe it was posted after your inquiry. They give specific dates now.

Author:	Frederick G. Bailey [ Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Conway Scenic steam vs. diesel
Very interesting, Steven. Its certainly not what was on the web site yesterday, and definitely not what I was told on the phone yesterday. I was hoping to take my new wife to North Conway and introduce her to #7470 after our wedding on September 25th, but decided to go elsewhere after contacting several other tourist lines that were able to guarantee me that they would be running steam that weekend. Frederick G. Bailey

Author:	KevinM [ Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Conway Scenic steam vs. diesel
Not that long ago, New England had quite a bit of regular steam activity, particularly on weekends during the summer vacation season. There was The Valley Railroad in Connecticut, the Mt. Washington Cog Railway, the White Mountain Central (Clark's Trading Post), Conway Scenic, Loon Mountain (during ski season), Belfast & Moosehead Lake (the "Swedish Trainset"), and the two-foot operations at Wiscasset (WW&F), Phillips (SR&RL), Portland (MNGRR) and Boothbay (BBRV). Even Edaville occasionally ran some steam with a transplated sugar cane loco. Today, the only operations running regular, daily steam are The Valley Railroad, White Mountain Central and The Cog (one trip per day). In addition, the WW&F and Boothbay Railway Village operate most weekends during the summer and run special events at other times. I believe that the folks at Loon Mtn. still run their little wood-burner in the winter and a couple of the two-foot operations that have not run recently are working to restore their locomotives. Frederick's original post did raise a general question in my mind. Once a tourist railroad or museum has expended the funds to do the required certifications (FRA Form 4, Annual etc...assuming they are required for that operation), what would motivate them to run only a few days per year? I'm guessing that availability of experienced personnel is one critical issue. I could also see the argument that more operating days = more wear and tear = more potential for major (costly) malfunctions. On the flip side, severely limiting the number of operating days leaves those days looking very expensive on the balance sheet as they limit the opportunities to recover the fixed costs. In addition, the 15-year / 1472-day inspection clocks keep on ticking, even as the engine sits cold in the shed. /Kevin

Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/

Conway Scenic steam vs. diesel https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29926	Page 1 of 1

Author:	nathansixchime [ Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Conway Scenic steam vs. diesel
KevinM wrote: Frederick's original post did raise a general question in my mind. Once a tourist railroad or museum has expended the funds to do the required certifications (FRA Form 4, Annual etc...assuming they are required for that operation), what would motivate them to run only a few days per year? I'm guessing that availability of experienced personnel is one critical issue. I could also see the argument that more operating days = more wear and tear = more potential for major (costly) malfunctions. On the flip side, severely limiting the number of operating days leaves those days looking very expensive on the balance sheet as they limit the opportunities to recover the fixed costs. In addition, the 15-year / 1472-day inspection clocks keep on ticking, even as the engine sits cold in the shed. /Kevin Though all of the reasons you list are perfectly reasonable and actually accepted practice in some places, let me add one more: Steam is special -- running it every day lessens its appeal. The last thing we want steam to be is "run of the mill" or "ordinary." You don't want to lose the built in wow-factor, though I fully recognize and appreciate the obligation to fill up those days before the 1472 days are over. You have to maximize your use of any locomotive -- big or small.

Author:	Mgoldman [ Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:41 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Conway Scenic steam vs. diesel
nathansixchime wrote: Steam is special -- running it every day lessens its appeal. Sex is special, too. LOL. /Mitch

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/