Recently, a gentleman from the U.K.'s Bluebell Railway (which just celebrated its 50th year in preservation with no less than 7 locomotives in steam) stopped by at the museum where I volunteer. He brought along copies of U.K.'s biggest selling preservation magazine "Steam Railway" for our crew.
Having been aware of the state of U.K. railway preservation since visiting the Great Central Railway in Loughborough several years ago a I now pose the following questions to you so I can better understand the climate that prevents us from following suit here in the U.S.:
1. Why are steam operations on mainlines in the U.S. so infrequent today, given the variety and relative modernity of some locomotives? Mainline steam operations, even out of major London stations at regular speeds seem to be typical. More to the point why does a stigma towards steam operations on specific railroads.
2. Even after completion of new-build locomotives here in the U.S. (Leviathan, Jupiter, #119, etc.) along with other projects underway (York #17, WW&F Ry. #11) many of the uninitiated still believe that it would be impossible to build a larger scale new-build steam locomotive. Is this a project the U.S. preservation community is prepared to undertake?
I have appreciated the thoughts and knowledge of many of the contributors on this forum for many years, and I look forward to your opinions regarding these topics.

1.) This country does not have an appreciation for the historical heritage that the UK has. In addition, the UK is smaller, so it is easier to visit the various locations than it is in the UK. It has, for too many years, been demonized in this country, and the general population is nearly a generation removed from those who experienced it firsthand.

(A sideline, also in reference to the comments posted on the Yahoo News article about the U.S.S. Olympia: Commandment 8 of "Hip Hop Ten Commandment" is that "Thou cannot have a sense of history. Never ever refer to any historical event that may cause the consumer to think about his/her relation to history. Your role is to entertain, not educate." So, there is an entire body of folks whose "mission statement" run completely counter to ours.)

2.) Mainline steam locomotives like the Tornado in the UK are smaller than they are here; in fact, they are about the size of the Leviathan and other 4-4-0 replicas recently completed. And good luck getting a large enough group of people to decide on what replica you should recreate. The above replicas were possible because they were small enough that either one person, the National Park Service, or a group of people surrendering their pub money for a few years were able to come up with the funds to build them. (And even they confronted a healthy and regular dose of skepticism from the railfan and preservation community in the years it to them to complete their projects.)

But, the above prove it can be done; it just takes lots of commitment, dedication, and money from a large enough group of people.

IMHO,
Since our rail system is privately owned, and all mainline steam operations are privately owned, the only way an excursion will be run is because the two private parties will realize a financial gain. Or the railroad owner(s) likes steam engines.
Not so in the UK where there is a publicly owned rail system run for the benefit of all the stakeholders, and a public which will financially support their history through a dedicated lottery.
As far as the density and quality of the museum operations in the UK, that exists because of the lottery, the fact that the UK was built out by the railroads and not the automobile, and as mentioned, the small size of the country so that you can get to almost anywhere by a half-day's train ride.

If the railroads here were as excursion friendly as they were in the 1960's there would be more than you could ever ride.

This seems to be a recurring topic. Yes, England/UK is much more historically minded than the US. When your recorded history starts with the Roman Empire you have a lot more to work with. And the British look upon history as a "tourist magnet". The US tends to emphasize natural features such as the Grand Canyon and Yosemite, and artificial attractions such as the Disney theme parks and Universal Studios. England has not only steam trains, but attractions for the "juicefans" such as Volk's Electric Railway in Brighton (opened in 1883 and still running), Blackpool trams, and the Southern Electric system which uses 750 volt DC third rail and has older trains that sound like US interurbans. Then there's the Isle of Man, with narrow gauge steam, horse trams, and two electric railways dating back to the days of Queen Victoria. Of special interest is the National Railway Museum in York, with locomotives from the dawn of steam railroading to the poetically named Evening Star, the last steam engine built in England (until Tornado, of course). When someone asked me about my trip to England and the Isle of Man in 1993, I said, "You mean my pilgrimage."

Yes, Alco PA-1's regurgitated. One of the recurring problems in the US is that there is never a shortage of folks who will tell you how quick, easy and inexpensive it should be to do something, provided they are not paying for it.

PC

Okay, folks, let's get off this whole Heritage Lottery kick.

No, no, no, no. The Heritage Lottery exists, but it IS NOT "because of the lottery" that rail preservation projects exist in the UK. This would be akin to saying that because some states dedicate their lottery funds to senior citizens (Pennsylvania did, with some of their lotteries) or education (Maryland), that "Social Security/schools exist because of the lottery." Or it would be like saying "It's because of the National Register of Historic Sites/ISTEA funding that we have railroad museums today."

British rail preservation is just like American rail preservation. Some projects are effectively for-profit operations; some are group efforts with monies and donations from a wide range of sources; some are private preservation projects owned by an individual or group; and some projects receive varying degrees of government money--local government ownership of the track, state grants, ISTEA grants, whatever. And, of course, there's Steamtown NHS, Railtown 1897, a couple of state-owned/run rail museums (Pa., Ca. NC, etc), Cumbres & Toltec, Cass, and a couple others, just as Britain has a National Railway Museum.

I've made donations to several rail preservation projects in the UK. In a sense, I'm a "co-owner" of three former BR diesels. As far as I can tell over the past 29 years of involvement with that project, we have not seen ANY Heritage Lottery money towards our locos. And they've floated back and forth between stored, operating on heritage lines, and operating on the main line.

To repeatedly see this "urban legend" of a vast pool of British government monies that "pays" for all the heritage railway projects postulated again and again is offensive to me, as someone whose associates have worked bloody hard without any such funding to maintain a "status quo." The vast majority of rail lines and rolling stock preserved in the UK were preserved absent any Heritage Lottery funding, just as most American projects were done long before there were ISTEA grants to "pay for" everything. I suppose the next party that solicits donations for a preservation project should be told to just apply for "stimulus" funding instead.

With regards to the size comparisons, "Tornado = 4-4-0" is WAY off. There IS a substantial size difference, however. Here are some random numbers (all loco weight in working order without tender):

LNER Gresley A3 Pacific ("Flying Scotsman"): 96.25 tons
NYC J3a Hudson: 180 tons
Great Western "King" 4-6-0: 90.5 tons
1881 PRR 4-4-0: 46.4 tons
LMS "Royal Scot" 4-6-0: 83 tons
BR "Britannia" 4-6-2: 94 tons
PRR K4s Pacific: 160 tons
SP GS-4 4-8-4: 237.5 tons

Two quotes sum up P Cook's comment:
"Anything is cheap to the person who doesn't have to pay for it"
"Anything is easy to the person who doesn't have to do it"
And I'll throw in another, "Politics is the art of getting everyone to pay for what you think is important" (this would also apply to at least one of the other current discussions)

They will however all show up to take pictures of it and to to complain about anything that does not meet their expectations.

PC

Thank you. I was going to say something along the same lines. If you stand next to,as I have, a GWR Castle,LNER A-4,BR 9F or a LMS Princess Royal they are anything but small. They are not as wide nor high due to the old infrastructure being restrictive,except the GWR routes of course,but not as the size comparision made. Tornado is 106 tons(engine weight),73 ft long LOA ,has a 50 sq.ft. grate...that would be one heck of an 8 wheeler. For example,PRR D-16sb comes in at 48 tons,33 sq.ft grate area,62 ft.long.

RE: UK Heritage Lottery Fund
Please reread my post, there wasn't any direct or implied denigration of volunteer effort or donations anywhere. The point was that the availability of a large chunk of money makes it possible to tackle big projects much faster than can be done with small donations.

Here is the link to the HLF website:

http://www.hlf.org.uk/Pages/Home.aspx

(Please note as one example that the Isle of Wight Railway received approx. $755,000 USD for carriage workshops and rolling stock restoration.)

From what I read just about anyone can apply for a grant from the fund. Approximately $317 Million USD each year is a large amount of money for a country the size of the UK.

I agree that much preservation there would exist without it, as it does here, but it is clear that the quality and quantity of preservation of all types in the UK would suffer without that funding.

Thank you all for information regarding locomotive size. Not only is it important to consider the size of the locomotive, but also the engineering and design which it included. The A1, or any locomotive build in the 20th century for that matter, will be a far more complex piece of engineering than a mid-late nineteenth century 4-4-0.
These projects are the seeds for what can become an effort to build more modern new-build locomotives here in the U.S. They prove it can be done, Tornado proves it can be done, and others are working to prove it is possible on a regular basis.
Preservation beginning with a collection of artifacts is important. But beyond that it is important to preserve the skills of construction and maintenance which accompany the locomotives which we wish to see endure, thus providing a more complete history and recollection of the past.

First, we must grasp the reality that steam locomotives are not getting any younger. There will come a time when even the most modern steam locomotive needs to be treated gingerly due to its age. Unless we face this problem we will be dealing with less and less locomotives which are capable of operating. Restorations will become more costly and involved as time goes on.
Second, we need to make sure the skills in maintaining and constructing locomotives are preserved. While preservationists may have been doing a good job of this, more apprenticeships need to happen, or steam will one day come to an end. NRHS's Railcamp is a great idea, but it only gives students a taste of what is available. If Railcamp led to a mentoring/apprenticeship program that could have many beneficial outcomes.
Third, Preservation follows a natural and balanced evolution. Is the next new steam locomotive we build in the United States going to be a replica of a NYC Niagara? Probably not, because there is a great deal of evolutionary ground we have to cover in our field between the Niagara and a nineteenth century 4-4-0. Many other locomotives which we have lost would be interesting and practical to recreate. In addition, they would help preservationists to regain knowledge and skills in the art of locomotive construction.

Current trends in preservation are an integral part of our learning process. New-builds already occurring along with restorations contribute to our learning. Furthermore, restoration and preservation of locomotives is of significant importance, but should be balanced with construction of new locomotives. Today's preservationists have kept the fires burning for many years, and the dream is alive, but let us leave them burning brighter than before for the next generation.

The economics of mainline excursions in the USA have become grim. Here is why:

The good news is that FRA code (49CFR238 Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, paragraph 238.3(c)(3) Applicability), specifically exempts historic passenger cars in excursion service from many of the newer regulations. (Bulletproof windows, emergency exit windows, hub-stamped wheels, electronics & software, etc, etc.) This makes sense!

The bad news is that nearly every class-1 railroad, and Amtrak (if they are sponsors or otherwise involved) wants passenger equipment to meet Amtrak Tier I (125mph) standards. This includes bulletproof window glazing, tightlock type couplers, complete truck teardown & rebuild, hub-stamped wheels, roller bearings, complete stripping of underbody equipment to inspect structural members, HEP installation, etc. Older equipment never met most of these requirements, even when brand new in 1914 or 1954! And it doesn't matter that excursions with historic passenger cars don't need most of these features, and never will operate anywhere close to 125mph. So perfectly-restored-to-like-new historic equipment is generally no longer acceptable on the mainline. This is a major change from the 1980s-early 1990s.

European countries use more rational requirements for historic passenger cars on mainline excursions.

I know of no Amtrak-approved historic high-capacity coaches available for rent in the far west. Mainline excursions here now use Amtrak coaches and/or privately-owned luxury (lounge etc) cars. ATSF 3751 trips are a recent example. Modern Amtrak coaches aren't exactly optimal for a historic experience, and are a tough sell to anyone other than diehard railfans. That nearly eliminates the family trade, which is most of the potential customers. The private luxury cars are fun, but necessarily have high cost per seat. Typically there isn't much profit in the whole operation, certainly not enough to pay long-term maintenance costs.

Bottom line: No museum operation can survive long-term primarily on revenue from mainline excursions.

An example of car restoration costs: GGRM has spent roughly $100k in purchased materials & services, plus innumerable skilled volunteer labor hours, to restore "Art Deco" lounge car S.P. 2979 to first-class condition for use on Niles Canyon Railway www.ncry.org . See photos: http://www.ggrm.org/Collection_view.aspx?id=8 Mechanically it's better than when the S.P. ran it 1940s-1960s - new Stadco quietized diesel generator, new air conditioning, roller bearings, corroded ends rebuilt stronger than original, etc. And it looks like it just left the S.P. Sacramento Shops [in 1940] inside and out. This has proved to be a wise investment, not only from a historic preservation point of view, but also economically - the car is busy earning back it's costs on Niles Canyon Railway's "Train of Light" holiday trains, S.P. 2472 operations, Valentine's Day specials, etc. But upgrading this car to Amtrak Tier I standards would add another ~$200k, and the additional investment would never pay for itself.

I beg to differ.

The HLF only started in 1994. By that time, virtually every last steamer (200+) out of the Woodhams Brothers scrapyard had been saved, with many in mainline operating condition by then. And heritage lines were starting to grab BR Mk.I coaches and Class 20's, 33's and 40's, the philosophical equivalent of Pennsy stainless steel cars or AT&SF bilevels, GP9's, U25B's, and GP30's.

For every rail preservation project in the UK that gets a big, fat check from the HLF, there are many, many more that don't--dozens, perhaps hundreds. (I have a 1985 "inventory" list that tallies 500+, from the big museums or excursion lines down to several British equivalents of the Kepner "collection" in Oregon and/or the West Va. Northern 2-8-0's stashed by the Leap family until recently.)

Winning a HLF grant, like winning grants or government monies here, is as much a demonstration of the prowess of grant-application writing and academic "politics" as it is a judgment of the historical and/or social worthiness of the project. The Isle of Wight Railway, mentioned as the recipient of that award for a coach restoration facility, happens to have an utterly stunning collection of "Pre-Grouping" carriages (all pre-1923); it also enjoys (as I've read) a notable bit of support from politicians on the island, which see the rail line as much a "tourist shuttle" as it is an attraction in its own right. The carriages all showed up before the grant monies did; the grant can be seen as a well-due reward for due diligence and over thirty years of hard work.

Winning a HLF grant does make life easier for the recipients, and that is the objective of the HLF, of course. But implicit in your broad, sweeping generalization is that rail preservation has been made so much easier in the UK than it is in the USA, which was part of the point of the original query. And I'm saying "poppycock." The difference is not that substantial, in the grand scheme of things. The awards tend to come to projects that have established their worthiness over many years, not--to make up an example--to someone who suddenly decides "hey, guys, let's save this train/station/line--the government will give us the money!"

In reply to Doug Debs post, I agree that a museum would have a hard time operating long term strictly running mainline excursions, predominantly because it would be hard to meet/identify a specific meaningful mission to accomplish as a museum operating in that manner, leading to the museums long-term demise.
With regard to equipment meeting Amtrak Tier I standards, it is one of the problems museums and excursion operators face in the long term operation of excursions over Class I (and other) railroads.
Some may be inclined to just accept that as being the status quo. That type of inaction would not benefit operators and museums in the long run. These standards will continue to contribute to the demise of heritage rail excursions in this county. If preservationists can run professional, safe and non-disruptive operations over other railroads, then I believe it is necessary to take this empirical evidence and use it for the benefit of heritage operations. While one must recognize the right of railways to control traffic and equipment on their own railroads, a reasonable solution, which is beneficial to both parties should be feasible.
The failure to allow this equipment to operate is not only an unreasonable conclusion, but also an unacceptable one.
Credit is also due to the Norfolk Southern, which is using steam as a valuable tool to their benefit, and many preservationists elation. In addition, credit is due to a favorite Ohio Central former president, who is also working to ensure the long-term success of steam. Credit is also due to all of the level-headed preservationists already making positive headway on the projects which I have brought to this forum.