I want to throw out this idea that interested persons donate funds to have a ALCO diesel painted on a shortline. I will not mention the shortline as its such a new idea that I have not even presented this to them.
It would work this way: A fund raising campaign would be started to raise funds for the painting of a locomotive into its company scheme. This would mean that "fans " would pay for the painting of a particular locomotive instead of the railroad paying for it. Another words, the "fans" would "Adopt" the locomotive . The railroad would do the painting which would be paid for by the donations. This way the railroad would get a ALCO painted at no expense on their part.

Does this seem like a workable idea? Your thoughts please. I am guessing that it would require $15-25,000 to paint a locomotive depending on the paint used as well as the work required to do the painting properly.

That much for what, a switcher-sized unit? I realize prices have gone up over time, but $20K? I believe that CSX went to it's current "Dark Future" two-tone paint scheme because 10 or so years ago the previous tri-color "Yellow Nose Phase 2" scheme was costing somewhat over $10K for a big GE AC loco.

I forgot to mention that it was for a six axle unit with 2 colors and pin striping.

I could see some shortline guys with business and accounting experience (we have one or two of those lurking here, I believe) who might raise some issues with this. The locomotive is a corporate asset, we presume; there are such things as business expenses, depreciation, and even brand marketing to consider. Without the railroad's explicit OK, this will go nowhere, and if they're railfan enough to be interested in painting a locomotive in a "heritage" paint scheme, they can usually justify the paint job themselves. The former "Robey Empire" of short lines in central Pa., for example, has had many of their locomotives painted in variations of Reading and Erie Lackawanna paint just because there were enough "railfans" in management that they liked the idea. Ditto several other operations--Finger Lakes, Georges Creek, Maryland Midland when they first started, etc.

If they actually intend to keep this loco in service for another decade or more, the better justification might be to offer to pay the cost difference between a "standard" paint job and the "custom" job. If this loco is eventually targeted for preservation somewhere, all the better.

$10,000 for a full-sized loco several years ago....... okay, now assume you're using a paint shed and not either hand-brushed paint or possibly-illegal open-the-doors-of-the-enginehouse-and-blow-fans-through-the-place spray painting. You're using quality catalyst hardener paint that costs upwards of $200 a gallon (and small custom blends, not barrels like at a major RR using all the same paint over and over) but will last 20 years. LOTS of labor masking off a custom one-off job. The guys who do this for a living aren't volunteers, and are really setting their own health at risk long-term, even with "space suits." Throw in shipping to and from the paint booth. Yeah, I could see $20K easily.

BZZ BZZ BZZ Naysayer alert!!!

$10k is incusive of all that stuff.

Well, not the shipping to a paint booth. I can't speak to all the eco-fruity states, but painting a locomotive without a spray booth is 100% legal in California. You may get into hassles using paints intended for certain products, e.g. automobiles, and the answer is use paints intended for other products.

Last time I painted a critter, the paint cost about $1000 with probably 2/3 left over. From that I'm confident I could paint an RS-3 sized unit for not much more, assuming there isn't too much rust removal to do. I'm referring to LPU, same stuff Boeing puts on the Dreamliner. See units still running around in Rio Grande, SP or Conrail - that's LPU. And yes, it is full of isocyanates, so try to keep it off your skin and definitely out of your lungs.

Anyway the point of that is, material costs are fairly inconsequential compared to labor. That is an area volunteers can help a lot.

I should point out that the railroad would do the actual work. The funds to pay for it would come from the "donations"
Doing it this way would cut out the liability and allow the railroad flexibility of choosing the paint company and doing the work when time allows.
As I stated before it would be for a 6 axle ALCO locomotive.

Back around 1982, Boston & Maine SW9 1223 was repainted into its original delivery paint scheme as the result of a donation from the Amherst Railway Society. So this concept has already been tried successfully.

That being said, my opinion is that the money and effort is better spent repainting a locomotive that is owned by a preservation organization. A personnel change in the management of a commercial railroad (a different Chief Mechanical Officer, as an example) can easily undo all the effort if the project is done on one of their locomotives.

PC

As an alternative, how much does an overwrap cost? I know a stock car wrap costs about $200 (applied by the team's own crew.) Cost should be comparable to a bus wrap, whatever that is, plus the cost of prep and primer if the original paint is bad enough to need removed. The (perceived?) benefit of wraps is that they can be changed with relative ease and without altering the paint under them, yet they adhere well enough not to peel off at 200 mph.
ISTR Amtrak wrapped a couple of units, but can't remember where or when.

It sounds like a pretty good idea!

I suggest working with a local museum, and get their name into it also.

When the locomotive reaches the end of it's useful life, if it's still on this same railroad, then that railroad would be more likely to donate it or aim it towards the local museum.

If you get it painted your way, that's good. If later on you can save it from destruction, that would be even better!

After getting a paint quote from the railroad, then think of some other worthy cause to apply the donated money to, in the event that the donations don't meet the cost. And publicize that to the potential donors. "We're looking for $20,000 to paint this MRS-1 into Army colors again, but if we don't make it, then we'll use the money to repaint the static caboose at this other location"

You know.

James

I am a little troubled by the idea of a non- profit raising money to enhance a for-profit's property. If a bunch of people want to give a railroad money th paint something for their own enjoyment- say for a photo freight or just for fans to see then great. Maybe I am reading too much into this but there seems to be an inference of "donations" to do this being tax deductible which I think is a problem.

In some cases, this is the ONLY way you will ever see a locomotive get painted. The railroad does not always have the funds to do this on their own.
Besides, it bolsters the railroads image and improves the fans relationship with said railroad.Good public relations is always a positive thing.

< Besides, it bolsters the railroads image and improves the fans relationship with said
railroad.Good public relations is always a positive thing. >

The best thing a railroad can do to bolster its image is to provide the best service possible. I can't think of one railroad that enhanced their standing in their community by painting a locomotive.

And fan relationships? Like, "since I helped get your locomotive painted I can trespass now"?

Doing any favors for a railroad does not imply automatic special privileges such as trespassing. Any railfan that thinks otherwise is sadly mistaken..

Since no one has bothered to point this out, I should point out that the likelihood of getting a 501c3 approval from the IRS for an organization whose goal can be seen as providing a benefit to a for-profit corporation is exactly zero. It won't happen.

But let's suppose that you don't state your purpose in such a way that it constituted an unacceptable grounds for a 501c3 declaration. After a year or two of finagling, you get your 501C3 and promptly turn around and spend $20K enhancing the property of a for-profit corporation, to its benefit.

Your 501c3 won't survive the next Form 990, and anybody who donated to you will have a sudden (and probably unwelcome) tax liability for what they donated to you.

You really, really, really need to consult a good lawyer with expertise in the field.

BZZ BZZ BZZ Naysayer alert!!!

While "benefiting a for-profit organization" certainly is an issue that needs to be taken seriously, it is far from a deal-breaker.

In short, how does ABC Shortline Co. benefit by their engine painted Reading?

Triplecrown built a warehouse which abuts the Appalachian Trail. The AT societies are up-in-arms because they want a screen of trees on TC property to shield the warehouse from view. Now suppose they agree that an AT-related 501c3 plants the trees at its own expense on TC property. Is this AUTOMATICALLY prohibited because TC is for-profit? Of course not. Common sense.

Read the IRS pamphlets and opinions on the subject, private letter rulings, and if necessary, some case law. (searchable on Google Scholar). Of course the whole point of naysaying is to make you abandon hope, so they don't want you uncovering facts, which is why they don't mention any of these assets, and instead send you on a snipe hunt to a tax lawyer you probably won't pay for (and they sure won't).

In defense of tax lawyers: If you are wrong, and IRS catches you, you still owe the back tax and plain interest, along with other effects e.g. your exempt status. However, you are protected from penalties (punishment) if you acted on tax lawyer's advice, it was their mistake and not yours.* So in that sense, a lawyer is a "get out jail free" card. Literally :) ...However... for a great deal less money, you can go to the IRS in advance and get a private letter ruling. That is final and definitive. In that sense, it is an "I Win" button.


* but wait, some punishment charges in this area are excise taxes rather than penalties.