Has anyone ever explored teaming up with a passenger railroad, maybe even Amtrak, on shorter, money-losing routes by supplying steam power to the existing service? The idea is to increase ridership and either charge the operator on a per passenger or fixed cost basis. This might be a way to use larger power without the massive insurance premium being borne entirely by the locomotive owner as liability insurance is already being paid by the operator. Any thoughts?

> Has anyone ever explored teaming up with a
> passenger railroad, maybe even Amtrak, on
> shorter, money-losing routes by supplying
> steam power to the existing service? The
> idea is to increase ridership and either
> charge the operator on a per passenger or
> fixed cost basis. This might be a way to use
> larger power without the massive insurance
> premium being borne entirely by the
> locomotive owner as liability insurance is
> already being paid by the operator. Any
> thoughts?

Hmm, a nifty and seductive idea onthe surface.

There are a couple ways this could be handled. One, you could advertise a "steam special" on one train, one direction. Or, if you could get two or three large steamers together, you could run steam on all trips by one particular train (both ways) for, say, a week.

The shorter Amtrak routes aren't the money-losers, though. It's the long-haul, cross-country routes that lose the most per passenger and are in the most danger. Most of the shorter trips are at least partially supported by local states, so from Amtrak's perspective they don't lose that much. I'd love to see steam on something like the Sunset (actually, I'd prefer the Silver Star for personal reasons, but that presents additional problems I won't go into here).

Could an all-volunteer crew handle a multi-day, non-stop trip? I'm sure they could handle it from a quality of work standpoint, I'm talking about being able to provide enough warm bodies. Would it be possible for an all-volunteer organization to be able to provide enough relief enginemen to take a train all the way from Jacksonville to LA, for example? Remember, you'd most likely need a minimum of three full engine crews, plus two knowledgeable emergency repair crews, due to the Federal Hours of Service law.

Sexy as it sounds, I can see a number of obstacles to this idea besides the crew element. First of all, I think that the insurance issue would simply be different, not cheaper. Remember that regular Amtrak trains are pulled by Amtrak locomotives. If the engine breaks down and delays the train, the company owns the engine so there's nobody else to blame. If a steam locomotive breaks down and delays the train, I can see some lawsuit-happy lawyer (or even Amtrak itself) suing the engine's owner because his client missed a connection. Insurance to cover this very real possibility probably wouldn't be cheap, if you could even get it.

Second, the freight railroads barely tolerate Amtrak as it is. Can't you see Mr. Goode, for example, sitting in his office in Roanoke saying, "You want to pull the Crescent with WHAT?"

Finally, how many additional passengers would really be attracted? Going back to my earlier thesis about big steam, the folks who are really interested in the steam engine don't ride, they chase. There aren't any Dutch doors on Amfleet, Superliner, or Viewliner cars, and Amtrak conductors are loathe to let you in the vestibule at all, let alone ride there. You might get a few first-class passengers (like me) who would ride just to be rocked to sleep in their bed while the sounds of a steam whistle sing their lullaby. But there just aren't that many of us hardcore train nuts out there. Most "daisy pickers" -- and a lot of railfans -- ride a special excursion for the sake of taking in the scenery, or in the case of mileage collectors, to ride over a given stretch of track. Steam on a regular, scheduled Amtrak train would appeal to only a few people who would actually pay to ride.

As a one-time PR stunt, it might work. But as a coherent program with the intention odf increasing ticket sales, I just don't think it would work. I wish it would, though.

The South Carolina Railroad Museum
mconrad@compuzone.net

This sounds like a USA Plandampf type operation.

The B&O did it in 1964 with their "Iron Horse Days" They brought RDG T-1 2100 to Baltimore to run some of their BAL-WAS trains with mostly RDG open-window cars. It ran one week-end only and was not repeated. RDG ended the Rambles after that fall's season.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

>You need an organization of impeccable reputation with an airtight plan to produce windfall profits without any possible additional legal, financial or operational risks over an extended period of time.

Then they might talk to you.


superheater@rrmail.com

CN ran scheduled Niagara Falls-Toronto service with 6060 in the 70's. Consider though it was a railroad that had gotten rid of steam a scant 15 or so years earlier and also then it was a Crown Corporation with perhaps less or a less intense devotion to the bottom line.

In this day and age...a nutty idea considering the current corporate world.

> Has anyone ever explored teaming up with a
> passenger railroad, maybe even Amtrak, on
> shorter, money-losing routes by supplying
> steam power to the existing service? The
> idea is to increase ridership and either
> charge the operator on a per passenger or
> fixed cost basis. This might be a way to use
> larger power without the massive insurance
> premium being borne entirely by the
> locomotive owner as liability insurance is
> already being paid by the operator. Any
> thoughts?

Jason,

I believe your proposal would not entirely eliminate the need for liability insurance. If the organization or group is providing the locomotives and crews, there will still be a risk borne into the venture.

For example, even though Amtrak may have far more liability resources, if your engine shears an axle and derails a 14 car Superliner consist, you can bet the steam operator is still going to get sued... thus the need for having insurance additional to what Amtrak carries. The only way around it MIGHT be some sort of lease agreement, where the passenger operator assumes temporary custody or ownership of the locomotive, but then it's likely they'll want to make some equipment alterations (such as adding ditch lights, changing safey appliances, etc) in order to lessen their own liability risks.

That said, even if those issues can be resolved, you have other factors that will have an impact. Most passenger schedules are not set up to allow for the time needed to perform routine fueling and maintenence chores on a steamer. The operator simply can't afford to alter the schedule, or delay a train, for the locomotive... especially if the passenger authority depends on a host freight RR, with a scheduled "window" for its train.

Another issue will also involve labor. Once you cross over from the realm of running a special excursion, to running on a scheduled train, you're going to involve operational personnel who might otherwise not be affected. What happens to the engineers/assistant engineers who are affected by the proposal? The passenger carrier won't want to pay them if they aren't used, and the union is going to balk at their members being told to stay home withouy pay so a volunteer crew can operate in their place. It's an issue that could get rather tricky, due to it being a scheduled run versus a "one time" special move.

Overall, I honestly don't believe the financial benefits would outweigh the risks, or other concerns, that would crop up in its place.

At a place like Steamtown, I think the practice of bringing in "guest" locomotives would definitely work. In the world of Interstate Commerce... probably not...

Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

> Has anyone ever explored teaming up with a
> passenger railroad, maybe even Amtrak, on
> shorter, money-losing routes by supplying
> steam power to the existing service? The
> idea is to increase ridership and either
> charge the operator on a per passenger or
> fixed cost basis. This might be a way to use
> larger power without the massive insurance
> premium being borne entirely by the
> locomotive owner as liability insurance is
> already being paid by the operator. Any
> thoughts?

Jason: I have read the comments. Basically - "IT CAN'T BE DONE!" But I think it COULD be done; under the right circumstances. For instance:

1. AMTRAK would have to give it a decent shot. Say a three month trial.

2. It would have to be a train that is coming off anyway. For instance, there is an AMTRAK train that is being discontinued between Chicago and Louisville. The people in Louisville are upset as they just spent bucks on putting the Louisville station back in operation. The train never attracted a heck of a lot of riders but MAYBE being steam powered on a regular basis would. Enough to tip the balance? Probably not; but why not at least try?

3. Some alterations would have to be made. No dutch doors? Then set up a baggage car with bars and screens right behind the engine so that the fans AND daisy pickers could hear the engine. And the baggage car would have to be open to passengers at all times.

4. Regular AMTRAK crews would have to be used; no volunteers. Engineers not trained on steam? Then teach 'em! Who knows; MAYBE some AMTRAK engineers might even jump at the chance!

5. Even AMTRAK wouldn't want to fess up for the steam locomotives that would be needed to run (and protect) the schedule. BUT, there seems to be a number of steam locomotives out there right now that are not earning their keep. Could AMTRAK make a "deal" with some of these owners? The fact that the Louisville/Chicago train is short and runs on an easy schedule, certainly makes enignes like Pacifics and Mikes possiblitites for motive power, in addition to the larger engines.

6. You're probably going to have both Indiana and Kentucky in the corner of such a train. Better then having the train cancelled.

7. AMTRAK would have to promote the train. Even for the three month trial. The same would go for the states involved.

What would REALLY be interesting is if AMTRAK would go for the trial and the train proved popular and profitable. My goodness...what then?

Les Beckman (HVRM)

midlandblb@cs.com

> Jason: I have read the comments. Basically -
> "IT CAN'T BE DONE!" But I think it
> COULD be done; under the right
> circumstances. For instance:

> 1. AMTRAK would have to give it a decent
> shot. Say a three month trial.

Amtrak has too much cost control and budgetary issues to even consider such a plan. Under Claytor's term, such an idea might have had a chance. Under David Gunn... no way... he's critical enough of the company's past decision making as it is, let alone having to resort to what the business folks would consider sideshow gimmicks to attract passengers.

> 2. It would have to be a train that is
> coming off anyway. For instance, there is an
> AMTRAK train that is being discontinued
> between Chicago and Louisville. The people
> in Louisville are upset as they just spent
> bucks on putting the Louisville station back
> in operation. The train never attracted a
> heck of a lot of riders but MAYBE being
> steam powered on a regular basis would.
> Enough to tip the balance? Probably not; but
> why not at least try?

Unfortunately, the riders who make or break a train are probably those least likely to care about a steam locomotive. They are the riders who use the train for reasons other than nostalgia or a love of railroads. Putting a steam locomotive on a train may temporarily boost some ridership figures through railfan patronage, but the harsh reality is that the train will be still doomed to fail once it returns to "every day" status.

> 3. Some alterations would have to be made.
> No dutch doors? Then set up a baggage car
> with bars and screens right behind the
> engine so that the fans AND daisy pickers
> could hear the engine. And the baggage car
> would have to be open to passengers at all
> times.

Reality dictates otherwise. Since Amtrak's regular passenger car fleet depends on HEP power, how do you provide electricity for the train's basic necessities... such as heating/AC, lighting, food service, etc? Amtrak's cars aren't equipped with generators, which makes either a diesel or power car a must... the latter of which I don't believe Amtrak owns. Amtrak risk management would probably kill the idea of open baggage car doors outright. Between concerns of people falling out, to being struck by objects thrown trackside, the loss prevention people wouldn't see a railfan-oriented enjoyment as being worth the risk.

> 4. Regular AMTRAK crews would have to be
> used; no volunteers. Engineers not trained
> on steam? Then teach 'em! Who knows; MAYBE
> some AMTRAK engineers might even jump at the
> chance!

Being an officer in a labor organization, and seeing how RR's spend their training budget, this one would never have a chance of happening. RR's hardly even train employees on new equipment as it is now, let alone spending money on steam qualifications.

> 5. Even AMTRAK wouldn't want to fess up for
> the steam locomotives that would be needed
> to run (and protect) the schedule. BUT,
> there seems to be a number of steam
> locomotives out there right now that are not
> earning their keep. Could AMTRAK make a
> "deal" with some of these owners?
> The fact that the Louisville/Chicago train
> is short and runs on an easy schedule,
> certainly makes enignes like Pacifics and
> Mikes possiblitites for motive power, in
> addition to the larger engines.

Engine size is only one issue. You also have to deal with intended design paramters. How reliable is the locomotive? What speeds are it capable of? What schedule air brake equipment is it equipped with? What kind of fuel does it use? What water capacity does the tender hold? What measures need to be taken if a running repair needs to be made enroute? The exact engine determines all of the logistical planning and contingincies needed for support in making it run. It's much easier in a standardized diesel locomotive fleet, such as Amtrak's GE units, but when you introduce a unique steam locomotive to the mix, all bets are off. In addition, I can't even begin to imagine how the FRA would even react to such a proposal, ranging on issues from crew certification, to equipment standards and inspection. Waivers are often granted on historical equipment in limited use, but once you start doing it every day, hauling an unsuspecting general public, things change.

> 6. You're probably going to have both
> Indiana and Kentucky in the corner of such a
> train. Better then having the train
> cancelled.

Politicians might go for the media coverage, but it's doubtful the venture would make it past Amtrak management, even with a world of support from the political hacks.

> 7. AMTRAK would have to promote the train.
> Even for the three month trial. The same
> would go for the states involved.

Amtrak barely has enough money to operate their system as it is now. There's no way they'd dedicate scarce funds on the promotion of a gimmick.

> What would REALLY be interesting is if
> AMTRAK would go for the trial and the train
> proved popular and profitable. My
> goodness...what then?

Based on my experience in employment with one of the Class 1's, I can say with no doubt that the chances of Amtrak even considering the idea are relatively slim. Running a RR on a day to day basis isn't a matter of just picking out a locomotive, coupling it to a train, and taking off down the tracks. For example, the testing process for Amtrak's HST's (High Speed Trainsets, including the models they tested prior to ordering their Acela Express trainsets) affected far more things than the casual observer would have known. Freight schedules were altered, work areas adjusted and moved, and all sorts of other infrastructure and support activity needed to be in place before it became a reality.

Some folks may think my preservation views lean toward the cynical side, but I believe that comes from seeing firsthand how the corporate side of the RR business runs in relation to what the public or railfan perceives. It's something I deal with every day. There's far more than meets the eye, and running a one time excursion is tough enough as it is... yet it's far easier and practical from an operations standpoint than attempting to run steam in regular service.

In today's economic, corporate, and legal climate... I just don't see the idea ever happening...


Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

Regarding the Louisville-Chicago train, there are further considerations than those mentioned by Les. For instance, this train has an overnight schedule. It would have to be changed to a daylight run, it seems to me, in order to attract passengers. In fact the present schedule is probably the reason the train isn't getting enough passengers.

Also, the train runs over L&I at a very slow pace, due mainly to track conditions south of Indianapolis. The run of 300+ miles one way would require an engine capable of going the full route with maybe one service stop. So, any track restrictions vs. engine weight may be a factor. The line is former PRR and they were known to have run J1a 2-10-4's and T1's on a few occasions but that was a long time ago.

As this is all probably hypothetical anyway, it's an intiruiging idea. Probably a stable of three locomotives would be needed to protect the service.

-Jim Herron

hrvideo@mindspring.com

Regarding the Louisville-Chicago train, there are further considerations than those mentioned by Les. For instance, this train has an overnight schedule. It would have to be changed to a daylight run, it seems to me, in order to attract passengers. In fact the present schedule is probably the reason the train isn't getting enough passengers.

Also, the train runs over L&I at a very slow pace, due mainly to track conditions south of Indianapolis. The run of 300+ miles one way would require an engine capable of going the full route with maybe one service stop. So, any track restrictions vs. engine weight may be a factor. The line is former PRR and they were known to have run J1a 2-10-4's and T1's on a few occasions but that was a long time ago.

As this is all probably hypothetical anyway, it's an intiruiging idea. Probably a stable of three locomotives would be needed to protect the service.

-Jim Herron

hrvideo@mindspring.com

While the UK is a whole different world when it comes to railway preservation, they pull this off. During the summer, on the beautiful but lightly traveled Fort William-Mallaig line in Scotland steam is run on one train a day on a line that sees only four trains a day. It is an extra fair and only makes two intermidiate stops but there is little need to stop elsewhere. Also, for about 1 week a year steam has (and may yet again, I can't find inforamtion for this year) handled all of the trains and runs on close to the normal schedule with all intermidiate stops, taking about 20 minutes longer than the diesel railcars.

Roger

> Jason: I have read the comments. Basically -
> "IT CAN'T BE DONE!" But I think it
> COULD be done; under the right
> circumstances. For instance:

> 1. AMTRAK would have to give it a decent
> shot. Say a three month trial.

> 2. It would have to be a train that is
> coming off anyway. For instance, there is an
> AMTRAK train that is being discontinued
> between Chicago and Louisville. The people
> in Louisville are upset as they just spent
> bucks on putting the Louisville station back
> in operation. The train never attracted a
> heck of a lot of riders but MAYBE being
> steam powered on a regular basis would.
> Enough to tip the balance? Probably not; but
> why not at least try?

> 3. Some alterations would have to be made.
> No dutch doors? Then set up a baggage car
> with bars and screens right behind the
> engine so that the fans AND daisy pickers
> could hear the engine. And the baggage car
> would have to be open to passengers at all
> times.

> 4. Regular AMTRAK crews would have to be
> used; no volunteers. Engineers not trained
> on steam? Then teach 'em! Who knows; MAYBE
> some AMTRAK engineers might even jump at the
> chance!

> 5. Even AMTRAK wouldn't want to fess up for
> the steam locomotives that would be needed
> to run (and protect) the schedule. BUT,
> there seems to be a number of steam
> locomotives out there right now that are not
> earning their keep. Could AMTRAK make a
> "deal" with some of these owners?
> The fact that the Louisville/Chicago train
> is short and runs on an easy schedule,
> certainly makes enignes like Pacifics and
> Mikes possiblitites for motive power, in
> addition to the larger engines.

> 6. You're probably going to have both
> Indiana and Kentucky in the corner of such a
> train. Better then having the train
> cancelled.

> 7. AMTRAK would have to promote the train.
> Even for the three month trial. The same
> would go for the states involved.

> What would REALLY be interesting is if
> AMTRAK would go for the trial and the train
> proved popular and profitable. My
> goodness...what then?

> Les Beckman (HVRM)


FORT WILLIAM - MALLAIG SUMMER 2003 SEASON
belpaire@aol.com

> While the UK is a whole different world when
> it comes to railway preservation, they pull
> this off. During the summer, on the
> beautiful but lightly traveled Fort
> William-Mallaig line in Scotland steam is
> run on one train a day on a line that sees
> only four trains a day. It is an extra fair
> and only makes two intermidiate stops but
> there is little need to stop elsewhere.
> Also, for about 1 week a year steam has (and
> may yet again, I can't find inforamtion for
> this year) handled all of the trains and
> runs on close to the normal schedule with
> all intermidiate stops, taking about 20
> minutes longer than the diesel railcars.

Using a European model as an example is like comparing apples to oranges. First, a large number of European railway systems are nationalized, and viewed as a public service as compared to a profitable corporation. Amtrak, even though it is a nationalized system, is still a quasi-governmental corporation... and is set up to run as a corporation, instead of a public utility.

Secondly, the general public in Europe views RR's much differently than here in the US. Since rail is a vital link in their overall transportation plan, Europeans are much more sympathetic when it comes to things as delays. Try telling the average rail passenger in the US that their train is 20 minutes late because Amtrak decided to run a steam locomotive on it, and there is someone who will probably never ride a train in the US again.

As we know, the litigiousness of our society, as compared to Europe, is probably the key factor.

It's great to have folks looking for ways to deal with the insurance crisis here in the US, but one has to look at the overall picture in a realistic and business like manner, including the factors that make the Plamdampfs a strictly European venture...

Fiv4HghStk@aol.com