I have talked with a few folks where I work who have ridden this (it's amazing how many folks I could find who had ridden it) and the best support for steam I could find from any of them was, "I was kind of neat to have a steam engine up front, I know my son loved seeing it." The rest rode for the experience of riding A train (not essentially one pulled by steam) or for less hassle getting to the rim. I know my wife didn't care at all what was up front but was patient with my demand to ride behind steam when we went last year. I can't help but wonder if the older coaches will go next. If it's just transportation to the rim that is the order of the day, that would be far better served with bi-level commuter coaches with "varnish" bringing up the rear for those who want to pay extra. If I hear in another year or so this is going to happen, I won't be shocked at all.

In the middle of all of this you have the additional complication that more stringent environmental regulations are being "trickled down" to smaller operating entities with each rewrite of the laws and sooner or later everybody operating a locomotive is going to be under scrutiny. Future decisions are likely to be made based on a cost-benefit comparison, and the benefits of operating equipment that is "appealing" to railroad enthusiasts may not carry much weight with the general public or with our political leaders.

"Political Leader" is an oxymoron.

Don't laugh. We were all asleep at the switch, and no P30CH's got preserved. Or F-M Trainmasters from the SP commute. Even the original BART system, itself revolutionary, and which sparked the modern renaissance of U.S. rail transit just when we thought the auto had won... there are no plans to save anything of importance from that, to tell the tale.

Say what you will about modern equipment, our forebears said exactly the same thing about early diesels and PCCs. It is SO easy...

For the record, the "F40PH Preservation Society" dates back to a "Trains Turntable" op-ed that I wrote for Trains years ago (I think late 1999) that proposed exactly that: a combined society and holding/operating company, much like the numerous class-specific diesel preservation societies in Britain.

Since that article showed up, Chris Fussell in Oregon grabbed one with Doyle McCormack's help; one went to the North Carolina Transportation Museum (and Jim Wrinn said my essay was what they used to push the acquisition), and CSRM supposedly has one rotting with the rest of the diesels, while RR Museum of Pa. got the E60CP (perfect choice--built by GE at Erie). And then there's the fleet at GCRY.

Back to the topic of this thread.

I have heard second-hand that Grand Canyon will be continuing to do the FRA inspections on the locomotives.

I can see several possible reasons for this development such as cost cutting for a down business cycle, or a feeling that the combination of a natural earth-based attraction and an antique industrial attraction is incongruous. Has there been any word on whether this new management will soon offer a clear explanation for their suspension of steam? If they don’t, it says something, but I’m not sure what.

The Trains Newswire posting this evening does give one pause. Is the 1,450 gallon per trip oil consumption accurate? If so, then at $4 a gallon, the steamer requires about $4,000 in fuel alone premium over diesel operation, and that does not include crew, shop work, etc. Although, is it correct they use diesel in the bunker? Why not heating oil or cheaper stuff?

Also, the "environmental" claim may have some validity, if they are applying for more trip permits and an environmental impact statement is required. Removing steam allows them to claim their schedule expansion is carbon-neutral and emissions neutral. It is a shame they can not keep steam for special events, similar to the White Pass.

I did some number crunching this evening and some things just do not jibe. In between June and August 2007,the GCRY hauled 153,887 passengers,I asume mostly behind steam or steam with diesel helpers. In June of 2007,they hauled 53,004 passengers. In June of 2008,they hauled 53,728 passengers, a statistical wash but an increase in paseengers. Fuel costs may have been greater,but to make the statement that retiring steam locomotives were more enviromentally friendly than running them just is not working for me. Everyone draw your own conclusions..

Xanterra is clearly obsessed with the image of being green.

When I was there several years ago, I was told that the fuel was used crank case oil, and the water was processed waste water. Perhaps the numbers are not being fairly compared.

It also appears that the engines will be stuffed and mounted in Williams rather than being sold to someone who would appreciate and care for them.

Also see Trains Magazine "News Wire" for Thursday September 11, 2008:
http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=3927

You do need to be a signed-up subscriber of the magazine to reach the link.

I do not believe steam engine fuel oil costs anywhere near $4. I have recently heard less than $1.50 for a blend of new and recycled oil here in "tree-hugging" California. Blaming environmental concerns is more than likely a paper tiger intended to distract from the company's desire to increase profitability. Also, Xantera would not have bought the operation if it was bleeding red ink. Running steam has to be a labor of love. No business person is going to do it if they can run diesels and draw nearly the same ridership.

This has been the dilemma for ages. With SOME operations--and I admit, GCRY comes first to mind when I think along these lines--it doesn't matter what's pulling the train. On others--Strasburg being a prime example--if you don't have steam, you don't have a railroad. I was told twenty years ago on the Wilmington & Western that if they had to substitute diesel, even for one weekend, the passenger loadings took a 50% hit. I have to wonder if the same is true today there. Obviously, you don't need steam on a dinner train, or a scenic operation like the Verde Canyon RR or Crawford Notch line, where the scenery is the attraction, or a luxury land cruise. But the GCRY did carefully hype the "vintage" nature of the operation, with their "Wild West shootouts" before each trip.

Though I'm just enough of a geek to want to ride behind the FPA4's before they expire, I can't really see myself shelling out the dollars just to get mileage behind Alcos or F40's.

Some good news! I've been in active conversations over the last several days with the folks at the GCRR and am pleased to share that even though most of the steam crew has been furloughed, current orders are for the remaining force to keep the 2 steamers FRA compliant and ready for future service.

My contacts there believe that even though steam will not be a regular feature in 2009 that the steamers will be used on certain occassions throughout the year??

I agree with Bros. Mitchell that steam vs. no steam is a question that is VERY property specific. If the vast majority of the customer base is attracted by anything other than the chance to ride behind a piece of living history ( dinner train, major league destination attraction (( i.e. the Grand Canyon)) ) then the considerable added expense of providing steam is not justified from a business point of view.

From my recent 2 visits to the GCRR I'd say that the overwhelming majority of their ridership could have cared less what was pulling the train. They came to see the Canyon and all else was very secondary!!

IMHO-Ross Rowland

The Trains article says the steamers will placed on static display. This is the 2nd major tourist operation to quit steam in recently. Assuming the heritage thing comes back in vogue in the future, what should these operations do now?

What preparations should be done to the locomotives to best store them as close to serviceable as possible? What things should be done with them now to make it easiest to bring them back to life in say 10, 30 or 50 years from now?

As a starter, would you recommend:

* Get them under cover;
* Remove and store jackets (perhaps in the tender?);
* Tack down jewery;
* Remove and store (where?) guages?
* Any value in attempting to keep a copy of documentation on the locomotive somwhere?
* Cap stacks;

What else?

What prep do appliances need if any? Does it really help to move them annually?

Thanks,

Bob