Pollution and "going green" is a red herring. Using oil fuel in a steam locomotive results in vastly less pollution than even todays EPA wonder diesel electrics, for no other reason than there is complete combustion possible in an external combustion situation.

This happened because Anshutz makes his money by purchasing a property, selling off its assets for a profit, while cutting as many expenses/employees as possible to make it artificially appear as if his "management" increased profitability, whereupon he will sell its wrung out, deflated carcass for a profit.....ever hear of the Rio Grand/Southern Pacific?

One can only assume not, given their current motive power scheduling philosophy. I was quite surprised when I checked their operating schedule to discover that the W&W now runs at on one or two days a month for most of the season. I am sure it's a decision that was not taken lightly and one for which they feel they have a good economic case.

When I heard this story, my first suspicion was that the new ownership might be following the dictates of the green movement. And since a large part of this green trend is about perception and fashion, it is much more subjective to measure than simple dollars. It is as much about doing things that show you care as it is about doing things that can be measured.

Certainly it is true that a tourist railroad where the main attraction is scenery may not need to rely on steam locomotives to draw their customers as much a tourist railroad where the main attraction is steam. But in the perception of the green movement, not only is the scenery attraction not dependent on steam locomotives, but also it is seen as being harmed by them.

I would think that as a group, Grand Canyon visitors would be much more eco-conscious than the average of the general population, and therefore much more sensitive to anything that seems out of step with the green movement, and steam locomotives would be a preeminent example of non-green. They symbolize it.

Like other natural attractions, there is a growing desire to limit access by automobile because traffic jams, and parking lots seem incongruous and even threatening to the attraction itself. As I understand it, the GCRY plays a key role in protecting the canyon from automobile incursion. So the railroad is not just a secondary attraction, but it is also performing a green function to serve the green attraction of the canyon itself. So the primary function of this railroad is green alternative transportation, and as such, the perfect embodiment would be in the model of federally subsidized, electrified light rail transit.

I rode the GCRY the same day as Ross. When we arrived at the Canyon, I wlaked up to the Locomotive to get a few photos where I met Ross as he climed down from the engine. Aside from a family who wanted a picture of the kide I was the only passinger who bothered to look at the engine. This should tell you something about the passinger bae\se and steam locomotives.

I am very glad we got to ride this railroad while they still ran steam. I doubt if we will return to ride a non-steam trip. we are, however, a small mo\inotiry. Lets hhope they do use steam for special events and not just "stuff and mount" the equipment.

Warren

I haven't said much on RYPN in a long while ---- I guess when you go to work in this industry, you realize you just don't have much time for the computer, because your too dang busy trying to keep these 'ole girls going. I guess I am a glutton for punishment though, so here it goes......

As Erik states, the reality is that, unlike a W&W, the Grand Canyon's main attraction is not the railroad, but the destination. That said, the number of those who ride the train STRICTLY because it is/ was steam were (sadly) probably in the minority -- we all may think that it sucks (and yes, I do too), but when your running a business, most decisions are made upon cold hard numbers, not warm and fuzzies about "how cool it is that a steam locomotive hauls us to the canyon...."

Sadly, I have come to realize, and ALL of you should too, that NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING is permanent in the steam world. It is becoming more and more difficult to run ANY tourist/ museum operation anymore, let alone steam; coal prices have skyrocketed, steel prices as well, and good, honest paying jobs that you could raise a family on and grow old on are, well, non-extistent. The Grand Canyon created an opportunity that allowed those things to happen, and did it much longer than most, and with more people than 99% of the rest of the industry could afford to employ. I feel for a lot of good, hard-working individuals who are now out of jobs (like so many in this country), and those who worked at the Canyon in the past who feel a deep sense of loss for the place that got them in the business, more so than I do that #4960 and #29 will be sidelined. Like the NS, Kettle Morraine, Marquette & Huron Mountain, and so many other before that, the Grand Canyon has passed into the realm of a place that once employed people to work on steam. It ain't right, I hate it, you hate it, but its reality, and Ross's "lets storm the gates until they bring it back" aside, I don't see that changing.

What should be analyzed is that, nearly 15 yeasr after the dissolution of the NS Steam Program, why the industry hasn't bolstered itself and grown enough to absorb this kind of job loss --- and clearly it hasn't. And so, yet again, good individuals who are/were the future of steam in America either a.) have to go live the nomadic lifestyle of contracting or b.) may very weel move into another field, never to return. NO ONE, I assure you, stays employed in the steam field 'cause of the money - THERE ISN'T ANY. Its passion, and like many times when one trades a decent living for one that has mediocre pay and benefits(as an indiustry) it very often sucks, and like so many jobs of the preservation type, no one cares that you took a massive paycut or missed your kids soccer game or boyscout meeting, or paid your own cell, meals, and gas our of your own pocket (even though they were all business related), or went part time just to keep them running.

Unless you been in that kind of situation, its hard to explain the type of effort that is put into keeping historic equipment running day in and day out, knowing that its thankless until the "good fight" finally is no longer enough. Its even more thankless after the end, because all people want to do is lay blame....often when there is no blame to be laid, really. Its also why the average working life of someone in steam these days is about two years -- tops. I hear if your break through that barrier, you can get used to it --- I let you know in December.

I guess what I am saying is this --- stop looking for someone to blame, and/ or what should have been done. If all you have to do is fire a steamer up, and people came running with GOBS of money, there would be no issue here. Or, as someone I highly respect once said "if working on these #$% things were easy, everyone would be doing it." Ask the larger question of how we strengthen the industru so that this @#$%% stops happening (or at least slows down).

I will leave you with this; those of us who pontificate all day as arm chair quarterbacks about what this group should do, or that engine that should be restored, and "golly gee, wouldn't it be great if", and don't put either cash or sweat behind supporting keeping an operation going have NO ROOM to cry in their beer about the whys and wherefores of what ended Steam in the Canyon. Sometimes, @#$ just happens, and you have to adapt and move on. All I know is that I am extremly frustrated that there are good people out there who know steam and railroading who now need a job, and will probably be lucky to find one in what was their chosen field.

TJG

Not to change a subject, but Yes, it has had a determining outcome on ridership there.

A recent post by a volunteer there stated they had 400 people on their recent Pufferbelly day and that that was great! It was also stated by others, that 400 riders was a regular sunday count pre floods and I believe it, I know it from working there pre-floods! The same volunteer said it's been like a ghost town down there most weekends.

God, the days of a 1000 people on a nice regular Sunday down there were rare, but not as so far fetched as they would be today. Most Sundays I was there we would see around 500 people on 3 trips. 800 on two trips was normal for Wild West and Civil War days . Removing steam from their schedule has really had a bad outcome.

When it will change is anyones guess. Even with their engines being 100 and 102 years old, they are in good shape, they are their source of income, why keep them locked up, cold?

Anyway, Steam is a necessity at certain locations, but GCRY does not need steam to survive...they are a transportation mode with luxuries.

I would offer NH&I as an example of steam or not....really, their ridership can suck when either mode of power is running and be great in the same cases. They're not a transportation mode, they are just an addition to an already touristy area, one that no one really NEEDS to ride.

TJ,

Been there, done that. I came to the sad conclusion that in order to survive in my chosen career field, I would have to sell my soul. I am fortunate enough to have an engine locally to be involved with AND make a good living railroading.

TJ makes a number of valid points and eloquently states today's steam dilemma.

Ask yourself, how many tourist railroads truly have a franchise built around a steam locomotive?

If steam adds 20% to attendance and revenues, and 50% to cost, how long would you be willing to write the check?

Alan Maples

The problem with this completely valid and critical line of questioning is that although the incremental cost of a steam locomotive over a diesel can be calculated (hell, I'm willing to wager someone has the breakdown calculated for the costs and expenses for a particular model of used Alco or Baldwin versus a used EMD or GE, and I'm sure Grand Canyon knows what the Alcos cost to run versus the F40's!), the incremental increase in traffic, if any, is not so definitively quantified.

Strasburg is the sterling example of a railroad built around steam--without steam, there's almost no excuse for it, just as if they replaced horses on "amish buggy tours" with go-karts. Ditto the East Broad Top and Cumbres & Toltec. The Grand Canyon RR is the sterling example of a railroad where it probably doesn't matter what's pulling the train--although I would argue that had they marketed and packaged their steam properly, folks would pay more of a premium for steam and make up the difference in costs.

In between, we have dozens of operations where the question of "steam or no" is wide open. New Hope. Sierra. Durango & Silverton. Gettysburg. W&W. Valley RR. Conway Scenic. Heber Valley. Western Maryland Scenic. And even the blunt experiment of running steam versus diesel, as the W&W has done, doesn't answer the question completely, because of all the other variables--marketing, weather, publicity, current economy, scheduling, etc.

But why are we to conclude that this failure to meet expenses with revenue is the reason for the discontinuance of steam at GCRY? Have they said that? What they have said is that they have discontinued steam because they want to be green, and they do not think steam is in keeping with their environmental mission. I don’t see what that has to do with operating expense of steam compared to diesel.

I think we are getting way off track here re: re read my previous post. Steam, in my opinion,was paying its way and I'm sure it can be more conclusively proven with more research. The real issue is more of the decision behind the decision....the owners are angling for something else,and the steam locomotives and the shop crew that run them were the first and most visible target to make the company a few percentage points better. I argue the steam was and has been making them money all these years,but they wanted to make even more money and cut maintenace to a bare bones level... all to make the bottom line look good and transition the railroad into something else....

For anyone interesting in finding a new place to operate steam, the cities of New Bedford and Fall River (in Massachusetts) are trying to get commuter rail service and some of the possible operating alternatives include connecting service to the MBTA through Attleboro or Middleboro Mass. The long term plans are based on hourly service running alternately to N.B. and F.R. (ie: providing a train every two hours in each city). Various Southcoast Rail proposals are currently being studied, based around diesel hauled conventional consists and DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) cars. So far nobody has offered a steam operation as an alternative.

If steam is as efficient and clean as many seem to think it is, here is a great opportunity to operate in a post industrial setting over two routes each about twenty five miles long where a steam locomotive would look totally appropriate. You could provide a useful connecting commuter rail service as well as cater to the steam enthusiast market. The best person to contact regarding the proposed routes would probably be the Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick.

PC

Sort of an American Wolsztyn Experience?! Now all you'd need are five or six suitable passenger speed capable engines - too bad China scrapped most of theirs, their SL Class 4-6-2's looked very American. I know a certain photo charter entrepreneur who would probably be first in line to want to set up a "student engineer" program. And here you could do it in English, understand the rules and signals, and not be "flying blind" at 60 mph <g>. (Yeah, like the FRA would ever go for that!).

You would be able to run a little faster than 60. The line is initially going to be set up for 70MPH but if it gets Amtrak ACSES it could eventually go higher. The MBTA power has CAB90 as the highest limiting aspect.

But if steam locomotives are as cost effective as diesels and run even cleaner, the people of Massachusetts might welcome them. What needs to be done is to prove that they are better.

PC

What they have said is that they have discontinued steam because they want to be green, and they do not think steam is in keeping with their environmental mission.

Lets be perfectly frank here.

No matter what a business says about being green, the only "green" it cares about is money and it needs to be that way. I'll give you the name of some businesses that haven't been as attentive to the bottom line as they should be: GM, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers.

Running a steam engine is an expensive proposition. Even Strasburg, with its short trip and low stress operation, relies on revenues from contracted mechanical work and concessions. (isn't it great somebody knows diversified revenue streams are important).

Moreover, diesel exhaust is hardly ice cream. It contains known carcinogens and sulfur and nitrous compounds. Beyond the exhaust, diesels need paints, coolants, lubricants and electrical/electronic components that are manufactured with rather elaborate MSDS disclosures.

Carbon is the object of the environmentalists' itinerant disaffections now, but in my short lifetime, they've had other obsessions. When was the last time you heard about acid rain despoiling forests, top soil and statuary? How about the ozone hole? Global cooling-yep, that was the cry 30 years ago.

Its their railroad, they can run whatever they want. But lets not be like the herds fools who willingly swallow that idea. Its too bad that GCRR thinks (probably rightly so) that the public will automatically buy the idea that the noxiousness of an exhaust can be inferred from its visibility.

On the other hand, I like steam. When I head west, my itinerary won't have GCRR as the first priority location as it would have before.