Following is a press release from the 1003 folks:

I was going to start a thread anew, but perhaps here would be appropo? I was reading that sister Soo 2719 would also come due quite soon, I believe upon her move to Minnesota a fund was going to be established to pay for upcoming overhaul. How did that come along? What other engines are coming due- did I see something about SP 4449?

Joshua

2719 is due in 2013 as we put in service 2 years after 1003 came out (1998)

Let's hope that they secure the support needed to get her back on the road.

OK, I'll ask: is it worth the cost to run just 3 times per year? Might it not be a better idea to have fewer available locomotives doing more work each?

I know I'd not purchase a new truck to make 3 hauls per year - much cheaper to rent a truck 3 times, and let other Ryder customers share the capitalization and operating costs the other 362 days.

Again making the pitch for a cooperative national mainline steam operating rational consortium.

dave

At the expense of being removed from this site, I need to offer the following view for continued steam operations. I also wish to encourage all members of steam organizations to support their respective steam locomotive both financially and doing the dirty work to keep them operating as some of these engine's days may be numbered if we don't.

The reality, is that over time, many of these engines will probably become static displays due to the increasing cost of fifteen year rebuilds and the potential lack of support for them. Most of the Class 1 roads don't want this type of operation on their track and with increasing liability and operational density concerns, will continue to limit or prohibit their operation of such moves. Certainly, they will not want to cover liability insurance for these operations and thus will lead to more displays and less excursions. Unless there is a friendly regional or short line which is willing to allow such operation such as the WSOR, in this case, most operations will be limited to museum lines.

Is that all bad? Definitely not. Operating museums all over the country have the ability and desire to host the liability of bringing the public onto the rails and have the training and friendliness to do so. In order to keep steam operating, even in these areas, will require most revenue from steamers to be set aside for continued operation and fifteen year rebuild expenses. Small, little, locomotives like the ones at TVM and mostly recently, Monticello's nice 2-8-0 are examples of steam which can reliably be used and maintained for limited and special events. However, larger locomotives (outside of 261, the UP steam program and limited NS excursions) will be few and far between for the forseeable future. Also, keep in mind, the public generally does not know the difference between a steam or diesel locomotive and they are just out for a nice train ride. They really don't care what's pulling their train once they get aboard and it's a lot easier to operate and maintain a diesel than steam. All of us need to be conservative in our future expectations for any type of steam/diesel/passenger excursions out side of museums as funds become tighter and the public more demanding.

Okay, I know this is a bit of a bleak future for some operations but it is reality, based on my forty two years of experience as a railroader and officer in charge of a few operations on a regional railroad. It also is based on my studies of a lot steam operations and the pros and cons of each. Folks, let's support those organizations which have a fair chance for continued operations and allow the others to quietly shove their locomotives into the house for display. It's only a matter of time until we all will have to face this situation.

Barry, a railroader who has always enjoyed steam locomotives.

Seems to me our problem is a lack of operating engines, rather a lack of real estate to operate over. So as a potential donor, am I better off donating to this cause or donating to save the Stewartstown Railroad where there's actually a place to operate steam?

Gerald:

In my honest opinion, there are probably too many not too few locomotives available for the resources required and the places to run them. Remember, the engine is just one small piece of the pie. The folks who succeed in these ventures have not only a place to run, enough funds for operations, repairs, insurance and certified locomotive engineers/well trained safe crewmen, but also the passenger equipment to pull behind the locomotive. The day is over when a few folks could scrape up a bit of cash to buy some track, an engine and some equipment to begin and sustain an operation. Today it requires expert management of resources and $$$$$ and more $$$$$.

There are also museum properties who have too much track for the required operations and could easily convert surplus track material into cash to better help maintain what they have. This also goes along with the concept of "thinning the herd": getting rid of excess equipment which is an eyesore and has no reasonable chance of being restored. Funds and people to operate and repair equipment are becoming scarce as is the case with many recreation activities today. Most folks want to pay for the experience but few wish to participate in it. We need to make the best of what we have and be good steward's of our resources in order to "grow" (not by purchasing more track or equipment) but by being patient and helpful as we bring more folks aboard to help us continue to enjoy the dream of railroading.

My advice, put your resources into operations that are on-going and forget about those that don't have prayer of existing.

Barry

Barry is correct, Gerry. Until the first ready - to - go mainline hauler is booked for perhaps 25 - 30 events per year, we don't even need a second one, apart from breakdown coverage.

IF OTOH we had a national voice and planned our projects and operations organically, power could rotate in and out and share cars and management and insurance and shop facilities. If sponsored by AMTRAK or a similar credible national operating entity, the common carriers would be spoken to with one voice of proven experience. It could provide the basis for a national schedule of heritage special train operation in an economically feasable framework.

Do you really want more mainline locomotives sitting still while 15 calendar years tick away, all dressed up with noplace to go?

dave

Dave -

You make some good points. Perhaps what we need is a simple chart of locomotives that have operated in the recent past. Chart to include; locomotive, when restored, date of 15 year limit, days operated during that time, place (or places) of operation. Then we can see if steam restoration makes sense, and in what circumstances. Perhaps there will be some locomotives where the days of operation actually occurred before the 15 year limit came to pass. Shouldn't be to hard to start a thread with this info.

Les

Another scenario would be for medium sized engines like 1003 and 2719 to be able to travel to steam-less museums/railroads as "guest engines" for a year or so. The English model for this is quite well-developed. Of course, a big Brit loco is maybe 110 tons, about the size of a CPR G-5 Pacific.

I know there are places that have cars, track, people, infrastructure to host a visiting engine, but no operational engine of their own. Biggest problems: getting an engine moved over the Class One systems (refer to: WMSR 734/CSX "move")--- maybe the big custom flatcar will have to be designed and built after all; and having a given engine hundreds of miles (or more) away from the engine's regular volunteer base.

It's really just expanding the Flagg Coal 75 idea...

Howard P.

Dave and Howard, those are some good ideas which should be pursued.

Barry

This is an interesting discussion. From my way of thinking, there are several issues that should be considered but only one has discussed at any length.

Most of the previous posts suggest maximizing "bang for the buck" by operating a locomotive many times through the course of its service life (I think Dave suggested 25 to 30 events a year) which would seem to increase the chances that the locomotive could earn enough money to substantially, if not completely, finance its next 1472 day overhaul. There are several reason why this sort of schedule for a privately-owned, non-railroad backed locomotive would be very hard to achieve.

Demand: Could 3751, 4449, 261, 1225, 765, 700, 1003, 2719, etc., run even once a month out of there "home" terminal and generate enough interest to draw a sufficient number of riders to be profitable? I doubt it. Recent examples of a non-railroad backed locomotive making several days towards a multiple day season as suggested, are 4449's historic trip to Owosso and 261's participation in the 10 or so day long, Grand Excursion in 2004. 4449's trip to New Orleans for the World's Fair is another good example although I am not aware if the effort was substantially supported by the Southern Pacific. These were "moving" events and the departure locations changed during the course of the trip. Even when the Ohio Central had free reign to operate a true mainline trip (not the Sugar Creek excursions), they only ran several times a year. The demand is just not there unless you can tie the excursions to a much larger event.

Crew Resources: Very few of the mainline operators maintain a paid, full-time maintenance and operating crew. Volunteer labor and help constitute 95 to 98% of most operations. Restoring and operating a locomotive is a labor of love. Many of the people who I know that volunteer have a full time job, a family and other commitments and cannot afford to be available for a schedule that is this aggressive.

Maintenance expense: Once hundreds-of-thousands of dollars are invested in a locomotive, the next 15 years or 1472 days are not free. The more a locomotive is run, the more work it will need. The more work it needs, the more money is spent thus eating-up more of the revenue. More operating days should equate into more revenue but it also costs more.

Some people restore old cars and keep them in the garage to be taken out on special occasions. Most of those people don't restore them to be every day work cars. The same logic applies to mainline locomotives. Only a locomotive takes it to a higher level. People who can restore and maintain old vehicles must have a plan and resources to be successful. There are many old cars and trucks out there in various states of restoration which will never be finished because the job was much greater than the desire or the resources.

I think the goal should be to create an organization that can afford to maintain and operate a mainline locomotive several times a year if possible. The organization must concentrate on on-going fund raising and additional revenue sources such as equipment rental, if possible.

The issue is not whether or not there are too many or too few locomotives available for mainline service, the issue is whether or not the organizations have a business plan which is sustainable. The locomotive, though the logical focal point or an organization, must be supported by a larger, more diverse and dynamic entity.

Don C.

Well, it is sort of like the difference between the national touring company of a Broadway show, and the local community theatre production of the same script. The national mainline heritage steam show can market many more performances, simply because it goes to many places and serves many different audiences. The local community theatre runs a few performances in a major urban center, maybe 3 or 4 in a smaller town, and then shuts down and has a cast party. The difference is, it doesn't cost the community theatre the same amount to buid the set and rent the hall, but it does cost the same to rebuild the 4-8-4 for one revenue steaming or 1472.

No Broadway producer is going to risk hundreds of thousands of dollars on a small community theatre production, but will accept the risk on a professionally staffed, professionally managed tour. The national system of common carriers is more likely to see things from a similar POV. I don't see how it can be sustainable without enough performances in enough different venues to justify the initial capitalization, and provide for future needs.

Ross seems to be working on pursuing something like this, now looking for OPM as sponsorships for Yellow Ribbon. The Sandberg company has demonstrated the logistical savvy, but on a smaller, regional scale for the most part. UP does nice tours of their own system, or at least fairly large parts of it. I'm suggesting these examples are smaller in scope than what could be done for the long term operation of a broader assortment of motive power on a national or even international scale for the duration of generations, bringing the message and experience to many places and with the economy of scale of shared fixed costs.

Now, think about what a touring repertory company could give us as a model........

dave

"When 1003 gets to the MMC, we can download the QES, the PHW, the WRE, and the EFC."

Have you noticed how frequently we post locomotive numbers with no road identification and acronyms with no explanation.

"PC"