Then why must we continue beating this horse on a forum devoted to preservation?

Well the horse must be dead so any discussion related to what I just posted is worthless until hard verifiable facts come out.

The issue of whether a rail line has seen an excursion "in recent memory" hasn't mattered since railfan clubs worked with the Southern to offer steam excursions in the 1960s and 1970s. It might only matter in 2014 if a railroad executive who doesn't have much in the way of stockholders to answer to on a railroad that owns the track in question--say, the likes of JJJ, R.J. Corman, or Andrew Muller--decides it's important. (Remember, two of those three no longer qualify.)

I have heard, back-channel, that at least a few NS executives had VERY serious concerns about high-value NS freights that were delayed because of 765 and 630 excursions in the past two years. And this was with excursions that were starkly different from the old SR model. These aren't the days of old when the PRR "Broad Way" or the NYC "Water Level Route" were still four tracks wide, or NS could easily divert traffic over Blue Ridge over the Virginian and the Abilene Connection.

I recently had the privilege of watching onboard video shot from a business car on the back of Amtrak's "Crescent" running from New Orleans to D.C. over territory over which I have chased and ridden past NS steam specials. All I could think, as I watched what turned out to be a carefully-choreographed "dance" of meets between the Crescent and NS freights was, "How in heck can anyone manage to get a steam excursion in between all these freights on a single-track main line?!? Where were all these trains in the late 1980s/early 1990s?"
I guarantee you that the same questions are raised inside railroad management offices whenever 3751 is proposed for a trip to Arizona, or Milwaukee 261 for a trip to Chicago, or 765 or Amtrak for a trip on the Reading main. Except it's their job to make more trains happen than in the 1980s.

Last night, on my way home from an NRHS meeting, I watched a freight on one railroad's major bottleneck stall on a grade, requiring banking assistance from the trailing train, no less than one of the "hottest" trains on the railroad, which I estimate was delayed by approximately an hour. And this was in part because the passing siding nearby was blocked by a tie train, as they're busy replacing as many as half the ties in that area. That "bottleneck" averages 27-32 trains a day.
Steam excursions have run there in the past. I don't think I'd be bold enough to ask for a diesel-powered run there today.

As I read the comments here on whether steam is important to bringing in customers, I really have to take issue as a long time marketing guy. If there is no bang for the buck to having steam, then why does Thomas the Tank bring in such large crowds? And the 1225/SRI success along with the success of Polar Express events and the movie? Have you checked out the latest Lexus holiday sales commercial featuring a steam locomotive? Would anyone care about about EBT if it had dieselized in the 1960s before shutting down? Or any of the Colorado narrow gauge lines? What about the WW&F? Would anyone care about Strasburg if it were pure diesel?

Don’t sell it short, steam is an important marketing tool, but I would suggest that the success of operations that are pure diesel this year is fostered by the hard work of others who do run steam. In short, the Polar Express movie, Thomas events and Thomas TV shows, etc. are driving people to find a train near their homes where they can enjoy the feel of the train environment without driving for hours nor battle big crowds. Give the Lexus marketing people some credit. Even they see the value of steam.

Is the horse pulling the carriage or the carriage pushing the horse, JR.

dave

There is no doubt that steam is an attraction. Perhaps those who question the ability for steam to bring in customers do not pay attention to their own customers. During my last visit to the WMSR, many passengers huddled around the 734 in those few minutes before boarding the train taking pictures and selfies with it. In contrast, when I was down at TVRM, not a single person bothered to walk up to the diesel motive power.

The Cardinal question is/was ....does steam justify the incremental cost ( 20-25%) it adds to the operating side of the ledger by attracting sufficient additional revenue that would not be had without it??

Short answer is...no.

Long answer..... is that especially for themed trains ( Santa, North Pole, Pumpkin, Dinner, Murder Mystery etc.,etc.) folks come for the theme and the train ride....motive power is secondary at most. To witness the truth of this just look at the many operations running this season's Santa/North Pole trains with record crowds pulled by diesels. The proof is in the pudding.

"Nuff said.

Ross Rowland

JR -

I have noticed that this is true of many commercials. How about the Coors ad with the "faux" steam locomotive for instance? There are many other examples.

Les

Ross, God knows I respect your opinion but I wonder if you're using backwards logic when it comes to the public not caring what's on the head end.
Let's look at 2 examples:
A: Scheduled and advertised steam-powered train
B: and advertised train with diesels up front
Wouldn't it follow that the people who'd take option B would be less likely to care what the power is, to even show up?
And wouldn't it also follow that people who come for option A would include both those who don't care (as it's a train ride, that's all the care about) as well as those who love steam and came just for that?
Option B wouldn't likely include those who love steam more than anything.
So, where's the judgement coming from that the public doesn't like steam? All I know is many times I'm trackside shooting the BNSF/UP main between Seattle and Portland, some random member of the public will come up and ask if, "the steam train is coming back?" meaning one of the 4449 moves in recent years through there. I have never been asked if the UP business train with E units is coming through.

Has anyone done any marketing surveys to gauge the public's opinion about motive power? I suppose trains in which the motive power is the brand (such as 765), its appearance would be important. For operations in which the train itself is the attraction, the locomotive may not matter much. It would be interesting to know if the public really cares one way or the other.

A tourist road that operates both steam and diesel once told me, to the best of my recollection, that they had done a rough calculation and figured that the steam engine generated about 20% more ridership when it was scheduled and advertised, versus the same train with the diesel scheduled. Whether that 20% is enough to overcome the enormous expense of maintaining and operating steam would depend on a lot of factors that are unique to every railroad. This was for regular excursions and not factoring special events.

A small handful of tourist railroads have a franchise built around the steam locomotive - Strasburg and the Valley Railroad come to mind. A few, such as Cass and some of the narrow gauge operators, don't have many practical alternatives.

The market has long shifted away from nostalgia to entertainment as people with first hand recall of steam engines and passenger trains have become a diminishing demographic.

When properly advertised and promoted, steam power can boost the top line, provided that your trains have available capacity (i.e., not otherwise sold out), but whether it helps or hurts the bottom line depends on individual circumstances. And if your excursion program is built around entertainment and special events, and you are selling out with diesel power, then obviously you are going to run steam only if management really wants to run steam, because you are shoveling cash dollars into the firebox and out the stack.

Alan Maples

Alan, Ross, and a few others have hit the idea pretty hard, but I'll jump in and add my two cents worth.

I personally love steam and have traveled the world riding it, but that represents only a very small market. I operate a number of charter trains for various groups across the country, and most of the requests I get these days are for older historic diesel locomotives, not steam. On trips with steam, I have actually had prospective passengers ask me to replace the steam with diesels to lower the cost of the day's trip. There is a small group willing to pay for steam, but many events are seeing ticket prices nearing $500 and even $1000 a day when the event is not being sponsored by a major railroad like NS.

Steam costs more, and I would probably argue that it is more than the 25% often stated when you start throwing in volunteer time and effort. When steam operates for special events, it seems to attract larger paying crowds, but seldom larger than Santa or many of the other events that attract people. What it does seem to really attract are the non-paying photographers.

One advantage that steam does bring is "news" to print, and often what seems to be a more enthusiastic group of supporters. However, if you look at the few operations nationwide that are full-time steam, they are generally in or near heavy population and tourist locations. They are also often operated by groups of paid employees with professional marketing staffs. This hardly represents the many smaller tourist operations where having enough people to clean the cars and run the trains can be a challenge.

The point about the impact on a railroad is also a major concern. I rode a number of NS trips this year, and I was really surprised by all of the high value stack trains and oil trains parked in sidings to allow the steam to run. Delaying trains that produce $1 million or more in revenue is hard to justify. On railroads where capacity is plentiful, there is not this issue. However, most major railroads have a shortage of capacity and even thinking about operating a train for the general public is hard to justify.

For railroads that do run some steam and public passenger trains (and even non-passenger Holiday Trains, etc.), they have to balance the impact on the rail system versus the perceived public benefits. It has been mentioned that Amtrak ran some trips out of Philadelphia, but nothing before or after the trips impacted the system. Bringing in passenger cars and steam impacts the rail system for days both before and after the events. Any railroad that does determine that promoting themselves to the general public should get a big thanks - no matter the location or the power used.

One group of events in which the motive power is certainly considered important is The various Thomas events. Though the coaches are not what the riders expect, children would be sorely disappointed if they did not see a small blue locomotive with a face pulling the train.
So, in short, the motive power matters if you want it to matter. If you market it to matter, it will.
Also, steam locomotives are completely captivating machines. The look on innumerable kids (and adults) faces when they see one tells me that. If there is "no discernible difference" as has been stated here, I counter saying we (meaning all of us who are in this) haven't been marketing steam successfully. Some people would probably say it does make a difference and I'd guess that they are fairly successful in their marketing too.
If the audience cannot tell the difference between a steam locomotive and a some other locomotive and they are at a railroad museum we really need to do better. If your organization is a museum it should not be relying on and ignorance of knowledge as justification for spending less money. I believe this is below our collective standard.
Could we collectively market steam as an experience?
Steve

Banking? Was there a rake of carriages behind it, too?

:-)

It's nice to see I am not the only one who sneaks in a little UK-speak... unless, of course, you tell me there is part of central PA where "snappers" are "bankers." :-)


Rob

Yes, but first we'd have to agree to work collectively. And, each of us can also market steam individually also. besides, the experience of steam isn't complete without using it in the contexts in which it was used, so that means we need to provide good context as well, which i don't think anybody is doing......

dave