The State of Texas owns and operates the Texas State Railroad which runs from from Palestine to Rusk. A bill SB 1260 has been filed in the Texas Legislature to replace state operation with a private contractor. The railroad would remain state owned.

Texas also has a severe budget problem which means no matter what the budget of the railroad is probably going to be cut.

Good idea or bad idea?

tcox@parknet.pmh.org

EXCELLENT idea. I have heard that each ride on the Texas State costs taxpayers about $30 a head over the ticket price. For movie work, they do it under cost; when in competition with private/self funded groups TSR gets the work. Is that fair?

They have been lauded for getting new boilers for three of their engines, which their own CMO said,"Well, the boilers are in good shape, but if we don't ask for the money, we don't get it, and if we don't get it, we might get cut off." They don't haul freight, but have just gotten their RR rebuilt to the new AAR standard on the premise that it was a required rebuild.

The TSR really doesn't do either Rusk or Palestine as much good as it could, because the train stops miles outside of each town. We all know that once a tourist gets in his car, he is lost.

It is much better for the Goverment to help private parties and groups than for them to do it themselves. The TSR is overemployed, overmanaged, and runs too long of a trip for the average tourist.

Had all the over funding given the TSR been given other groups in Texas, what could have been accomplished? A private, accountable operator will run the RR at the level it needs to be run, without the waste. I am all for it.

OH NO!!!!

I hope this doesnt happen. The Texas State Railroad is a clean runned operation as it is.

If it becomes private, I think the whole thing will get runned down and the same that that happened to the Tarantula Train in Fort Worth will happen to the TSRR.

This idea sucks!
This is my opinion, that I can express in our free USA.

Alan Dickerson

adofmsu@aol.com

The question isn't good or bad idea - we only have a broad undefined conceptual outline of what is proposed.

The question is whether or not it is possible for TSRR to be operated by a private concessionaire and make a profit in doing so, while providing adequate reinvestment to prevent the place from being run downhill.

The monies recently spent have provided a large amount of margin which an unscrupulous operator could simply use up before departing, leaving an inoperable property behind. A couple recent debacles come to mind.

If the public sector in Texas can't fiscally discipline itself and there is a massive amount of waste, perhaps favorable conditions do exist. If trains are run half empty, and a private operator will be allowed the authority to run only as much as the market will bear, and tailor trips to market demand, perhaps also.

What it comes down to is a definition of success - while public sector interests will be satisfied in subsidizing to a small extent if it can be proven that substantial economic development results, no private for-profit operator will even try it.

Dave

Perhaps they should do the same as the hawks say about Amtrak -- buy 'em a plane ticket.. Seriously, if our economy continues to slide into the toilet any farther, cutbacks like this are bound to be expected, the only saving feature being that some tourist RRs actually have become a decent part of local tourism that would affect other businesses.

ryarger@rypn.org

> Good idea or bad idea?

Not sure we know enough to make an assessment of goodness or badness yet. It would certainly seem there's at least the risk of mismanagement under a private vendor (which, as noted by other respondants, there is unfortunately ample precedence for such).

Two things I'd like to mention. The battleship Texas generates more than enough revenue (or at least it was a couple of years ago) to pay for keeping it in good floating, if not seaworthy, condition. Unfortunately, the Texas Parks & Widelife dept. diverts those funds away to support other park assets which don't pull their own weight. And, consequently, the Texas, continuously exposed to salt water and air, is rotting away, contrary to the misperception that it has been saved (and in fact, it almost sank on its way to the shipyard where the "saving" repairs were performed).

Being the only remaining dreadnought class battleship in the world, I think the Texas deserved to have its own self generated monies dedicated to its continued preservation, and the other parks should either be funded out of separate state revenues, or go away. But, I never would have considered saying to the Texas State RR, pull your own weight, or shut down.

And, in defense of the last statement, let me note the extremely historic nature of the TSRR (although this apparently gets next to no air time at the current TSRR). How many such entities have ever existed? A state owned railway operated by convict labor? And, what a history, going back to the days when they couldn't get an engine so they pulled the cars with oxen.

Whatever, the current economics at the TSRR, I think the place is high on the preservation priority list from a historical standpoint, although I think it could be run in a much less "touristy" fashion, and still be a good draw.

RyPN Timetable
hkading@rypn.org

I think we've seen how well private business even with the best of intentions and professed great love for the railroad has managed to run a certain narrow gauge railroad into the ground. Rather than move further toward privatization of operation, the states involved have swung the pendulum in the direction of greater state involvement in the operation. Texas State Railroad is a unique asset and the investments have been made to the infrastructure - they shouldn't just be given away. Texas State is one of the better uses of state funds and one of the few positive nods given to rail of any sort.

texaseagle72@yahoo.com

Due movie contracts, the Texas State Railroad is one of few state parks that supposedly operate in the black. "Supposedly" because the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department does their accounting at the departmental level, not at the individual parks. All revenue from the parks goes to TPWD who then sends out funds to cover individual park expenses. Apparently (as of a couple years ago at least) parks like the Battleship Texas and the Texas State Railroad do their part to subsidize the rest of the TPWD system.

71446975@quixnet.net

> I think we've seen how well private business
> even with the best of intentions and
> professed great love for the railroad has
> managed to run a certain narrow gauge
> railroad into the ground. Rather than move
> further toward privatization of operation,
> the states involved have swung the pendulum
> in the direction of greater state
> involvement in the operation. Texas State
> Railroad is a unique asset and the
> investments have been made to the
> infrastructure - they shouldn't just be
> given away. Texas State is one of the better
> uses of state funds and one of the few
> positive nods given to rail of any sort.

I would have to say that TSRR is one of the best investments in the state,and one of the best tourist railroads in the country.

Passengers ride on heavy,well ballasted rail,over bridges that could suport coal trains,and they have an excellent shop facility in Rusk. Politics many years ago put the depot in Rusk,and physical reasons kept the depot out of Palestine(the TSRR comes out of the UP yard at Palestine..no place for a depot).

As was noted in an earlier post,well mentioning people have tried to run a very famous railroad with almost diastrous results. Leave TSRR alone,and continue to get it the funding it needs to operate in the manner it has for years.

They have done VERY well in spite of the fact they really cannot advertise. They should be commended,not attacked.

kbcotton@flash.net

They can't advertise?

Presumably this has to do with their being part of state parks and a misguided drive to not compete with no other private tourist railroad serving Rusk and Palestine.

Question: if a private operator could advertise, would ridership increase to the extent that the state could actually make more $ than keeping it in public hands? Would enough additional riders show up that the entire region would benefit for more tourism?

Interesting wild card has entered the stack of the deck.

dave

> I would have to say that TSRR is one of the
> best investments in the state,and one of the
> best tourist railroads in the country.

And what is the return on this "best investment in the state?" 10%? 20%? Maybe the state pensions system should buy and hold it if it's so profitable.

Passengers ride behind locomotives in audacious colors soon to have brand new boilers they don't need, on track that could carry coal trains but don't and never will, and gleefully participate in stunts like that "crash into the motorcycle ramp" a few years ago that no safety-minded railroad would touch.

A little birdie tells me that this privatization is the result of an audit performed by the state last year. Seems someone finally got wise to all the gold-plating Chicken Littling going on in East Texas and benchmarked them against other, well-run steam-powered tourist lines. The results didn't shower glory on TSRR management, I'm afraid.

By now you can tell I'm not a big fan of the Texas State. I don't mind states being involved in steam railroading - not at all. Railroading is an important part of our nation's history, and a state-operated railroad museum would be a good thing in my view. But the TSRR hardly qualifies as a "museum," and while visitors might have a good time there, they probably come away thinking all steam railroads bought their paint from the Gaudy Paint Company and didn't play a daily role in people's lives.

The only thing missing are the fake stacks and the train robberies. It's the equivalent of Texas taking over Six Flags and calling it a state nature preserve, then letting Hollywood crash a rollercoaster for fun.

It's OK if a private concern does that to make money - I can choose whether or not to support it with my own money. But a state operation ought to be more than entertainment, especially if it is supported by tax revenues. And its management shouldn't mislead the funders with bogus "requirements" for new boilers and 286,000 lb. track.

Sorry if this seems like I'm attacking you, Kenneth, 'cuz I'm not.

JAC

> They can't advertise?

Is this part of STATE park regulations ???

The Cuyahoga Valley Line is a 501C3 operator on a National Park Service Railroad. All their latest runs and specials are on the internet as part of Cleveland.com including reservations and the whole bit. There are also bits in the local papers where to go on the weekends etc. Ain't seen a billboard yet but they sure manage to get the word out.



lamontdc@adelphia.net

As part of a group that has invested our own blood, sweat, tears and, yes, CASH in preserving and running historic steam power with NO help from anyone outside the company, I know what it takes to run a steam tourist railroad. If some one had to be accountable there, I guarantee you that its budget would be trimmed up.

As to the idea that the TSR actually made money, then why would a friend of mine in the Texas Council of County Governments be under the impression that TSR usually runs 2 million in the hole ( the difference made up as a tax funded subsidy) and has done this on a regular basis since the 1970's? I will guarantee you that if the RR was making money the state wouldn't privatise it.

The idea that movie making put them in the black is the result of very creative accounting. Their base charge for running a special train is $1500.00. Is there another group on this board that can afford to operate a train for that price, much less recover any investment? We can't, and our equipment is much smaller, but then, the taxpayers of the state didn't fix our stuff, we did, and we ain't rich, we have to have some kind of return.

I guess you might say I am just tired of my money being used to compete against me.

As to the inane comparison between the CATS private operators and the TSR; the old Rio Grande was and is a tired property that never has recieved the investment it needed. It would be a hard RR to operate no matter what kind of engines you ran, much less old hogs that were still basically in the shape the Grande left them in. Had the taxpayers of Colorado and New Mexico put in just a part of the investment the people of Texas have in the Texas State, any private operator with a mediocum of ability could make the Cumbres work indefinantly.

The uniqueness of the TSR right of way and history is one of a line that was never successful when first built, it was at best only a fourth rate branch when leased by the SP, and was reduced to a little used tram road branch when the Temple Lumber leased it. In retropect it was a railroad that have comparitively little real impact on local or state events during its pre tourist life, and except the state owned it it wouldn't be what it is. There are many other rail lines of much greater historic importance that have been scrapped since the TSR survival and its consumption of precious Texas funds for Rail Preservation.

All those groups in Texas that have tried to get funding for their rail preservation project and failed to get it, just remember though you may not have known it, you were up against the TSR and its insatiable appetite for money

I dont get this. I dont understand why you want to pick this operation apart to say "I dont like the TSRR and I think it should go away, or loose its funding or whatever"....The big picture is that its STEAM LOCOMOTIVES THAT RUN.. and they are kept in good shape!
Which would you rather, the TSRR as it is, or return the engines to the parks they came from?

And if your going to go the route of saying state money is being wasted on TSRR, I'll say state and federal funds are wasted on lots of things everywhere and Im glad some money is being wasted keeping something I like alive; the difference is I dont consider TSRR funds a waste.

and what is Guady about this:?


adofmsu@aol.com

> And what is the return on this "best
> investment in the state?" 10%? 20%?
> Maybe the state pensions system should buy
> and hold it if it's so profitable.

> Passengers ride behind locomotives in
> audacious colors soon to have brand new
> boilers they don't need, on track that could
> carry coal trains but don't and never will,
> and gleefully participate in stunts like
> that "crash into the motorcycle
> ramp" a few years ago that no
> safety-minded railroad would touch.

> A little birdie tells me that this
> privatization is the result of an audit
> performed by the state last year. Seems
> someone finally got wise to all the
> gold-plating Chicken Littling going on in
> East Texas and benchmarked them against
> other, well-run steam-powered tourist lines.
> The results didn't shower glory on TSRR
> management, I'm afraid.

> By now you can tell I'm not a big fan of the
> Texas State. I don't mind states being
> involved in steam railroading - not at all.
> Railroading is an important part of our
> nation's history, and a state-operated
> railroad museum would be a good thing in my
> view. But the TSRR hardly qualifies as a
> "museum," and while visitors might
> have a good time there, they probably come
> away thinking all steam railroads bought
> their paint from the Gaudy Paint Company and
> didn't play a daily role in people's lives.

> The only thing missing are the fake stacks
> and the train robberies. It's the equivalent
> of Texas taking over Six Flags and calling
> it a state nature preserve, then letting
> Hollywood crash a rollercoaster for fun.

> It's OK if a private concern does that to
> make money - I can choose whether or not to
> support it with my own money. But a state
> operation ought to be more than
> entertainment, especially if it is supported
> by tax revenues. And its management
> shouldn't mislead the funders with bogus
> "requirements" for new boilers and
> 286,000 lb. track.

> Sorry if this seems like I'm attacking you,
> Kenneth, 'cuz I'm not.

> JAC

John:
I know you are not making this a personal attack,but I think that you might be a little too critical of some things TSRR has no control other.....like the paint of its locomotives. Sure they could get by on less than Class 3 track,but would you really want them to? If you had the option of making your railroad as smooth s possible,able to take the weight of any locomotive you might want to use,wouldn't you take it?

As far as the boiler issue is concerned my sources tell me that the two replacement boilers were needed,especially by the oldest locomotive.

I have not worked there for many years,so I cannot verify it with first hand knowledge.

Privitivation is something that rears it's ugly head while the Legislature is in session,and had happened many times over the years.

Let me pose a question for you John...if the Texas Legislature sent out an RFP to operate the TSRR,who would you nominate?

kbcotton@flash.net