Just a totally unnecessary side note, Ross's C&O "Greenbriar" is an all roller bearing, practically flawless locomotive. If steam excursions on the CSX lines were to be renewed, this would be the best bet.

RWA ( ready,willing&able) well able after a complete FRA 1472 day work up. Hope springs eternal.

Ross Rowland

How nice it would be to have a place or two of our own--indeed, I think that may well be a necessity in the future:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41074

I am just curious, but has anyone reached out toward short lines and museums such as the TVRM to have ‘guest’ or visiting equipment? What about the RBMN which used to allow visiting locomotives on their rails (PRR 1361 and NKP 765 notably)?

1361 never ran on the RBM&N. It did run on the Nittany & Bald Eagle (a competing short line family) several times and on the Maryland & Pennsylvania and former Northern Central south of York (then being administered by the Stewartstown RR under George Hart), plus Conrail to and from those "gigs."
NKP 765 was limited to a servicing stop (which turned into a reversal) at Temple during the ill-fated "Readingburg" trip to Harrisburg during the 1988 NRHS Convention.
And to stick to topic, the Reading & Northern is in a massive hole far away from CSX--the closest CSX operates is Philadelphia and northern New Jersey.

The major problem with this proposition is getting the locomotives from railroad to railroad. The railroads where this can be done reasonably expediently don't want the hassle/traffic, and the smaller ones (say, Indiana RR, various G&W roads, etc.) either also don't want the traffic or don't go the right places.

The challenge with running on short/line/regional roads is either high liabilities welcoming the public onto their property or in many cases these small roads are leased(not owned)from Class 1s which prohibit steam/passenger excursions on their properties. I know while working for a few shortlines we couldn't have special trains open to the public on leased trackage as the contract specifically, prohibted it. It was only the larger regional roads which allowed it but the big roads didn't want to move steam locomotives to and from them.

In truth, many small roads were relieved when they didn't have the option of running special movements because they didn't have the resources to handle it and their lawyers didn't want the liabilities of the public on the property. One accident/incident involving these moves could easily bankrupt a small railroad.

Let's hope the folks restoring locomotives in Kentucky are able to arrange some place to run them without having to use a Class 1 to move stuff back and forth. Again, the real answer is to own the track you run on and not someone else.

exprail

One thing to keep in mind. While these things are special to our community, to the outside world it's not the same way.

For example, how would an auto manufacturer feel if an outside group wanted to use an old retired drill press into their assembly line because it was once used in that factory? Do you think they'd let them in the door?

At the root of it, what we're looking for is no different.

I have always wondered what logistics keep mainline locomotives from being ‘guest’ locomotives on tourist railroads from happening more often with today’s mainline climate. I would imagine that how large and heavy the locomotive is, how the locomotive gets there and disagreements over how both organizations benefit financially would be the major reasons why?

I was discussing this just yesterday with a principal of a steam excursion who in the (now distant) past has hosted visiting steam and is interested in doing so again in the future--or even allowing their power to visit elsewhere.

Here's what we're up against:

1) Distances involved. To get from one railroad to another now often involves convoluted routings, unless you use a truck (UK locos enjoy the luxury of being at least somewhat possible to be transported shorter distances intact by road--not the case with, say PRR 1361, NKP 765, or SP 4449.)

2) How to transport?
Flat car? Possible, but extremely taxing and expensive.
On wheels? Certainly can be done, as recently demonstrated by NS and NKP 757--but I'm sure they'd rather not do that routinely. 757 was probably a "once in a lifetime favor".
In steam? Probably the best way, keeps everything lubed and all--but liability concerns, etc.
Under its own power? Might work, might not.

3) What RR? Will they cooperate?
Again making a hypothetical: Suppose the group in New Mexico gets ATSF 2926 running, PTC installed, etc. Suppose we even break it in on the Raton Pass route to get the bugs out, train crews, etc. To transport it to, say, the Grand Canyon Railway, you'd be going hundreds of miles over some of the busiest railroad in the nation. Logistically, the "best" way would be to have her in a revenue freight train while under steam, pulled by BNSF power. Is that feasible? Ask BNSF.
On the other hand, the Grand Canyon Railway HAS sent a 2-8-0 to Phoenix and back, 200-some miles, over a much more lightly-used main line (6-10 trains a day), back in 1991, pre-BNSF merger/PTC/new GCRY management/etc. That remains today a feasible proposition, should the reason/excuse arise for it. Ditto a GCRY loco (steam or diesel) running to/on the Verde Canyon RR or the Arizona & California. What's lacking is the will and excuse to justify the expense and effort.

And that's what it's all about. The will and motivation.

Isn't being under steam and being under it’s own power technically the same thing?

Under steam would be pretty much a necessity for any move at all in order to keep the cylinders, valves, etc lubricated properly.

A steam engine can be under steam and otherwise "dead-in-tow" behind diesels.

Under its own power would be leading the move as the primary power.