> Sadly, the recent trend at the Grand Canyon
> has been toward reducing their steam
> schedule year over year. Futhermore, GCRwy's
> marketing program remains focused on a
> "train ride". Both indications
> that the GCRwy management is aware of their
> costs related toward steam locomotive
> operations.

Well, again, steam isn't their draw - they have a large attractive hole in the ground to pull in tourists.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> indications
> that the GCRwy management is aware of their
> costs related toward steam locomotive
> operations.

One wonders whether the costs of their overhauls alone has yet been paid back never mind operating costs. Someone said in an earlier post "Long live steam"- hopefully that will not be in memory only...

Bill


staybolt-nospam-@bellsouth.net

So Bill, now that NHVRR is running steam, has there been an increase in ridership? Haven't seen any advertising to speak of regarding your new steam program.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> So Bill, now that NHVRR is running steam,
> has there been an increase in ridership?
> Haven't seen any advertising to speak of
> regarding your new steam program.

> dave

As a year-to-year number, yes, ridership is up but one would be hard pressed to say that it wouldn't have risen a bit anyways from 2002 once the Sept 11 dip is factored in. Rose colored glasses would show it was all because of the Vulcan but science couldnt prove that. Revenues are up, but so is insurance.

Our low-key approach to promoting steam operation has both hurt us and helped us. As you know we are all volunteer and rounding up workers and operating crew is a constant challenge. To promote and guarantee in good faith( or nearly guarantee, considering the usual routine weasel words in terms of substituting equipment) steam operations requires enough crew to qualify to hostle and run the engine on this Railroad. So, we haven't committed what we felt we might not be able to deliver.
Currently we are trying to build up our steam team and do some training and skills transfer so that some of the diesel engineers and students can get qualified on the steam locomotive. If we can accomplish this it will permit more frequent operation and allow us to advertise with confidence steam operations- and avoid crew burnout.
I think you are aware that the core steam team here is still recovering from the intense effort and personal sacrifice involved in restoring the engine to operation. We have accomplished with virtually no facilities, scant funding and a small handful of volunteers that which has defeated and/or humbled many far larger and better funded operations. Give us a bit of time to smell the sweet air.

At the moment, we use the locomotive in a cameo role on the major operating days, and plan to feature it at least one day of each of our Christmas ride weekends. ( Nov 29/30th, Dec 6/7th, 13th/14th) Subject to change, call in advance, etc.

Bill

staybolt-NOSPAM-@bellsouth.net

Bill, you seem to have figured out (unlike some others) that the presence or absence of steam is not a guarantee of success or failure.

If steam was all that was necessary to have a successful operation, then the Reader would still be with us, as would the Kettle Moraine and a few others. And the C&TS would not always be running around with it's hand out.

Grand Canyon found that what was pulling the trains had no effect on ridership; this is the same with most dinner trains. The customers are not overwhelmingly foamers or historians; they are there for entertainment, not to learn or re-live something or count rivets. Thus GC and some others have steadily reduced the scope of steam ops; in some cases down to only weekends a couple of months a year, while diesels do the rest of the work the rest of the year, at much lower overall costs.

I know of some steam railroads that are able to exist financially only because their other lines of business (gift shops, Thomas, contract repairs and parts, etc.) generate enough money to offset the high costs of the steam operations for which they are best known. In spite of huge ridership, they would be on a slow road to bankruptcy if the depended solely on the "draw" of steam to survive, or incresed their fares enough to cover it, which would chase riders away.

> Bill, you seem to have figured out (unlike
> some others) that the presence or absence of
> steam is not a guarantee of success or
> failure.

> If steam was all that was necessary to have
> a successful operation, then the Reader
> would still be with us, as would the Kettle
> Moraine and a few others. And the C&TS
> would not always be running around with it's
> hand out.

> Grand Canyon found that what was pulling the
> trains had no effect on ridership; this is
> the same with most dinner trains. The
> customers are not overwhelmingly foamers or
> historians; they are there for
> entertainment, not to learn or re-live
> something or count rivets. Thus GC and some
> others have steadily reduced the scope of
> steam ops; in some cases down to only
> weekends a couple of months a year, while
> diesels do the rest of the work the rest of
> the year, at much lower overall costs.

> I know of some steam railroads that are able
> to exist financially only because their
> other lines of business (gift shops, Thomas,
> contract repairs and parts, etc.) generate
> enough money to offset the high costs of the
> steam operations for which they are best
> known. In spite of huge ridership, they
> would be on a slow road to bankruptcy if the
> depended solely on the "draw" of
> steam to survive, or incresed their fares
> enough to cover it, which would chase riders
> away.

Dear SR:

You make some good points, however....

1. Kettle Moraine was abandoned not because of steam costs, but because the area had grown from rural to suburban. So your use of the KM as an example is not appropriate in this case.

2. In MY case, my wife has relatives that live in the Phoenix area. I would like to visit them some day, in the winter of course, when the weather is better. But I have never gone because I would also like to ride the Grand Canyon and steam does not run in the winter.

Les Beckman (HVRM)

midlandblb@cs.com

It is very difficult to make this case on any sound basis. With all of our operations, how do you make this judgement call, trying to reconcile all other factors being equal? In addition to the obvious ones, how about the economy, disposable income and time available to the visiting public, weather conditions, amount of publicity and its effectiveness, cost of gasoline and other travel costs for the visitors, dates run and their overlap with other holidays, competing weekend activites, the football season, even the school year calendar.

Seems to me to be a worthy subject for a government funded study - more has been spent on less worthy topics. But of course, we would all be out of business by the time the results were available!

So we try to think with our heads, act with our hearts, and hope with our souls - and run steam!

Bob Kutella


68trolley@comcast.net

> Dear SR:

> You make some good points, however....

> 1. Kettle Moraine was abandoned not because
> of steam costs, but because the area had
> grown from rural to suburban. So your use of
> the KM as an example is not appropriate in
> this case.

Sorry; according to Steven Butler of the KM, costs were not the issue as much as steadily declining ridership. Ridership declined even as the local population (read: potential customers) grew. Which made the costs of steam impossible to absorb. Whether or not the line would have succeeded with diesels is a good question, however.

> 2. In MY case, my wife has relatives that
> live in the Phoenix area. I would like to
> visit them some day, in the winter of
> course, when the weather is better. But I
> have never gone because I would also like to
> ride the Grand Canyon and steam does not run
> in the winter.

Yep. But their ridership stays high no matter what is pulling it's trains.

> Les Beckman (HVRM)

One final thing I will say on the matter: To most of the John Q. Public, a locomotive is a chooch that huffs and puffs and blows that lonesome whistle. I do not think that a diesel resonates in that same way with most non-railfans unless it looks like their Lionel set, eg "F" Units in the Santa Fe Warbonnet paint scheme. What you or I like as train geeks matters not. Logically, provided that the promotion is on target, either one would be a draw to a certain segment of the public.

A large mistake is in assuming that the head-end power alone is a draw for the public. For them it is just a part of the experience- like the clickety clack of the rail joints and a red caboose at the end of the train they expect a manifestation of a train in the classical sense. The Experience. Overachieving on any one point is not likely to increase revenue. As well expressed in another thread here, a bathroom that doesn't remind someone of the ones in the NY Port Authority bus station would go a long way.

The folks that pay the bills arent rabid foamers- thank god.

staybolt-NOSPAM-@bellsouth.net