Can anyone from #261 give an insight on how they were able to cut the deal they did with Amtrak for cars and operating with their equipment? Does it make sense in your opinion to try and work out a deal with Amtrak if the Class 1 operated over isn't already steam friendly (i.e. CP)?

TJ Gaffney

tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

> Can anyone from #261 give an insight on how
> they were able to cut the deal they did with
> Amtrak for cars and operating with their
> equipment? Does it make sense in your
> opinion to try and work out a deal with
> Amtrak if the Class 1 operated over isn't
> already steam friendly (i.e. CP)?

> TJ Gaffney

TJ
Can't comment on any business dealings with Amtrak, but as for the C.P., that railroad is demonstrably steam friendly. Witness the fact they have their own engine which has a pretty full schedule, and the fact that they have already allowed the 261 to operate a pair of trips on a very important main line of theirs, and the fact that they are willing to double head their steam engine with the 261.
From what I've heard they have been very willing and helpful partners in the upcoming Grand Excursion.
I can't imagine trying to run an Amtrak authorized excursion on an unwilling host railroad, and essentially ramming the trip down the railroads throat. That's no way to treat a railroad that may in the future become a willing participant.

> TJ
> Can't comment on any business dealings with
> Amtrak, but as for the C.P., that railroad
> is demonstrably steam friendly. Witness the
> fact they have their own engine which has a
> pretty full schedule, and the fact that they
> have already allowed the 261 to operate a
> pair of trips on a very important main line
> of theirs, and the fact that they are
> willing to double head their steam engine
> with the 261.
> From what I've heard they have been very
> willing and helpful partners in the upcoming
> Grand Excursion.
> I can't imagine trying to run an Amtrak
> authorized excursion on an unwilling host
> railroad, and essentially ramming the trip
> down the railroads throat. That's no way to
> treat a railroad that may in the future
> become a willing participant.

Thanks, Mark. Didn't mean for it to sound that way, but I guess it did. Just thought if one group had found a viable way to operate steam on a Class One in the 21st Century, it might be enlightening to hear how they did it. It seems to be a rare occurrenve, with insurance and all.

Thanks,

TJ


tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

I've often wondered just what it takes to make a steam locomotive "Amtrak Certified" such as 261. I understand that the cars themselves must meet Amtrak standards or else Amtrak cars must be used, but what about the locomotive itself? Are there a set of standards that Amtrak looks for or are locomotives evaluated on a case by case basis.

> Just thought
> if one group had found a viable way to
> operate steam on a Class One in the 21st
> Century, it might be enlightening to hear
> how they did it. It seems to be a rare
> occurrenve, with insurance and all.

> Thanks,

> TJ

It can and it has. The 3751 trips to and from the Grand Canyon Railway for the NRHS convention were Amtrak trips. The trips AT the convention were GCRY trips, of course.

However, in the end operation is still dependent on whether the Class 1 will allow the train to operate or not. The carrier I am most familiar with evaluates these type of requests on a case by case basis.

jimhollis612@charter.net

If it is technically an Amtrak train on an Amtrak route, how much say in the excursion does the host railroad really have if any? I don't recall hearing of any Amtrak trips getting shot down because of a railroad's anti-excursion or anti-steam policy.

> If it is technically an Amtrak train on an
> Amtrak route, how much say in the excursion
> does the host railroad really have if any? I
> don't recall hearing of any Amtrak trips
> getting shot down because of a railroad's
> anti-excursion or anti-steam policy.

You haven't seen any shot down because they don't get off the ground in the first place. I'm not involved in Amtrak negotiations, but I firmly believe Amtrak would not consider approving an excursion to be run on a host railroad that doesn't want it. This scenario would be bad for all concerned.
Mark D.


http://www.261.com

I'm not sure about steam, but I'm thinking of Amtrak excursions in general. In recent years, Amtrak has run many excursions using Amtrak diesels on railroads that generally do not tolerate excursions such as CSX and NS. Many of these aren't even on Amtrak routes. One example that quickly comes to mind was in 1996 when Amtrak pulled an excursion up and down Saluda grade for the NRHS convention. Reports were that Norfolk Southern pushed hard to prevent this trip from running, but obviously it did.

Good point. I remember taking an NRHS trip out of Greenwood, South Carolina to Savanah, Georgia in 1998 on a couple of otherwise underfriendly class ones, the entire consists coming I think being High levels from the defunct "Pioneer?"

TJG

tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

Each Locomotive undergoes a fairly extensive inspection by Amtrak engineering. The 3751 inspection lasted two days prior to the Grand canyon trip. It is up to Amtrak to set the frequency of inspections prior to any Amtrak sponsored trips.

The first day consisted of a pit inspection of all running gear. The second day was steam up and testing of all appliances and brake system.

2 hypothetical possibilities where Amtrak could make the difference, and the railroad has an objection about a detail, rather than about all excursions in any way:
The road that wants the excursion group to have insurance coverage that is just as expensive as what Amtrak buys may be quite willing to be protected by Amtrak's policy, which Amtrak might allow if they run the trip.
The road that has no spare engineers because all of theirs are working as many hours as the law will allow, "it's too expensive to hire new ones", and the brotherhood will strike if any are "borrowed" from elsewhere, may like the loophole of Amtrak running their train with their crew.
I think Mr. Levin has used Amtrak on non-Amtrak roads for insurance reasons.

TyburnRR@cs.com

> If it is technically an Amtrak train on an
> Amtrak route, how much say in the excursion
> does the host railroad really have if any? I
> don't recall hearing of any Amtrak trips
> getting shot down because of a railroad's
> anti-excursion or anti-steam policy.

As much say as they do in what equipment is capable of being operated over the host RR's system now. For example, NS has a 60MPH restriction for Amtrak MHC's on its lines. Likewise, Amtrak has published lists of NS and CSX freight locomotives approved for service on the NEC in their timetables. Right after the NS takeover, more than one train that had "reported out" for travel on Amtrak had to be dragged back into the yard and the power swapped out because the locomotives (NS's Dash 9-40CW's) weren't yet on the approved list, even though they were equipped with CS and LSL.

While a host RR may not have much say about Amtrak running an extra train, they CAN make the process so difficult and restrictive that the trip isn't worth running.

Such as, NS has a blanket 35MPH speed restriction for steam locomotives in its timetable. It doesn't say whose steam locomotives ... so all of them would be subject to it. With that kind of obstacle up front, and the resulting delays to NS's own trains that would result, any proposals wouldn't go very far.

Running a locomotive, even under someone else's rights, isn't a matter of just showing up at Interchange and expecting them to move you. I know of one instance where a shortline's steam locomotive was going offline to help celebrate the dedication of some USPS stamps commemorating railroading. Part of the move was over CR, and Conrail spent the better part of two days going over the locomotive to make sure it fit within all of their clearance and movement restrictions ... and that was only for a movement where the steam locomotive was under tow!

Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

Not really being a diesel guy, could I have little help with some of the examples?

> For example, NS has a 60MPH
> restriction for Amtrak MHC's on its lines.

What's a MHC?

> Likewise, Amtrak has published lists of NS
> and CSX freight locomotives approved for
> service on the NEC in their timetables.

NEC?

> Right after the NS takeover, more than one
> train that had "reported out" for
> travel on Amtrak had to be dragged back into
> the yard and the power swapped out because
> the locomotives (NS's Dash 9-40CW's) weren't
> yet on the approved list, even though they
> were equipped with CS and LSL.

CS and LSL??

Thanks,
Ed

My Class 1 source tells me that they draw the line on steam versus diesel on Amtrak in that diesel trains they are required under the contract to operate. Steam trains are a different matter entirely and are subject to approval of various folks before a yes or no is given.