Please feel free to quote me at your discretion, Supe. I know you won't pull half a thought out of context.

Expectations which are fulfilled are extremely important, in that unfulfilled expectations will drive away support (and business). Any legislative constraint that prevents fulfilling expectations ought to be done away with - laws were written and can be rewritten. I think Jefferson had the right idea when he suggested all laws require reactivation periodically or they will expire. It forces us to rethink as things change. Only the laws of physics are constants - and our understanding of them changes as we learn.

Economic constraints are another matter, but tied in to unfulfilled or fulfilled expectations. If we promise something that people will want to exprience, but then fail to deliver, we deserve to fail. If we deliver what we promise and fail, we weren't promising or delivering the right stuff. If we deliver what we promise and succeed, constraints are immeterial.

I just don't see blind acceptance of man-made impediments to be a good reason to refuse to consider alternatives. Sure, it may take an act of congress, but given some of the foolishness that they have passed recently, hardly an impossibility.

NPS can operate any way the citizens wish it to operate, providing we are willing to pay the cost. It could well be that, without McDade's influence, there just isn't enough interest to keep Steamtown afloat in its current incarnation. We can change the characteristics to try to make it more secure, or not. We can let it go. We can attempt to influence it politically. I certainly hope this is not the case, but it ought to be considered if a threat has been published.

I don't know as much about Texas State. Perhaps the RR has done a very good job of building tourism, and isn't considered to be relevant any longer in keeping the local economy alive. Perhaps the political will to flood some pefectly good land that it partly occupies overcomes the political will to protect it, and let Dallas learn to conserve. What little I know about the colorful history of Texan politics convinces me that there are probably a lot of undisclosed influences at work.

Our economy is complex and unfulfiling right now, unless you are among the very wealthy (which means your chances of reading this list are small). Our own government debt has sucked up a lot of capital, yet interest rates remain relatively low. Things don't make a lot of sense, and it isn't irrational to consider the least politically popular or most costly parts of any program to be under the microscope. If we are them, a little planning now couldn't hurt.

I am not sure I understand your point about 4960. Private owners are not prevented from historically accurate preservation, if that is what they wish to do. Public sector tourism programs are not bound to do it either. Colonial Williamsburg is probably our countries most respected public sector theme park, yet is presents an artificial version of our colonial history. Stanford and Dodge didn't have an air conditioned visitors center at Promontory Point. Not all locomotives in tourist service are artifacts, and I can't imagine there is enough pure preservation capital available to properly preserve the ones that theoretically are, much less those that aren't. Grand Canyon, by most reports, promises a nice tourist railroad experience, and delivers.

dave

I was encouraged by noteing that mr.superheater recognizes that on the subject of posting with a phony name he and the others who follow this practice are clearly held in lower regard(and thus the same for his opinions I'd guess?),by a clear plurality of the participants herein. Thanks to this thread I've come to learn that there are some legitimate reasons some folks need to remain anonymous, and I respect that.
As this thread seems to devolving into a debate on Steamtown,it seems to me that subject rightly should be explored in a forum of its own?
I only used the Strasburg name as an example(and said so at the time), and do not represent Strasburgs mgt. in any way, shape or manner. My only major point on that is as Dave again speaks to so well, it doesn't hurt to discuss openly how Steamtown might better deliver a product and also how it might prepare for a possible budget axe of the future.
As others have spoken to so effectively, perhaps the best mix of public/private sector cooperation in a situation like S'town is for the Feds to provide the huge capital dollars needed to establish the physical plant/equipment at total outlays far above what could ever be justified in the private sector model, and then let a competent private sector entity run the place so as to maximize its public draw and efficiency.
Again it doesn't take much imagination to see how the feds could "save" $2-$3 millon/year from their current $5million/year Steamtown outlay by out sourcing its operation to a proven private sector operator who would undoubtedly dramatically increase the facilities use by the general public through improved "product",aggressive marketing and other proven tools of the private sector. If that is a supportable thesis, then the quetion becomes how do we who care about Steamtown accomplish that end?
That's the question we need to spend some time/energy on.
Later.
Ross Rowland......no s please................

Again it doesn't take much imagination to see how the feds could "save" $2-$3 millon/year from their current $5million/year Steamtown outlay by out sourcing its operation to a proven private sector operator who would undoubtedly dramatically increase the facilities use by the general public through improved "product",agressive marketing and other proven tools of the private sector.

On the first point, regarding credibility. I don't care if a certain number of readers lend less weight to the subjects I opine upon for the use of a pseudonym. This is a chatboard, not a meeting of the Congress of the United States. There should be as much operating steam on the rails as there are in railfan chatboards-but that may be exactly why there isn't.

Actually, it does take some imagination to see how a private sector operator will "dramatically" improve product while reducing operating costs 40 to 60%. Its still going to take a crapload of money to keep steam engines running, heat the buildings, etc. Anybody who thinks the private sector is ipso factor a guaranteed success, has probably ignored their long positions in GM, Ford, MCI & Enron. Additionall, you also probably won't get the tens of thousands of volunteer hours that are provided annually to the park service, so count on increased payroll.

The problem with your above assertion is a lack of specifics. I reoffer my challenge: Instead of making a blanket statement, and refusing to to delve into specifics as a waste of time , structure your thoughts in the way a government report is structured.

Here's "Finding One" and a running start. If you need more information, you can consult the Government Accountability Office's standards for conducting performance audits at www.gao.gov. The same structure will be used by any oversight body as a standard of practice, although the nature of the issue and work performed to arrive at the conclusion will vary. Additionally, reports may contain multiple findings.

There are five (5) elements that comprise a finding and I'm giving you three (3):

Condition: (The situation that currently exists)
Steamtown's annual operating budget is approximately 5 million dollars. This is Gimmee No. 1.

Criteria:(What should be)
Steamtowns annual operating budget, according to Mr. Rowland (no S) should be 2 to 3 million, dollars a reduction of 40-60% over current levels. This is Gimmee No. 2.

Cause: (The reason or reasons for the difference between the condition and the criteria)

Please insert answer here, and "inefficiency" is not an answer. Unfortunately, you will not have the facts at your disposal, so speculate, but speculate with SPECIFICS.

Effect: (why this matters)

Ordinarily, the "effect" portion of a finding asserting inefficiency will make the obvious statement that the program operates more costly and/or does provide the scope (breadth or depth) of output . This is Gimmee No. 3.


Recommendations: Actions that should be undertaken to reduce the disparity between the condition and criteria

Here's where the trick comes in: recommendations have to be realistic and defensible: Hypothetically: Saying something like "sell the Reading 2124", must be backed up with an estimate of arms-length market value, and an evaluation of the market so if you say "Steamtown could obtain two million dollars by selling the 2124'', a reasonable person will respond that in recent years, two similar locomotives were offered for sale and one was sold. The one that was sold was in operating condition and did not sell for this figure. Anyway, you get the drift. Lets see what you got. If you produce a finding thats realistic, coherent, complete, I'll drop the pseudonym and switch sides.

By the way, I should mention, the reviewed party gets to respond, so if you don't dot your eyes and cross your tees-its going to be obvious.

I think superheater presents an interesting opportunity. I was recently invited to write a guest editorial for RyPN on this subject and started working on it when the CEO of one of our most successful short lines convinced me to stop. His reasoning was straight forward. If you believe that there is some realistic prospect that for either budget or other reasons an RFP may be issued soliciting private sector proposals for a D/O at Steamtown-why give your innovative thinking away for nothing? He's right-therefore I'm actually going forward with the work, but will treat it as proprietary, as I believe there's a very good chance an RFP is in Steamtowns forseeable future.
Hard for me to do this as I was looking forward to superheaters "coming out".
Ross Rowland.....no s please............

Actually I was looking forward to your "coming out" too.

Where I play cards, thats not even a straight.

OK, once again Superheater and Mr. Rowland have hijacked a thread to continue their feud with one another in violation of the Interchange Guidlelines. I have removed the last several posts in which the two gentleman began to bait one another more and more rudely, and am locking this thread.

Feel free to reintroduce the original topic in another thread.

The management will act to discourage future threads from being similarly hijacked.

Erik Ledbetter