What do you folks think of the idea of buying time-shares in an operating steam locomotive?

If I could get enough interest in the concept I would be willing to make the initial investment.

Let me know your thoughts and what it is you need as far as size, speed, and power goes.

Brian Fleming

I have harped on private ownership in the past. The size of the budgets and the complexity of a restoration project to meet modern regulations screams for a new way of doing business. Although there are certainly success stories via volunteer organizations in restoring a locomotive, there has to be a better way to get more back into operation.

I have no idea if time shares off hand would work. Maybe simply selling shares in a project is another alternative. I would be interested in exploring it further.

Brian, if you like, email me off line at jrmay@monmouth.com

J.R.

First I don't know whether we need to get more into operation, or get more operation out of those we have serviceable already. Very few operating engines are in any danger of pushing the 1472 day clock.

Which leads me to the idea of basing ownership shares on a cost per wear and tear basis as well as time. We are much more likely to need to repair condemnable components than die on the calendar.

Owning the right to use it for a designated time frame plus a charge per ton mile?

I see the largest difficulty as enforcing an agreement about quality of use and maintenence among all partners, so that everybody takes very good care of it and nobody is taken advantage of.

dave

The only way the time share system would work, is if it had a fixed mechanial staff and operating crew.

Brian Fleming

One of those 2-8-2 from China is just right for our line. I would be interested in exploring the possibilities.

I will not have anything to do with spending my hard earned cash on importing a Chineese built steam locomotive. There are plenty of [b][b]AMERICAN built engines in this country just dying to get restored and could be restored for what you would have into importing one of those chineese toys.

Brian Fleming

Hey Brian,
Speaking of restoring U.S. built steam locomotives, how's it going?
DST

OK -stated another way - a bidirectional locomotive in the range of 100 tons.

As far as the 539 goes I am preparing to move the locomotive again next month by flat car east about 750 miles, to complete the restoration, or should I say really get started.

Brian Fleming

"Very few operating engines are in any danger of pushing the 1472 day clock. "

That is true, but iisn't the other part of a Form 4 a
requirement to recertify a locomotive's boiler every
15 years or every 1472 operating days, whichever
comes first? This applies to all operating steam
locomotives here in the USA that the FRA has
jurisdiction over (that is almost everyone). All
theese will eventually have to be recertified -
no matter how few days they may have run,

That is my understanding of the new rules.

Margaret

Yes, hence the discussion of finding more places to run them.

Margaret - in a perfect world, all steam locomotives would accrue all 1472 days in 15 calendar years, without replacing tubes, and with the running gear just about worn to the point of needing overhaul.

Sadly, most accrue just a couple hundred. Tubes which may have plenty of remaining life must be removed to recertify, which costs as much as replaing worn out tubes. Why not wear them out then, and recapture the cost through earned income from operation - the more days operated profitably, the easier that is.

The potential of Porta water treatment in preserving tubes and boiler surfaces remains to be proven in the US in practical service, which may allow for extending the calendar to encompass more opportunities to accrue operating days sometime in the future - we will see.

Fewer engines working more days on more lines is one way to allow each of them to more fully utilize all the operating days they can, and earn their next overhaul in the process.

dave