.

My point is that as our ideas about what is technologically feasable change, so should our regulatory reflections of it. 30 days is based on our understanding of state of the art treatment and testing programs circa 1975 near as I can see, if that modern. All it takes is the political will to continue to evolve as technology does, rather than to choose a time in history as a "zenith" and refuse to continue to adapt while others adapt around us.

I used the dome lid thing as an illustration of a less well-considered adaptation off the top of my head, hoping to show that if such things are done by people charged to so so, more defensible, service-proven choices ought to be even more possible. I am sure you could supply some better ones of your own, and i wish you would.

dave

.

Why not just convert to propane, fit the boilers with electric heaters for startup like they did in Switzerland, and be done with it? Well, because we all like to think that part of what we are offering is a historically correct interpretation. We don't want a Stone Mountain style diesel in a baggage car pushing the dead steamer.

A very obvious change that could be made at Durangon and Silverton is to install roller bearings on the rolling stock. However, way back when, Bradshaw was specifically quoted in the media as saying that this would not be done because it would destroy the historic authenticity. However, choosing between coal fire and friction bearings, I would sacrifice the bearings before the coal fire to maintain historical atmosphere.

Truthfully, for the D&S, as a business investment, I would simply buy two diesel trainsets, maybe a mini domeliner or one of those Swiss alpine outfits, and start running half the schedule as diesel. The patrons definitely would not care (my mom hated the D&S, the rain of cinders) since most them are there for the scenery. Those who cared could simply choose to ride the steam departure. These changes would do wonders for the balance sheet, and probably eliminate the smoke issue without any operational changes. Having a few diesel trainsets would sure be a life saver financially when the next forest fire threat occurs.

I don't speak for D&S nor do I have any specific knowledge, but my guess would be that operating steam passenger trains is an integral part of their business, marketing, and branding plans. Whether or not absolute historic authenticity is also integral, or even possible, is another question. I'd venture to sugest that the D&RG didn't historically hog locomotive tires out of slab steel, but how that change would affect the visitors experience of the railroad I couldn't authoritively say, but again would guess not at all. Probably roller bearings or burning coal in a GPCS firebox design wouldn't matter either.

I hope their concept is to operate a railroad a lot like the D&RG, but with greater success, but that isn't absolutely authentic by design - just having the right basic flavor and the right general kind of stuff to impart a similar experience to that a tourist would have enjoyed in 1928. That seems to be their strategy, and it seems to please a lot of folks, based on what I experienced during several visits and rides.

dave

Steve brings up a few interesting ideas, with diesels and roller bearings. Several years and managements ago, I was working one weekend as either fireman or brakeman at the NH&I. It was early in the season, and we were running one of the Baldwins instead of the steam locomotive. A woman and her kids come up to the platform and ask about the train ride. The conductor directs her to the ticket office, but apologizes about having the diesel that day. (Oops).

The woman asks "What's the difference?". The conductor, now thinking a little faster, replies "Why, none at all" and the woman buys herself and her kids tickets.

The point is this: most of the revenue on tourist lines, large and small, comes from tourists, not railfans. If you have a nice scenic ride, with clean equipment and friendly crew members, a little bit of history, etc. you don't really need a steam engine all the time.

What Steve says (for D&S) makes sense to me. Run part of your schedule with diesels, and save wear and tear on the steam locomotives. Look for a few matching ALCO export units (all the same model-) from South America, preferable with DB and 26 air. Paint them in an appropriate traditional scheme, maybe put Hancock 4700s on them (if they can be made loud enough), and most of the general public will be satisfied. The diesels would go well with the wooden coaches, just look at the White Pass.

I took my son (12) to one of the local tourist lines this spring, and while I was expecting steam, their 45 ton GE was not a disappointment for either of us. And I heard no complaints from any of the other passengers.

As far as roller bearings go, who even needs to know that they are there? That place in Scranton (no flames, please-) has had them hidden beneath journal box covers for years. Sometimes historical authenticity has to take a back seat to practicality, especially on older equipment that is frequently operated. Look at some of the engineered plastic hub liners. Do we rewire old diesels and coaches with wire having cloth and asbestos insulation? Asbestos on pipes is historic, but do we still use it?

I agree with Steve, to look at things from a business standpoint, while blending in historical factors. With a little bit of imagination, and by keeping an open mind, you can satisfy both the balance sheet and one's sense of history.

I think I resemble the person that you are looking for. I have done manufacturing costing since 1979 and currently pay bills and post to accounts for a Ry museum. "FKROCK" has a point regarding the general concept as a foregone conclusion.

Based on my experience, accounting numbers don't make decisions for you. They indicate where the money goes. It seems that in a steam operation, all of the costs are necessities and not the least bit discretionary. Therefore, a closer look at the money trail may yield the benefit of a few tweaks, but would not justify the effort to generate the information.

Due to the disparity in equipment and their various inherent efficiencies, some standard or benchmark would only be valuable for organizations running similar equipment with similar loads on similar terrain. There really aren't many of those, so benchmarking would be straining gnats and pretty much a waste of time.

Now I'm really confused, but then again, I am more a word guy than a number guy.

Seems to me that the situation of having little descretion would indicate a more vital need to know how to track and project expenses to avoid getting caught short. And, I'm not quite sure about the benchmarking thing, just figuring that a braod base of industrywide information would be worth knowing when coinsidering the viability of projected startups, etc.

Anyhow, if an expert says it isn't with the trouble i will just try to get more comfortable with my appalling level of ignorance.

dave

As this is a topic near & dear to my heart, I will jump in here.

I don't have figures handy, but we at the SBRHS do try to have an idea of what our operating and maintenance expenses are (fuel, water/conditioning chemicals, lubricants, etc.). After our 2002 Form 4 work, we compiled the expenses from that work with our normaly yearly running maintenance items and then calculated out for inflation so that we could have some idea of what kind of capital we needed to bring in for the next rebuild in 2017 as well as yearly upkeep. That gives us an idea of what each operation needs to bring in to keep the 3751 running. Sadly, in busy LA, we rarely get a chance to actually run...

Also, along the lines of new steam technology...it does make sense in many cases to explore Porta type improvements. And beyond that there are other technologies that are emerging. I recently joined a small company developing atomic level dry lubricant and hardness coatings. These and other technologies when properly applied can help make a difference - and don't necessarily have to be that expensive....

Best,
Wolf Fengler

However, it would be very valuable to have an agreed set of standards, equations, so that operators could calculate their own profit/loss/investment figures.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the cyclical nature of steam locomotive maintenance. What you spend this year has very little relation to how much you spend next year. Let's take tire turning/replacement as an example. This is usually mileage driven, but there are factors that can skew this. If you only have one curve on your railroad and you're always running the same direction you will wear the flanges on one side. At the Huckleberry we have a reverse loop at each end of the railroad, and we alternate direction around these loops each trip, so our wheel wear is fairly even. I have found we can go about 40,000 miles between turnings. Since we run about 8,000 miles a year we can go about 5 years between tire turnings. So that fifth year we have a big ticket item, removing all the drivers and turning them. Of course that's the time to do any driving box and hub liner work also. So this all adds up to a big expense, but it only comes one year out of five. The challenge is to stagger these big jobs so you're not doing them all at once.
And doing a thorough overhaul can buy you several years of fairly light repairs.

Thanks for the perfect example, Marty.

Knowing when big-ticket work will be required, you can project how you need to save resources in expectation of its need to be done.

How many 5 year turning cycles can you get before you need to replace the tires enTIREly (no pun intended)?

dave

This is the financial lesson. The daily budgeted cost of these cyclical repairs is subject to argument based on financial assumptions. If you are saving in advance for these expenses (a "sinking fund"), then method of investment and rate of investment return can dramatically alter the required payments, similar to how investment choices can effect your retirement fund. If you are borrowing money for repairs, then the cost is a function of the interest rate, either "free" money from donors, low interest loans, or commercial loans.

I agree that standard may show ROI etc. But I feel that the time generating the accounting information could be better spent marketing the operation. Tracking and controlling expenses is only one side of the equation and as I mentioned before, with not a whole lot of wiggle room for cutting costs. Therefore, one had better focus on schmoozing donors or filling seats well enough to offset the expense. In other words, don't cut expenses, work on increasing sales.

I would disagree that there is no value in tracking expenses. I know of an operation that could save a lot of money if more forethought was put into crew calling and arranging schedules. It also provides a benchmark, within a particular organization that allows tracking of unforseen changes in operations (a leaking oil tank may not be seen, but will require a subtle increase in filling etc.)
The idea is not to ruthlessly cut costs, but to use accounting tools to identify expense centers and work with the managers of those centers to see if anything is going wrong or if a change in operations (not necessarily an easy sell) could improve costs. In short, it provides an objective view (the numbers don't lie) of where things are. How your organization deals with it is another topic.

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT