I am not the one complaining on this thread about the lack of motive power for trips that aren’t being done/won’t be done.

The stated aim of restoring 1 is to “keep steam at Steamtown.” As hard as this is for some of you to swallow, “steam at Steamtown” can be as little as the yard shuttles. I am in no way indicating you shouldn’t have opinions on what should be done up there, but you’re all claiming this is the wrong decision based on said opinions.

There’s already several things in the pipeline up there that have never been considered before, or haven’t been considered in a while. The NYC steam generator was dragged out of the deadline for evaluation, the L&NE caboose is being worked on to allow road operations with a caboose, Erie 3 is in the shop for overhaul so that premium excursion seating is once again an option, and #1 is being restored. I’ll be the first one to stand up and say I want to see 2317 run again, but as you yourself stated, most people don’t care what’s pulling the train. To that end, I’m excited for the moves being made to try and bring the non-foamer into the park and on the train, and if that means I have to wait awhile longer for big steam, then I wait.

When Steamtown was created, the recommendation for funding was something like $6 million a year for the museum and $12 million for rail operations. They got $5 million.

Since that time, yearly funding has increased to a little over $6 million, which has almost $4 million less in buying power than it did 30 years ago.

Your tax dollars are paying to keep the place open, not to run mainline steam excursions, and even that’s not cutting it. Steamtown has a deferred maintenance list that’s over $80 million. If you want Steamtown to succeed, you have two options: annoy the hell out of your local congressman to increase funding (good luck with that) or volunteer/donate.

You are perfectly entitled to express an opinion, but unless you’re willing to put your money where your mouth is, your opinion does nothing useful.

I'll take that as sarcasm. As a general rule, I don't PO Navy Seals.

While there is a certain number of people who are indifferent to what's upfront, I don't know and doubt if it is "most". In all candor, there's some don't even know-and one that insisted that there was a diesel in in the tender providing the power, like those old department store Tycos that had the power unit in the tender. Conversely, there is a group that objects VIGOROUSLY to the absence of operating steam. And we know from the visitation figures from 2012-2016 that visitation jumps when there is steam.

I certainly agree with you about the inadequacy of funding and the need to understand that nominal expenditures over time without understanding the erosive effect of inflation, especially over time. Even a tepid constant inflation of 3% over 25 years reduces your purchasing power to 46.7% of the stated amount. Don't believe me. Drop this in a spreadsheet.

=1*((1-.03)^25) Watch what happens as you raise the inflation beyond 3% (.03).

So, no, there isn't enough money (staff) to keep two road engines running (190+ excursions annually)-and quite frankly, there isn't the visitation to support it, either. Forget that for the foreseeable future.

Worse, long time staff and volunteers just shake their head at things like the NYC tender, the new construction tender for the 3254, the CNJ 1021 fiasco, and the fleet of Diahatsu mini-trucks (not street legal) and "bubble cars"-but that's "spilt milk under the bridge".

If you are going to preserve operating steam (and part of that is providing sufficiently varied operations to keep Brian and the rest of the T&E/mechanical crews qualified and sharp-plus train their replacements for the future), then you need a versatile engine, not a "unique" one. As I wrote, I have received off-line comments about the decision-that make me question the process.

Yes the Shay is unique and perhaps low hanging fruit. But it is extremely limited. And having just one engine is at odds with what the former Superintendent stated publicly.

“We need more operating steam locomotives to fulϐill our mission; to keep the operation going. 3713 is a key part of the strategic plan we are developing. Along with Baldwin 26, which will handle yard tasks and tours, we need several more powerful engines in order to reach the surrounding communities.”

https://ogrforum.com/topic/four-operati ... steam-town

Also there was a big pronouncement in Trains about needing three of four operating Steamers.

https://forum.trains.com/t/steamtown-he ... ity/284120

(Can only find the discussion)

https://theroundhouse.libsyn.com/047-st ... bie-conway

The only way this happens is if Steamtown is open-sourced. The pilot project would have been a visit by CNJ 113. It didn't happen and it was quite frankly flubbed.

So here we are ten years later. What you need to understand is this is a bit a Markov process where what happens next depends only on what has happened in the past. It's not quite only, but it's like 75%.

Theres nothing specific I can talk about, but don't assume that visiting power isn't a part of the conversation around here. We're all keenly aware that the 113 visit was flubbed, badly.

Should I be concerned about all our agreements of late? :)

This explains much in few words.
~Wesley

Although the numbers cited are somewhat jumbled, the essential conclusion of "explaining much" is true.

In 1988, when the Comprehensive Management Plan was introduced, $12.332M (see page 12) was listed as the cost to restore locomotives and cars, although the document doesn't distinguish between operating and static operations or how many of the then in the collection 40 locomotives and 100 cars (see page 12) were to be retained. That was low even then.

https://npshistory.com/publications/stea/cmp-1988.pdf

Also worth reading is the 1991 GAO summary of Congressional testimony that examines and takers issue with some of the costs.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/t-rced-92-6.pdf

As for annual operating costs, the same schedule states Other U.S. rail facilities of similar scale have an annual operating budget of between $2 million and S3 million. (doesn't state the "facilities" used for that estimate, so we can't examine the estimate)

Assuming the higher level of $3M and a geometric mean inflation of 3%, (and I think that's low, especially considering the growth in employee healthcare costs represents a significant source of annual operating costs) in 37 years, you would need just about 3X(2.99) the money just to maintain "purchasing power parity". The FY25 request was $6.8M for 42 FTE (full time equivalents). Certainly not the 50-75 uniformed personnel discussed in the CMP.

See Overview P. 60.

https://www.doi.gov/media/document/fy-2 ... reenbook-0

I note that the 1988 CMP included the "Excursion Experience" as part of site management objectives.

I'll take that as sarcasm. As a general rule, I don't PO Navy Seals.[/quote]

That actually wasn't sarcasm but a genuine suggestion. You are clamoring to know why, I doubt the Super reads RYPN (but I could be wrong) - I don't know if that information will be released online/to the public, but there's nothing stopping you from contacting them to finding out and having a discussion. Perhaps invitation to a brewpub for dinner and a beer to discuss your concerns?

I wrote a post earlier last week thanking those who saw some value in my opinion regarding the Steamtown projects. It's nice to be listened to and validated, although I believe we learn more by discussing varied opinions and thoughts.

So how the post was either never sent, devoured, or deleted. I think life may still go on without my two cents, but I am not going to accept "naive" as being applied to my thinking.

That being said, I would like to say thank you for the compliment I received on my minor part in saving LIRR FA2 #603. I had a very minor role in that. I did have a role in preservation of the NS geometry car "Bellefleur". Over nine years, I was President of New England Steam Corporation and gladly take a large responsibility along with my colleagues for preserving Maine Central 470. BTW, 470 is moving forward under other management and you may see her running before B&M 3713!

Presently, I am in the backwaters of supporting the restorations of LIRR G5s's 35 and 39. The latter locomotive is a staple of Pennsy design and will run daily on the Strasburg where she's to be restored CORRECTLY the first time.

Regarding Steamtown, I have an opinion, but it's hardly naive.

Since I used the word "naive" I'm assuming this is addressed to me. However, if you reread my post, you will see thar it was addressed to yerkesmz, who called those questioning the utility of the Shay "ridiculous ".

Since you are raising concerns I largely agree with: too small, too slow, not associated with historic passenger use, I would have no reason or abiilty to call your posts "naive" without impeaching my own testimony.

Super, I appreciate the follow up message, but no, you were no the individual I was addressing. I believe we stand on similar ground regarding Steamtown. Thank you for being the man to at least stand up and say, I might have made a mistake". Takes a big man.

That's a good idea. I made a small donation to the 3713 fund a few months back, but I'll be inclined to donate more if/when there is a clear direction there. I'm pretty underpaid at the moment and I don't have mega bucks to donate (though hopefully I'll end up putting my engineering degree/MBA combo to better use at some point and start making some real money) but I do like to donate to preservation where I can. Some recent examples are the Black River & Western in NJ, the Pine Creek RR at Allaire State Park in NJ, the Whippany Railway Museum, and the Collings Foundation's F-4 Phantom restoration effort. So there is always competition for limited dollars, but I do believe very much in Steamtown's mission.

Too bad, it would have been good sarcasm. I'm of the opinion sarcasm is beneficial and serves as a summary dismissal of the tilting-at-windmills ideas we all have and occasionally utter when we "ready, fire, aim". I don't axiomatically find sarcasm offensive, but I didn't grow up in the era of tenth-place trophies.

As for the information, I don't think any average person should expect to meet with any Superintendent to satisfy their curiosity about a particular decision-certainly from an opportunity cost perspective-it wouldn't be a good use of limited time. Rather such decisions should be routinely disclosed. Obviously, sometimes you might want secrecy in some decisions, such as why the F-22 was chosen over the F-23, but this sort of decision, not involving national security should be the result of a process with minutes-the same way regulations are exposed to public review and comment before official promulgation. I can go into the Federal Register for example and see things like the FRA's response to a particular railroad's request for relief from regulations.

When I think about the idea of making such a hypothetical meeting, I suspect that in exchange for the man's time, I should be offering something more than concerns-my guess is that by now, he understands the restraints imposed by poor physical access, accumulated maintenance backlog and the reality that what's important to one powerful Congressman in the late 1980's doesn't translate into Congressional concern in 2025.

Keep in mind, I had access to a prior Superintendent when I was an active volunteer and was the midwife to something that was an important check box on a performance appraisal.

I and others made numerous observations and recommendations, such as emerging competition principally from the R&N, but also Honesdale and Kutztown, the idea of attaching QR codes to the interpretive displays to allow better deep dives into a particular artifact or display (rejected as too administratively involved-requiring an architect's sign-off- and a perfect example of red tape), suggesting at looking at a low diameter small eight drivered engine (790, 519,15, depending on condition) when "three or four" operating engines were being discussed that while not principally designed for passenger service was better accommodated for modern 25-30mph operations, investigating the availability of DL&W 409 (it's at the DL now, so..) and of course a three year effort at bringing 113, which was excursion capable, a cult draw and presented the potential to renew/get more road steam qualified engineers, firemen and if ridership increased, more road conductors.

So ultimately, I'm not sure what else I have to offer. Since my opinion of lotteries is that they are cruel, regressive taxes on stochastic innumeracy, I don't play and I don't stand to inherit a windfall, it probably won't be the sort of donation the IHS received for the SW1.

I'll suppose I'll keep running my yaw here and not follow Foghorn Leghorn's advice to not talk, just to hear my head roar, since I can't say "Pay attention to me, boy..."

Brian,

I was just watching a video of Baldwin 26 doing the yard shuttle and being put away for the night, and the air-pump was constantly cycling, even during a light engine move. Is the governor non-functional? I also see the air pump exhaust was plumbed to exit above the stack. Were there drafting issues?

Mat