CSX Against Steamers??
-
- The Beast
- Posts: 5934
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:28 pm
CSX Against Steamers??
Ok, now I have heard for several Years now that CSXT is against steam locomotives??? Might I ask why??
I know BNSF also when it was BN also had a grudge against the use of steam locomotive trips on its rails? I do not get it. Look at Union Pacific.... they have the 4-8-4 #844 and the Challenger and are working with them in their own steam programs!!! They are benefiting from their old steam engines still. Why not have CSX Get lets say PM #1223, since #1225 belongs to SRI... Fix it up and Use it to promote their railroad???
I know BNSF also when it was BN also had a grudge against the use of steam locomotive trips on its rails? I do not get it. Look at Union Pacific.... they have the 4-8-4 #844 and the Challenger and are working with them in their own steam programs!!! They are benefiting from their old steam engines still. Why not have CSX Get lets say PM #1223, since #1225 belongs to SRI... Fix it up and Use it to promote their railroad???
- SD80MAC
- Ingersoll's Mr. Michigan
- Posts: 10659
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:59 pm
- Location: Grand Rapids
Re: CSX Against Steamers??
Years ago CSX supposedly sent a team to BO Rail to see if the C&O Allegheny there could be fixed up and used in excursion service. I believe they also looked at C&O 614 and a few C&O 2-8-4's, but nothing ever came of it.Railfan James wrote:Ok, now I have heard for several Years now that CSXT is against steam locomotives??? Might I ask why??
I know BNSF also when it was BN also had a grudge against the use of steam locomotive trips on its rails? I do not get it. Look at Union Pacific.... they have the 4-8-4 #844 and the Challenger and are working with them in their own steam programs!!! They are benefiting from their old steam engines still. Why not have CSX Get lets say PM #1223, since #1225 belongs to SRI... Fix it up and Use it to promote their railroad???
Remember that Chessie System ran their Chessie Steam Specials in the 80's, using Reading 2101 and C&O 614. They even let NKP 765 run over CSX rails when it was running around as C&O 2765, and let PM 1225 and 765 double head through the New River Gorge. I don't think CSX is against steam locomotives, they, like other railroads, are just trying to make money, and it's very hard to make money of a steam locomotive. As to why CSX didn't let 1225 run to GR in 2004 for the Polar Express premier, your guess is as good as mine. If 1225 were Amtrak certified like MILW 261, they'd have a much easier time getting permission to run over Class 1's (as far as I know, RR's can't refuse to host an Amtrak train, I might be wrong.)
As far as 1223 goes, I doubt the city would sell it for anything less than a whole lot of money. They have turned down offers to restore 1223 because they want it to stay in Grand Haven. It's good to see they care about it, but geez...........
"Remember, 4 mph is a couple, 5's a collision!"
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
-
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 1611
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:43 pm
- Location: Perrysburg Ohio
There's a few other factors in play as well.
1. Insurance, Like it or not we live in a litigious soceity and a steam locomotive is an "attractive nusance" that would attract people to the property that would not otherwise have an interest in trains. More people = greater exposure = greater odds for an accident = greater likelyhood to exposure to a liability case.
2. Capacity & manpower concerns. A steam excursion run soaks up a lot of manpower, from extra property protection at the stops, trainmasters, etc. For example back in the late 1980's I rode a NS excursion across the former NKP. There was a track inspector on a hi-rail to proceed the train and NS PD at the stops as well as extra employees to keep folks in line on the property. Just like anywhere else, with consolidation and downsizing there's not as much manpower around to cover something like this.
3. For a period of time after the Conrail split up CSX was in no position to host a shippers special or excursion. Not a positive thing to do in tying up the railroad with a "steam train" if you can't get the normal freight across the road!
4. Who would the target audience of these excursions be? Shippers? Do shippers want to see capacity tied up with an excursion run? What would the railroad benefit from doing excursions from one place to the next?
At the end of the day, what would the benefit be, and who would be benefitting from the exposure?
1. Insurance, Like it or not we live in a litigious soceity and a steam locomotive is an "attractive nusance" that would attract people to the property that would not otherwise have an interest in trains. More people = greater exposure = greater odds for an accident = greater likelyhood to exposure to a liability case.
2. Capacity & manpower concerns. A steam excursion run soaks up a lot of manpower, from extra property protection at the stops, trainmasters, etc. For example back in the late 1980's I rode a NS excursion across the former NKP. There was a track inspector on a hi-rail to proceed the train and NS PD at the stops as well as extra employees to keep folks in line on the property. Just like anywhere else, with consolidation and downsizing there's not as much manpower around to cover something like this.
3. For a period of time after the Conrail split up CSX was in no position to host a shippers special or excursion. Not a positive thing to do in tying up the railroad with a "steam train" if you can't get the normal freight across the road!
4. Who would the target audience of these excursions be? Shippers? Do shippers want to see capacity tied up with an excursion run? What would the railroad benefit from doing excursions from one place to the next?
At the end of the day, what would the benefit be, and who would be benefitting from the exposure?
Re: CSX Against Steamers??
Liability is probably a major concern. People no longer know the sound of a steam whistle. Heck, they don't pay attention to a diesel horn either.Railfan James wrote:Ok, now I have heard for several Years now that CSXT is against steam locomotives??? Might I ask why??
When PM 1225 ran to Grayling, there were State Troopers at every crossing. I'm sure SRI had to reimburse the state for that. That surely added cost to the trip. There are other costs that I'm probably not aware of, but liability insurance is not cheap these days.
CSX management is not into heritage like the Western roads are. It would be nice if they were. Than we might see locomotives in SCL, L&N, and Chessie schemes. They are bottom line conscious, and with the current situation with The Children's Investment Fund they sure aren't going to spend money on steam.
Norm
Re: CSX Against Steamers??
Not letting it be restored is certainly not caring about it, IMO. They just want a museum piece in their city.Conrail Jon wrote: As far as 1223 goes, I doubt the city would sell it for anything less than a whole lot of money. They have turned down offers to restore 1223 because they want it to stay in Grand Haven. It's good to see they care about it, but geez...........
Liability, Liability, Liability....99% of people at the class ones see a steam engine and horrified...all the employeses and management all already working extra to try to keep trains moving over their main lines and through their clogged yards....why would they want to risk their jobs for a special event like that?
Things can also change in a second....look at CP for example...15 years ago, you couldn't even get them to consider moving anything steam related...now they have their own steam program....all it takes is the right person in the right place at the right time...never say never
Things can also change in a second....look at CP for example...15 years ago, you couldn't even get them to consider moving anything steam related...now they have their own steam program....all it takes is the right person in the right place at the right time...never say never
The BN (and now BNSF) deal is in regards to "sleve bearings" (I think thats what they are called)..they had a steamer on their system a frew years ago and a sleve bearing siezed up and because of where it was..it took several days to fix it..blocking a line someplace for a while.
Anything with sleve bearings are banned from BNSF rails.
Dave C
Anything with sleve bearings are banned from BNSF rails.
Dave C
- Hogger1225
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: St. Johns, MI.
- Contact:
COOL! Are you saying the state donated the trooper's time?Hogger1225 wrote:SRI did not have to re-imburse the State for the Troopers who were with us and followed us on the Grayling trip.
I thought SRI would have to pop some cash for that.
As an aside, I talked with a State Trooper in West Branch. He had his (I'm guessing) 5 or 7 year old daughter with him. I wanted information about back-roading the line from there to Saint Helen. He said he had been listening on his radio, and M-76 sounded like a zoo. He was correct. I slowed to let one trooper back onto M-76 after his crossing job was done. Nobody else would let him on the highway.
It was, all in all, a fun day. On a pictures per gallon basis it cost a lot. But don't all such trips?
Norm
-
- The Beast
- Posts: 5934
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:28 pm
I can understand the security impact of that, and the cost of insuance aspect as well.
I think its a shame that CSX is not into the whole heritage aspect. Union Pacific trains look really cool if you stop at a crossing and see the Heriatge Units either in pairs, or just a single unit going buy. UP though and I think, (I am probably wrong) well doesn't NS still own or partially own #614??
I see the whole steamer aspect for CSX, yes maybe being a nusence, however, how many more shippers especially out West wanna shiop on UP? Because of all the Ads UP puts out on their locomotives!!! Its looks really nice for a pair of Locomotives to look clean and crisp... not like CSX Locos that normally look ok to sub par.
I think its a shame that CSX is not into the whole heritage aspect. Union Pacific trains look really cool if you stop at a crossing and see the Heriatge Units either in pairs, or just a single unit going buy. UP though and I think, (I am probably wrong) well doesn't NS still own or partially own #614??
I see the whole steamer aspect for CSX, yes maybe being a nusence, however, how many more shippers especially out West wanna shiop on UP? Because of all the Ads UP puts out on their locomotives!!! Its looks really nice for a pair of Locomotives to look clean and crisp... not like CSX Locos that normally look ok to sub par.
- SD80MAC
- Ingersoll's Mr. Michigan
- Posts: 10659
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:59 pm
- Location: Grand Rapids
NS doesn't own C&O 614, 614 is owned by Ross Rowland's Iron Horse Enterprises, and it's currently stored on the Reading, Blue Mountain & Northern in disrepair. I assume you mean N&W J class #611. I may be wrong, but I believe NS still owns 611 and A class 1218, but both are on lone to the Virginia Transportation Museum as displays.Railfan James wrote:I can understand the security impact of that, and the cost of insuance aspect as well.
I think its a shame that CSX is not into the whole heritage aspect. Union Pacific trains look really cool if you stop at a crossing and see the Heriatge Units either in pairs, or just a single unit going buy. UP though and I think, (I am probably wrong) well doesn't NS still own or partially own #614??
I see the whole steamer aspect for CSX, yes maybe being a nusence, however, how many more shippers especially out West wanna shiop on UP? Because of all the Ads UP puts out on their locomotives!!! Its looks really nice for a pair of Locomotives to look clean and crisp... not like CSX Locos that normally look ok to sub par.
"Remember, 4 mph is a couple, 5's a collision!"
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
-
- The Beast
- Posts: 5934
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:28 pm
- SD80MAC
- Ingersoll's Mr. Michigan
- Posts: 10659
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:59 pm
- Location: Grand Rapids
As I said above, at the Virginia Transportation Museum, which I believe is near the East Shops in Roanoke, where 611 and 1218 were built.Railfan James wrote:Yes, #611 and #1218.... Good to see NS still owns them. Where are the displays at?
"Remember, 4 mph is a couple, 5's a collision!"
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
-
- RedNeck Train Chaser
- Posts: 4146
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:42 pm
- Location: Buffalo Location
- Contact:
Thats when you find the snowmobile trail, and kick in in 4 wheel and pace the train, I'm sure there was an ORV trail around the line!Norm wrote:Hogger1225 wrote:SRI did not have to re-imburse the State for the Troopers who were with us and followed us on the Grayling trip.
I wanted information about back-roading the line from there to Saint Helen. He said he had been listening on his radio, and M-76 sounded like a zoo. He was correct. I slowed to let one trooper back onto M-76 after his crossing job was done. Nobody else would let him on the highway.
-
- Pullman Fan
- Posts: 411
- Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:18 pm
Here is a picture of one tropper in the dining car.Norm wrote:COOL! Are you saying the state donated the trooper's time?Hogger1225 wrote:SRI did not have to re-imburse the State for the Troopers who were with us and followed us on the Grayling trip.
I thought SRI would have to pop some cash for that.
As an aside, I talked with a State Trooper in West Branch. He had his (I'm guessing) 5 or 7 year old daughter with him. I wanted information about back-roading the line from there to Saint Helen. He said he had been listening on his radio, and M-76 sounded like a zoo. He was correct. I slowed to let one trooper back onto M-76 after his crossing job was done. Nobody else would let him on the highway.
It was, all in all, a fun day. On a pictures per gallon basis it cost a lot. But don't all such trips?
One can make a mistake and own up to it, but still feel guilty.
~~anonymous
~~anonymous