As released on fireup611.org and also reported on TRAINS Newswire (on a Saturday!).
There will be events in Spencer later in the summer, and then probable return to Roanoke sometime in Sept. for a 9/29/18 event at VMT.
I am grateful that I spent time and money to experience and document her travels the last 3 years.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
No planned public trips in the Houston area in 2018 for any sort of train, except for the Galveston based F units last April. However there is a lot of freight action to enjoy between UP, BNSF, and KCS.
One does not need steam to enjoy railroading.
Bummer, but that's how life goes sometimes.
Is there any chance that she'll return to Roanoke under her own power like previous years? Even though she obviously won't be hauling an excursion train it would still be nice to maybe get a few photos of her running back from Spencer.
Since it will be a non-passenger ferry move, NS will probably let her run back with no problems.
Once she is back what does the future hold for her the from 2019 onwards?
Is she then just a static museum piece again?
Dominic Mazoch posted:One does not need steam to enjoy railroading.
I do.
Dan986 posted:Dominic Mazoch posted:One does not need steam to enjoy railroading.
I do.
I second that. You can go and watch "diseasels". I won't. 
SAD! :-(
Someone needs to come up with a way to do excursions without having to be under Amtrak’s insurance umbrella. Until that’s figured out don’t expect much next year either
The cost of an insurance policy with the same liability limits as Amtrak’s is far beyond what the steam excursion industry as a whole can afford.
OGR Webmaster posted:The cost of an insurance policy with the same liability limits as Amtrak’s is far beyond what the steam excursion industry as a whole can afford.
Such a shame, all that money wasted just to have fully restored, functional engine(s) rust in place. No doubt some steam restoration projects will see their funding dry up, so those engines in various states of dis/assembly will be pushed out into the "proverbial weeds".
In the UK I believe they have active steam programs and encourage them to run.
How about using that money instead to bring all items inside out of the weather!
rrman posted:OGR Webmaster posted:The cost of an insurance policy with the same liability limits as Amtrak’s is far beyond what the steam excursion industry as a whole can afford.
Such a shame, all that money wasted just to have fully restored, functional engine(s) rust in place. No doubt some steam restoration projects will see their funding dry up, so those engines in various states of dis/assembly will be pushed out into the "proverbial weeds".
In the UK I believe they have active steam programs and encourage them to run.
Not all is lost, things ebb and flow. In a few years the guy running Amtrak now will be out and there will be 180 deg turn around in policy.
superwarp1 posted:Not all is lost, things ebb and flow. In a few years the guy running Amtrak now will be out and there will be 180 deg turn around in policy.
There's no guarantee of that...
Rusty
OGR Webmaster posted:The cost of an insurance policy with the same liability limits as Amtrak’s is far beyond what the steam excursion industry as a whole can afford.
If the worst happens, is Amtrak also liable for damages then since it is their policy?
Rusty Traque posted:superwarp1 posted:Not all is lost, things ebb and flow. In a few years the guy running Amtrak now will be out and there will be 180 deg turn around in policy.
There's no guarantee of that...
Rusty
True, NS allowed steam excursions, then they didn't, then they did, and now they don't again. Even CSX policy will change some day. It may have to be when they get swallowed up by another railroad but it will change.
superwarp1 posted:Rusty Traque posted:superwarp1 posted:Not all is lost, things ebb and flow. In a few years the guy running Amtrak now will be out and there will be 180 deg turn around in policy.
There's no guarantee of that...
Rusty
True, NS allowed steam excursions, then they didn't, then they did, and now they don't again. Even CSX policy will change some day. It may have to be when they get swallowed up by another railroad but it will change.
It really isn't a matter of "allowing" steam excursions, or ANY excursions for that matter, but the liability insurance coverage for such excursions. Now that Amtrak no longer allows "special" trains, except of course for the New River Specials after massive political pressure was applied to current Amtrak management, class 1 railroads such as BNSF, NS, and even UP would still entertain discussions about excursions, so long as the excursion operator is able to provide AT LEAST five hundred million dollars of liability insurance coverage. Since such a huge insurance policy carries a VERY EXPENSIVE premium, THAT is the reason that there will no longer be excursions on any of the U.S. class 1 railroads.
Now I can see Sue City coming. If Amtrak will let the New River train, then why not mine? When is NO going to mean NO!
Dominic Mazoch posted:Now I can see Sue City coming. If Amtrak will let the New River train, then why not mine? When is NO going to mean NO!
You act as though steam-powered excursions personally offend you.
Dominic Mazoch posted:Now I can see Sue City coming. If Amtrak will let the New River train, then why not mine? When is NO going to mean NO!
Doubt it.
Rusty
Hot Water posted:superwarp1 posted:Rusty Traque posted:superwarp1 posted:Not all is lost, things ebb and flow. In a few years the guy running Amtrak now will be out and there will be 180 deg turn around in policy.
There's no guarantee of that...
Rusty
True, NS allowed steam excursions, then they didn't, then they did, and now they don't again. Even CSX policy will change some day. It may have to be when they get swallowed up by another railroad but it will change.
It really isn't a matter of "allowing" steam excursions, or ANY excursions for that matter, but the liability insurance coverage for such excursions. Now that Amtrak no longer allows "special" trains, except of course for the New River Specials after massive political pressure was applied to current Amtrak management, class 1 railroads such as BNSF, NS, and even UP would still entertain discussions about excursions, so long as the excursion operator is able to provide AT LEAST five hundred million dollars of liability insurance coverage. Since such a huge insurance policy carries a VERY EXPENSIVE premium, THAT is the reason that there will no longer be excursions on any of the U.S. class 1 railroads.
Just curious, is that 500 million dollar liability from what has been written or from personal experience, or is it based on being involved with such excursions? I have heard a lot of claims over the years based in what someone thinks the actual cost is, usually based in of course it must be lawyers and lawsuits. I did a bit of research and Amtrak said it was stopping these because they didn't return much in revenue and ended up losing focus and causing delays to their main revenue service. When I looked at why CSX banned steam excursions, every citing was that it was costly to the railroad to allow that, that they had to schedule freight service around it, etc.
If it was the cost of liability insurance the people who operate the excursions would have cancelled them, but it seems like the railroads themselves see it as not economically feasible..which is why I asked. None of them mention the railroads wanting the excursions to carry huge liability insurance, and the excursion operators themselves have simply said that they were told the railroad won't allow excursions, if it was the cost of insurance I would expect them to say that.
bigkid posted:Hot Water posted:superwarp1 posted:Rusty Traque posted:superwarp1 posted:Not all is lost, things ebb and flow. In a few years the guy running Amtrak now will be out and there will be 180 deg turn around in policy.
There's no guarantee of that...
Rusty
True, NS allowed steam excursions, then they didn't, then they did, and now they don't again. Even CSX policy will change some day. It may have to be when they get swallowed up by another railroad but it will change.
It really isn't a matter of "allowing" steam excursions, or ANY excursions for that matter, but the liability insurance coverage for such excursions. Now that Amtrak no longer allows "special" trains, except of course for the New River Specials after massive political pressure was applied to current Amtrak management, class 1 railroads such as BNSF, NS, and even UP would still entertain discussions about excursions, so long as the excursion operator is able to provide AT LEAST five hundred million dollars of liability insurance coverage. Since such a huge insurance policy carries a VERY EXPENSIVE premium, THAT is the reason that there will no longer be excursions on any of the U.S. class 1 railroads.
Just curious, is that 500 million dollar liability from what has been written or from personal experience,
Yes.
or is it based on being involved with such excursions?
Yes, again. Sometime in the mid 2000s (after 2006) there was a deadly crash in Southern California where a BNSF fright train ran a red signal and struck head-on an morning commuter train (the Engineer of the commuter train saw it coming and stoped). As a result of that crash, the BNSF required in excess of five hundred million dollars of liability insurance coverage. Previously only 50 to 100 million dollars was required, which the Friends of SP 4449 could purchase at VERY reasonable premium prices. Coverage of 500 to 750 millions dollars liability insurance coverage was cost prohibitive, and thus we had to explore operating excursions under Amtrak, and their insurance umbrella, which more than satisfied BNSF. We continued to operate steam excursions on BNSF through 2017, under Amtrak.
With the new head of Amtrak canceling "special trains", our fall excursion for 2018 has been canceled.
I have heard a lot of claims over the years based in what someone thinks the actual cost is, usually based in of course it must be lawyers and lawsuits. I did a bit of research and Amtrak said it was stopping these because they didn't return much in revenue and ended up losing focus and causing delays to their main revenue service.
That has been the typical "corporate speak" from the new President of Amtrak. However, the previous President of Amtrak stated publicly that "These special excursion trains add some 4 million dollars to Amtrak's bottom line, each year." You can thus make your own decision concerning the current new policy.
When I looked at why CSX banned steam excursions, every citing was that it was costly to the railroad to allow that, that they had to schedule freight service around it, etc.
The Corporate Attorney of CSXT has stated publicly many times that operating or towing steam locomotives cause way too many spectators at trackside, which them deem as a major safety hazard to train operations. On the other hand, such public attention sure hasn't negatively impacted UP, BNSF, nor NS, as far as class 1 railroads go.
If it was the cost of liability insurance the people who operate the excursions would have cancelled them,
That is EXACTLY what has happened over the last 15 years, since the vast majority of excursion sponsoring organizations can NOT even afford the liability coverage provided by Amtrak. For example, the SP 4449 excursion in June 2017, required our organization to pay $100,000 UP FRONT to Amtrak! That did not even include the rental charges for many of the privately owned cars in the train, nor the dead-head charges for movement of said cars to Portland, OR and their return home.
but it seems like the railroads themselves see it as not economically feasible..
Why would they?
which is why I asked. None of them mention the railroads wanting the excursions to carry huge liability insurance, and the excursion operators themselves have simply said that they were told the railroad won't allow excursions, if it was the cost of insurance I would expect them to say that.
Some, many, excursion operators don't really tell the truth. If they don't have the finances to play with the big dogs, then they tend to offer untruthful excuses, i.e. blame it on the railroad.
Hotwater,thanks for the response from someone who has dealt with excursions,i am always leery when people blame lawsuits and insurance as the reasons for things going south,i can cite a lot of things that is blamed on that isnt true,so thanks.
As far as amtrak making 4 million towards their bottom line it could be that no longer is true. It is also possible it is profitable but opportunity costs make it hard to justify. For example,if they make 4 million but running excursions is found to be severely hindering operations,delaying trains, maybe inconveniencing freight service (idk for example if on tracks owned by other railroads if amtrak rules apply or the host railroad,or amtrak owned track where freight is run as well),the impact on operations may be too great,depends on how many run i guess...
It is sad,in a perfect world there might be a solution to mitigate risks and allow excursions to run, like perhaps laws limiting liabity to host railroads and excursion operators but i doubt very much anyone cares enough to have that happen.
bigkid posted:Hotwater,thanks for the response from someone who has dealt with excursions,i am always leery when people blame lawsuits and insurance as the reasons for things going south,i can cite a lot of things that is blamed on that isnt true,so thanks.
As far as amtrak making 4 million towards their bottom line it could be that no longer is true.
Knowing what Amtrak charges for private car moves and special excursions, I find that extremely hard to believe!
It is also possible it is profitable but opportunity costs make it hard to justify.
How do you figure that?
For example,if they make 4 million but running excursions is found to be severely hindering operations,delaying trains, maybe inconveniencing freight service (idk for example if on tracks owned by other railroads if amtrak rules apply or the host railroad,or amtrak owned track where freight is run as well),the impact on operations may be too great,depends on how many run i guess...
Ridiculous. The vast majority of those special moves, i.e. steam excursions were generally NOT on an Amtrak route anyway, especially in the case of SP 4449. Bottom line; if the host freight railroad could deal with the special move, and the money was all gravy for Amtrak, what's the problem? A prime example is the New River Excursion Train, that brings untold millions in tourist dollars to that surrounding area. When the current President of Amtrak "canceled everything", massive political pressure from the state of West Virginia was applied, and suddenly,,,,,,,,,,,,,the New River Train is on again! And Amtrak will make hundreds of thousands of dollars, when it isn't even a steam trip!
It is sad,in a perfect world there might be a solution to mitigate risks and allow excursions to run, like perhaps laws limiting liabity to host railroads and excursion operators but i doubt very much anyone cares enough to have that happen.
There is no way you would ever get a federal law passed "limiting personal injury liability" for such trips!!!!!
1. Does the half a billion policy apply to commuter operations over the class 1's.
2. Could the various excursion operators get a better insurance price by pooling together?
Dominic Mazoch posted:1. Does the half a billion policy apply to commuter operations over the class 1's.
Don't know.
2. Could the various excursion operators get a better insurance price by pooling together?
That was tried years ago, but multiple "excursion operators" couldn't agree on anything from one year to the next, so nothing ever came of it. However, that was all prior to the mid to late 2000s passenger train crashes which brought us 500 to 750 million dollar liability insurance requirements.
The odd and sad part of this is the two wrecks in CA were not thefault of the passenger railroad.
Dominic Mazoch posted:The odd and sad part of this is the two wrecks in CA were not thefault of the passenger railroad.
One wreck was the fault of the BNSF Engineer, and the other wreck (the head-on at Chatsworth) WAS the fault of the Engineer on the passenger train. So, 50-50.
Dominic Mazoch posted:...Would the various excursion operators get a better insurance price by pooling together?
Dominic, you need to re-read my post from above where I said,
OGR Webmaster posted:The cost of an insurance policy with the same liability limits as Amtrak’s is far beyond what the steam excursion industry as a whole can afford.
Bottom line is without Amtrak’s insurance, excursions on class 1 freight railroads can’t happen. That means now that all routes without Amtrak service on NS, BNSF, and CSX are now unrideable by the public. Amtrak had an Autumn Express through my area two years ago on NS tracks that have been freight only for decades. 765 came to my area the year before and I rode behind it. I never got to ride the NS lines to NJ or Harrisburg. Now I may never have the chance. The Autumn Express is probably no more as well. Excursions just don’t fit Anderson’s mold. His way of doing things is cut cut cut sort of like Hunter Harrison who also hated steam engines. He is serious. He now wants to cut the Southwest Chief in half and replace the missing segment with buses. That will really hurt ridership. He is doing this to justify cutting the long distance trains. He cut dining cars on a couple trains and already the complaints came rolling in. Nobody wants cold airline food. Anderson was installed to slowly destroy Amtrak. I don’t know if that was Trump’s doing or not. Let’s all support steam where it can run. Try a ride behind 765 in Illinois with open sides railfan car. Or on CVSR with open window coaches. TVRM 100 mile trips. RBMN 425 in the fall. The class 1’s are publicly traded corporations so they are under pressure to make a profit and keep investors happy. Sometimes, steam excursions don’t fit into that. Wick Moorman was an exception. I guess with Anderson it’s his way or the highway, but there is some hope. VMT is talking with Amtrak later this year about possible 2019 excursions.
Robert K posted:His way of doing things is cut cut cut sort of like Hunter Harrison who also hated steam engines. He is serious. He now wants to cut the Southwest Chief in half and replace the missing segment with buses. That will really hurt ridership. He is doing this to justify cutting the long distance trains. He cut dining cars on a couple trains and already the complaints came rolling in. Nobody wants cold airline food. Anderson was installed to slowly destroy Amtrak. I don’t know if that was Trump’s doing or not.
Don't know? Really? Read one of the many articles on Trump's budget - Time magazine, Fortune magazine, WSJ - any of them.
"President Trump unveiled his budget for fiscal year 2019 on Monday, along with a 55 page infrastructure plan.......his budget proposes cutting federal grants to Amtrak by over 50%."
Amtrak has now gotten flakey. See the thread on how the SW Chief is being killed: U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., says Amtrak has backtracked on the finances. “The lack of transparency by Amtrak management about its changing position on the Southwest Chief is deeply troubling, particularly for a Government-Sponsored Enterprise entrusted with an important public transportation mission,” he said in a statement
I don't know if this is necessarily a bad thing. One of the problems I see with Amtrak is what goes on a lit of places, people complain about Amtrak, grumble that it shouldn't cost the government money, but then when Amtrak responds to cuts in funding tjat affects their area they scream lile a stuck pig about losing service,etc. The problem is an old one, they assume for example that Amtrak service is in the red because of waste and maintaining idiotic routes, yet it often is the routes they care about that are part of the 'problem'. How much does it cost on a per passenger basis run for example the southwest chief? (Rhetorical question, not singling that out). How much does staffing dining cars cost on those lines? The sad truth is a lot of people who use those money losing lines will blame costs on highly travelled lines like the NE corridor and the like and say 'get rid of them and Amtrak will have lots of money', when the opposite is likely true, that if we cut out the low volume or long distance routes Amtrak would be in better shape (and no,I am not advocating that, I support Amtrak and think it is underfunded, would rather the taxes I pay go to that then subsidizing a lot of ridiculous crap,like ethanol).
breezinup posted:Robert K posted:His way of doing things is cut cut cut sort of like Hunter Harrison who also hated steam engines. He is serious. He now wants to cut the Southwest Chief in half and replace the missing segment with buses. That will really hurt ridership. He is doing this to justify cutting the long distance trains. He cut dining cars on a couple trains and already the complaints came rolling in. Nobody wants cold airline food. Anderson was installed to slowly destroy Amtrak. I don’t know if that was Trump’s doing or not.
Don't know? Really? Read one of the many articles on Trump's budget - Time magazine, Fortune magazine, WSJ - any of them.
"President Trump unveiled his budget for fiscal year 2019 on Monday, along with a 55 page infrastructure plan.......his budget proposes cutting federal grants to Amtrak by over 50%."
Amtrak has now gotten flakey. See the thread on how the SW Chief is being killed: U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., says Amtrak has backtracked on the finances. “The lack of transparency by Amtrak management about its changing position on the Southwest Chief is deeply troubling, particularly for a Government-Sponsored Enterprise entrusted with an important public transportation mission,” he said in a statement
All I will safely say is "Remember in November"....
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
