Steam & Excursion > Steam w/Diesel Clarification

Judging by the response to the Royal Hudson photos posted recently, the addition of a diesel to the consist provokes some fairly strong opinions. Although I was 14 during the AFT trips and have seen several of the locomotives active in the '80s without diesel "assistance", I'm really not offended by their presence either.
I feel kind of sorry for the photographers who spend the time and money to shoot and post the photos that for a lot of us here is the only access to these trips, just to have the thread turn into a pissin' match over what was coupled to the tender.
That being said, who knows what the rules or policies are for steam on class 1's?

Cheers, Dave

A lot depends on:

1) The train make-up, i.e. HEP 480volt three phase electric requirements for the passenger equipment.

2) The size/weight of the train compared to the terrain that must be negoated, i.e. diesel helpers needed on very steep grades, up or down.

3) The individual "track record" of the specific steam locomotive & crew involved.

4) The individual host railroad's "policy" toward any given steam locomotive & crew.

Hope this helps a bit.

Thanks Jack, that all makes sense. So it's more a case by case thing than a "blanket" policy? I know with the 4449 trip last summer that the P-42 was an Amtrak requirement and it was needed for HEP also wasn't it? But it must have been nice to have dynamic braking too...

Cheers, Dave

I feel bad myself, when someone goes out of their way to share some spectacular photos and the photographer gets "drive by whining" about the diesel.

Like the above posters have said, it comes down to a variety of situations, the host railroad, hep requirements, Amtrak requirements, extra power/braking needed and so on. It's just a fact of life these days. You can complain about it, but that's not going to change anything. Want to play hardball with railroads about diesels? Sure, then be prepared to have a lot fewer trains running. No 4449 to Michigan... No 261 trips going far and wide... No UP 844 runs...

Then of course there are no matching train sets, the engine is never painted the way I wanted it... GASP! What's that, a water car? I'm going back to bed! While I'm at it, I also refuse to pay more than 10 cents for a Coke!

Things were a lot better "back in the day" without diesel helpers, there is no doubt. Maybe we should all just stay home like Keystone1. Perhaps that's what they should have done in the 60's when regular steam operations had gone away. I mean, after all it was so much better in the 50's, right?

Dave Crosby

I'm tempted to post my "Time Machine/Atavachron/Wayback Machine" story. For now, let us be thankful that there are some large steam locomotives still running. To borrow a line from an old pop song "Use your mentality/Face up to reality"; we can't "beam down" to 1950 or 1920 or 1869 to see what it was like in the "good old days", so let's enjoy what we do have.

Another complication to a "blanket" policy is that the U.S. and Canada are very different environments when it comes to insurance and other policy manners. Here in the U.S. steam operators can't afford the liability insurance requirements of the Class 1 RRs so they have to run as Amtrak charter trains (presuming the Class 1 will allow the operation at all, which is a different issue). Amtrak policy has always been to have a diesel in the consist, and one has to be there for HEP (unless someone creates a generator car again). In Canada the insurance requirements are very different, so you have cases such as these where passenger-hauling trips venture out on the main line. Another example is the excursion train in Cranbrook (the name escapes me) that runs on CN. The host RR can put whatever requirements on the trip it wants to, including having a diesel in the consist, and there isn't any standard for these requirements, except that almost always an engineer from the host RR has to be in the cab as a pilot. Note that last year the Royal Hudson ran a similar trip without one. Speculation on my part is that BNSF wanted to have a diesel to help with turning the train - is that correct? A few years ago a train pulled by SP&S 700 derailed during a backup move through a switch while turning the train.

As for deadhead steam moves, again, besides the pilot, there isn't really any rules for what the RR will require. I think 3751 will do a deadhead move this year, as they have in the past to go to Long Beach - is that correct? If so, BNSF may or may not require a diesel - we will have to see.

Chris.

Most of you failed to get my point in all this which Mr. Jacks touched upon. I realize the stuff in the US has diesels on every AMTRAK move as he pointed out, but in Canada its not that way.
In a lower thread I pointed out that this same engine and consist operated about a week ago from Squamish to Vancouver...CP1400 posted them I believe, and there was NO DIESEL. This was on CN trackage, and I thought they were somewhat anti steam.
I am not familiar with the ins and outs of the lines up there and why BNSF is involved in Canada, so perhaps the BNSF required the diesel for some reason unknown to any of us. I guess I was hoping to see the trip without one since the ferry move over CN(which I would have expected to see with a diesel) did not have one.
It seems everyone wants to jump on myself and others who mention their dislike for the diesels. Sorry if we have "Good taste" and wonder why two different trips with the same engine are operated without and with diesel assist. Knowing isn't going to change anything, but it would be good to know to gauge tendencies for the future.
Steamingly,
Greg Scholl

Hey Greg,
I'm not sure, but I believe the BNSF either owns the track or the rights up to Vancouver, so anything crossing the border is subject to their rules and policies. I know when the 4449 did the BNSF employee appreciation special they went from Portland north to Vancouver (with a diesel) before they went east, so I figured that was the reason for the Big Orange on this trip,and if part of the reason was advertisement it looks like it worked...also this thread wasn't meant as a pig-pile-on-Greg thing, I thought a look into the various host railroad policies would help us all understand why when steam goes out there's an SD70-something along for the ride, education being the key to enlightenment, or something...and just to prove I also have taste, the 765 has the nicest cab interior of any locomotive on the planet (off topic, but proof)...so there...

Cheers, Dave

Wouldn't it be great if 2860's helper could be 2816? Ah, but that would require cooperation between CP and CN. Ah, and 2816 isn't a source of HEP. We can dream though, eh?

>> While I'm at it, I also refuse to pay more than 10 cents for a Coke! <<

Best line of the day!

And more than $0.33 for a gallon of gas?
Ted in OR

And while we're at it, I get so damn tired of hearing the whistle every time there are more than 2 people lined up for a shot. Blow it at a crossing, not in the middle of no where. I want to hear the engine work, not go deaf! ;)

I try to enjoy everything...steam on the main line with diesels, steam on tourist lines without diesels, trains with diesels only.

Reading the threads on TO and talking with volunteers who have organized excursions, I have gained an appreciation as to how difficult these are to carry out. I learned on a 2006 excursion that even main line diesel trips can be extremely hard carry out.

Thanks to everyone who makes these trips possible and takes the time to shoot and post these photos.

Now, I wonder if UP will one day run a public excursion with its Northwestern, Rio Grande or Western Pacific diesels. :)

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now, I wonder if UP will one day run a public
> excursion with its Northwestern, Rio Grande or
> Western Pacific diesels. :)


I know of a group that someday would love to do some excursions with a black widow f-unit of true SP vintage...


Jeff

"Monay, its a drag..."

Some one needs to build a diesel that looks like a baggage car to help with Steam trips. Make it a gen set too.

To answer Greg's question: BNSF does own the track, it is ex-NP. So they call the shots. My completely uninformed speculation is that they wanted the diesel to assist with turning the train.

The other issue is why this train wasn't an Amtrak charter: BNSF allowed it to operate that way, and I presume that had a lot to do with their insurance requirements north of the border. As I mentioned above the insurance environment in Canada is very different from what it is here.

Chris.

ctjacks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To answer Greg's question: BNSF does own the
> track, it is ex-NP. > Chris.

The BNSF trackage into Vancouver BC is ex-Great Northern built in 1891 under the charter New Westminster Southern. From Fraser River Junction to a point near the CN station in Vancouver, the Canadian Northern ran on trackage rights, including on a short branch to Burnaby (Lake City Spur). The GN had a locomotive shop in Vancouver, several yards and a station at New Westminster with a dispatching office and administrative centre. A number of GN crews were based at New Westminster.

Within the last few years, BNSF has done a property swap with the CN (ownership or lease?) of trackage north of Fraser River Junction.

The BNSF trackage to Sumas WA./Huntingdon BC is ex-NP. The Northern Pacific had plans for operations in Canada, and had a network of tracks in Manitoba. The NP bankcruptcy in 1895 ended any further Canadian plans. The Milwaukee also had tracks to Sumas WA.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I try to enjoy everything...steam on the main line
> with diesels, steam on tourist lines without
> diesels, trains with diesels only.
>
> Reading the threads on TO and talking with
> volunteers who have organized excursions, I have
> gained an appreciation as to how difficult these
> are to carry out. I learned on a 2006 excursion
> that even main line diesel trips can be extremely
> hard carry out.
>
> Thanks to everyone who makes these trips possible
> and takes the time to shoot and post these
> photos.
>
> Now, I wonder if UP will one day run a public
> excursion with its Northwestern, Rio Grande or
> Western Pacific diesels. :)


That's another factor to the diesel griping. As RuleG points out, these trips are very time and labor intensive. I have the barest of experience with mainline steam excursions and even that little bit showed me how hard everyone works. If they have to have a diesel, then they put it on whatever the reason. There are other things to worry about.

And, let me tell you, some of those folks really feel rosy when they bust their butts and then get slammed, even indirectly. We've done some things at Portola that took amazing amounts of effort, money and time, all donated, only to have a vocal minority turn their noses up at us and tell us what bozos we are. While it does make every compliment much more cherished, you just can't help but feel reamed when someone goes after your when you put so much hard work into it.

And to answer Greg's comment, personally, I will never mind a question and even an opinion that someone would prefer not to watch what we put on. That's fine. It is the openly hostile / disparaging / "It's All Crap Now" comments that really wind me up.

Z

People who complain about a diesel in the consist are ignoring one important point: The current year is 2010. When you see ANY steam plying the rails of a class one, you are seeing the result of many years of blood, sweat, and tears--typically someone else's. Further, you are looking at the evolution of the concept of a steam excursion, and like the frame of reference in which they exist, change has been constant.

Those old enough to recall the earliest post steam era excursions, might remember the changing faces of the diesels (many of which are nearly extinct as well) that have made appearances along with the steam headliners--the fallen fags they once represented. Restored steam locomotives have chugged their way through a sea of change, yet they still preach the gospel of their bygone era to those that can see hear and imagine.

The very nature of the companies, the fans, the country, etc. has changed. Missing code lines, concrete ties, welded rail, firetrucks, and municipal hydrants for water, trucks for oil, hoppers and scoops for coaling; the engines themselves are becoming the sole representatives of their time. Also remember that these engines have spent very little time doing the job they were designed to do, so where do you draw the line on aesthetics? These engines are a part of the here and now, enjoy them, support them, and don't take the engines or the people who give them life for granted. If whining is absolutely necessary, lets discuss the underlying factors that can and will undermine the continuation of this fine tradition. Such restless energy needs to be put to good use furthering the cause.

Another point about the BNSF orange unit..........bless the BNSF that they are accommodating the movement request! In recent years some carriers won't even answer the phone for special movements. And if I am not mistaken, the 2860 hasn't been out much or very far since her last overhaul. I don't blame the BNSF for wanting to have some protection power along just in case there are any problems. Maybe after some trouble free runs they may loosen up.......