Bucyrus wrote: Well it is clear that almost everybody believes that the environmental reason offered by Xanterra is an excuse, and the real reason is that they ended steam in order to make more money. Remaining to be seen, are two possible outcomes to the decision to end steam as follows:1) The cost reduction will increase profit as intended.2) The cost reduction will decrease profit because of the unintended consequence of reduced ridership offsetting the revenue gains arising from cost reduction. Essentially, the ending of steam was a business error in judgment.If item number two is the result, certainly steam will be re-introduced. There would be no reason not to. If item number one is the result, it proves that steam is not a significant draw for a recreational train ride.Do you all think the reason was number one or was it number two?
Well it is clear that almost everybody believes that the environmental reason offered by Xanterra is an excuse, and the real reason is that they ended steam in order to make more money. Remaining to be seen, are two possible outcomes to the decision to end steam as follows:
1) The cost reduction will increase profit as intended.
2) The cost reduction will decrease profit because of the unintended consequence of reduced ridership offsetting the revenue gains arising from cost reduction. Essentially, the ending of steam was a business error in judgment.
If item number two is the result, certainly steam will be re-introduced. There would be no reason not to.
If item number one is the result, it proves that steam is not a significant draw for a recreational train ride.
Do you all think the reason was number one or was it number two?
Number 1. There are plenty of diesel hauled excursions in the US that do very well with a much less interesting destination. While I think most riders would find a steam locomotive more interesting, once they're on the train and moving, they don't much care.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I would add a #3 option:
Increased savings from labor, maintanence and fuel costs will more than offset any loses from any boycotting steam fans.
Sad but true, but they had better increase the level of service on the cars then, to boost the lines appeal by showing the benifits of taking the train vs driving to the rim.
Have fun with your trains
vsmith wrote:I would add a #3 option:Increased savings from labor, maintanence and fuel costs will more than offset any loses from any boycotting steam fans. Sad but true, but they had better increase the level of service on the cars then, to boost the lines appeal by showing the benifits of taking the train vs driving to the rim.
Only time will tell if their business plan will fly. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. I agree in terms of enhancing service, but then again, there are limits at the current $65.00 a pop ticket price..if slashing costs was a necessary tact at that price. I cant imagine raisng the cost of a ticket.To take my family, it would cost nearly $200.00 at the current level..I suppose for me, frankly now that steam is gone...I really dont care one way or the other. I may be the exception but so be it. Ill take that $200.00 and spend it elsewhere....closer to home. There are other options for steam fans.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
vsmith wrote: I would add a #3 option:Increased savings from labor, maintanence and fuel costs will more than offset any loses from any boycotting steam fans.
But that is already my option #1.
Another possibility to consider:
Xanterra is very much dependant on the good will of the NPS for their livelehood. Is it possible that the NPS is driving this foolish, compulsive effort to do anything to appear green?
I know that the NPS has two other steam friendly sites, but I still wonder.
Glen
azrail wrote:Xanterra is the descendant of the Fred Harvey Co. They have a contract with the NPS, as does the GC Ry. And they have to do whatever the NPS says. The Park Service is attempting to restrict auto traffic in the park, in the future you will have to park at either Tusayan (at the edge of the park)and take the shuttle to the Canyon, or park and take the train from Williams. The Park Service is allowing the GC to run up to six trains daily between Williams and the Canyon in the future. Me thinks the NPS contract may be forcing the end of steam in order to expand train service.
I think we have a winner. Wanting to increase the operating tempo of the trains make more sense than anything. Electrification would be prohibitively expensive not to mention an eyesore for the park. That leaves diesels. I hope they keep the Alcos around.
Are you referring to an exchange of money in return for train service which serves as a subsidy to GCRR in addition to ticket sales etc, or an agreement of access which infers GCRR is operating on park property? It sounds like an agreement of access. Potential volume which is needed for expansion is not controlled by the GCRR or the park service, it is ticket sales and so potential traffic for the GCRR ( up to six trains) is in direct competition with the park shuttle, which I assume is also contracted as an agreement of access. What is the cost of the shuttle? It all goes back to attracting consumers based on value and cost. I cant imagine the shuttle being more expensive than the train ride, which then gets into a consumer choice rather than a contract mandate.. practicality for the consumer versus their disposable income. Vacation travel in general has been on a downward trend. You know, in the end this may not be about steam per say at all but the economy as if they anticipate less volume then they will have to cut operating costs...
MJ4562 wrote: azrail wrote:Xanterra is the descendant of the Fred Harvey Co. They have a contract with the NPS, as does the GC Ry. And they have to do whatever the NPS says. The Park Service is attempting to restrict auto traffic in the park, in the future you will have to park at either Tusayan (at the edge of the park)and take the shuttle to the Canyon, or park and take the train from Williams. The Park Service is allowing the GC to run up to six trains daily between Williams and the Canyon in the future. Me thinks the NPS contract may be forcing the end of steam in order to expand train service.I think we have a winner. Wanting to increase the operating tempo of the trains make more sense than anything. Electrification would be prohibitively expensive not to mention an eyesore for the park. That leaves diesels. I hope they keep the Alcos around.
If thats the long term plan then eliminating the steam service makes sense, again for fiscal not green reasons, up to 6 trains a day? Boy I sure hope they upgrade the ROW, some of that track hasnt really been touched since the line was operated by the ATSF. The maximum allowable speed over the whole line is only 40mph for track saftey issues and from what I could tell there are no passing sidings midway, at least none that I saw. They will need some serious upgrades to run more than the 2 a day they are currently operating
Autobus Prime wrote:Folks:Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way?Maybe Xanterra found out that their steamers emit huge quantities of dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) in operation, and realizing that DHMO is by all studies the foremost greenhouse gas in existence (perhaps 99% of the greenhouse effect is due to DHMO), they knew they had to act.After all, we railfans enjoy the sight of towering clouds of DHMO-containing exhaust, but you know the greenies. ;-)
Who knows? They pride themselves in regard to their employees are their most important resource as well as lauding themselves for historic preservation. Which, in this case means removing a significant portion of the historic nature of operations and discharging employees.Anyone who has worked takes these sort of grand goals of corporations with a grain of salt in the real world. Unless they pull their trains with mules...they are still emitting green house gases. Even electrification (except in rare circumstances) is not green. If they purchased an asset making cash hand over fist with steam...one wonders how this idealism would translate into killing the goose that lays the golden egg. How many oil commercials profess green motives? Do the employees ride horses to work? I think in fairness, these broad sweeping claims are a matter of degree. Look at the work done at the Durango and Silverton...in regard to alternative fuels or the work done in Europe which reduced steam gases at levels comparable to diesels...on excursion trains..so... was a comparable effort made to preserve the historic fabric undertaken? ..as far as we know they could attribute this radical change to whatever spins this in the most positive light as corporations are prone to do. Money talks. In the end the market will pass its judgement as to how well mission statements correspond to reality.
wallyworld wrote: Autobus Prime wrote:Folks:Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way?Maybe Xanterra found out that their steamers emit huge quantities of dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) in operation, and realizing that DHMO is by all studies the foremost greenhouse gas in existence (perhaps 99% of the greenhouse effect is due to DHMO), they knew they had to act.After all, we railfans enjoy the sight of towering clouds of DHMO-containing exhaust, but you know the greenies. ;-) Who knows? They pride themselves in regard to their employees are their most important resource as well as lauding themselves for historic preservation. Which, in this case means removing a significant portion of the historic nature of operations and discharging employees.Anyone who has worked takes these sort of grand goals of corporations with a grain of salt in the real world. Unless they pull their trains with mules...they are still emitting green house gases. Even electrification (except in rare circumstances) is not green. If they purchased an asset making cash hand over fist with steam...one wonders how this idealism would translate into killing the goose that lays the golden egg. How many oil commercials profess green motives? Do the employees ride horses to work? I think in fairness, these broad sweeping claims are a matter of degree. Look at the work done at the Durango and Silverton...in regard to alternative fuels or the work done in Europe which reduced steam gases at levels comparable to diesels...on excursion trains..so... was a comparable effort made to preserve the historic fabric undertaken? ..as far as we know they could attribute this radical change to whatever spins this in the most positive light as corporations are prone to do. Money talks. In the end the market will pass its judgement as to how well mission statements correspond to reality.
vsmith wrote: If the loco can run on diesel fuel why the hell couldnt it run on vegitable oil? ...or mix it into a little diesel to make Bio-diesel, thats pretty darn Green as you can get! Said it once say it again, follow the money.
If the loco can run on diesel fuel why the hell couldnt it run on vegitable oil? ...or mix it into a little diesel to make Bio-diesel, thats pretty darn Green as you can get!
Said it once say it again, follow the money.
The trains at Disneyland in California run on biodiesel
Autobus Prime wrote: wallyworld wrote: Autobus Prime wrote:Folks:Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way?Maybe Xanterra found out that their steamers emit huge quantities of dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) in operation, and realizing that DHMO is by all studies the foremost greenhouse gas in existence (perhaps 99% of the greenhouse effect is due to DHMO), they knew they had to act.After all, we railfans enjoy the sight of towering clouds of DHMO-containing exhaust, but you know the greenies. ;-) Who knows? They pride themselves in regard to their employees are their most important resource as well as lauding themselves for historic preservation. Which, in this case means removing a significant portion of the historic nature of operations and discharging employees.Anyone who has worked takes these sort of grand goals of corporations with a grain of salt in the real world. Unless they pull their trains with mules...they are still emitting green house gases. Even electrification (except in rare circumstances) is not green. If they purchased an asset making cash hand over fist with steam...one wonders how this idealism would translate into killing the goose that lays the golden egg. How many oil commercials profess green motives? Do the employees ride horses to work? I think in fairness, these broad sweeping claims are a matter of degree. Look at the work done at the Durango and Silverton...in regard to alternative fuels or the work done in Europe which reduced steam gases at levels comparable to diesels...on excursion trains..so... was a comparable effort made to preserve the historic fabric undertaken? ..as far as we know they could attribute this radical change to whatever spins this in the most positive light as corporations are prone to do. Money talks. In the end the market will pass its judgement as to how well mission statements correspond to reality. ww:Historically, most efficiency gains were accompanied by decreased DHMO emission. It tends to be directly proportional to power demand.Most power plants do have DHMO recycling equipment, installed for increased efficiency, but generally they still emit large amounts, anyway. There is already so much in the atmosphere, honestly, that in most of the more populated areas of the country, significant year-round fallout occurs, which is the source of most DHMO in waterways...and indeed, the problem is worldwide, though less severe in the sparsely populated arid regions. It has become a practice to carry DHMO protective gear in such longtime industrial nations as Britain, for days of high atmospheric fallout. There were some attempts made to introduce DHMO recycling to steam - notably successful in South Africa (if ultimately uneconomic) and on the N&W, where it was an integral feature of the Jawn Henry loco (again, ultimately uneconomic). Of course, DHMO is emitted in some degree by all fossil-fuel burning engines.Edit: You can find a lot more DHMO info here:http://www.dhmo.org/
..and it will only get worse when we go to hydrogen fuel cells...
The environmental argument is a convenient cover. Whenever I've chased or ridden the train, the Diesel booster won the smoke contest hands down. The fact of $4.00 a gallon Diesel fuel was most likely the key factor. The options of using coal or waste oil were not on the table with the air quality issues at the park, so they were in a tight box fuel wise. In terms of emissions, the ones that matter in the park are oxides of nitrogen (NOx), Sulfur dioxide, and particulates (soot). Steam engines have a hands down advantage in NOx emissions because they burn the fuel at atmospheric pressure. High pressure combustion in the Diesel generates large amounts of NOx, which is why Diesel cars nearly died off in this country. Sulfur emissions are not a issue with low sulfur oil, but it's costly. Even waste oil is low sulfur since it is mostly discarded lubricants which have low sulfur for their purposes, but given the other unknown substances that get poured into a waste oil tank, I'm sure the NPS would have serious objections to using it inside the park. Particulate emissions, mostly soot - are not an argument if your'e running ALCO's. A light hand in the firing valve in the park boundaries is all that's needed here. Adoption of more modern burner technology instead of the 1940's vintage burners on these engines would let them run a clear stack all the way. The green argument is a fallacy, but it provides a nice cover for the real reason, which is cost.
A $6000 fuel bill to go to the canyon and back is hard to argue against with a bean counter. With the new owners not being steam fans like the Biegert's, this was an inevitable result. Unfortunately the green paper they wrapped it in will make it impossible for anybody else to resurrect steam there.
Bucyrus wrote:Most people posting on other forums refuse to believe that Xanterra dropped steam in order to be green, even though Xanterra has said so themselves. When I read Xanterra's website including 12 pages about their intense environmental philosophy and action plan, I have no problem believing that they dropped steam solely to be green. Not only is their action understandable, it was predictable. The reason that most people want to believe is responsible for Xanterra dropping steam is to save money by lowering operating cost, which would occur if they reverted back to diesels. However, I don't believe that diesels are going to be green enough for Xanterra. I speculate that electrification is the only solution will meet their green criteria for the railroad. Some may argue that if steam was too costly, electrification will be more costly, so it would not make sense. But again, that assumes that the dropped steam for cost reduction. I believe that not only was cost reduction not a factor, but they will actually be willing to raise their investment cost in order to make the railroad green.There is a lot of consternation these days about how to make national park natural attractions accessible to people, but not their cars. Public transit is the model to get people out of their cars, and LRT is the preferred embodiment of public transit. So the GCRY comes ready made to fulfill that purpose. If you replace its steam with electric, the whole Grand Canyon rail concept is as green as can be.
Most people posting on other forums refuse to believe that Xanterra dropped steam in order to be green, even though Xanterra has said so themselves. When I read Xanterra's website including 12 pages about their intense environmental philosophy and action plan, I have no problem believing that they dropped steam solely to be green. Not only is their action understandable, it was predictable.
The reason that most people want to believe is responsible for Xanterra dropping steam is to save money by lowering operating cost, which would occur if they reverted back to diesels. However, I don't believe that diesels are going to be green enough for Xanterra. I speculate that electrification is the only solution will meet their green criteria for the railroad.
Some may argue that if steam was too costly, electrification will be more costly, so it would not make sense. But again, that assumes that the dropped steam for cost reduction. I believe that not only was cost reduction not a factor, but they will actually be willing to raise their investment cost in order to make the railroad green.
There is a lot of consternation these days about how to make national park natural attractions accessible to people, but not their cars. Public transit is the model to get people out of their cars, and LRT is the preferred embodiment of public transit. So the GCRY comes ready made to fulfill that purpose. If you replace its steam with electric, the whole Grand Canyon rail concept is as green as can be.
The problem with this philosophical theory is traffic density and the return on the investment. Out of 4.5 million visitors, only 230,000 took the train. An additional train is projected to 1,046 passengers. Regardless of philosophy, I wouldnt hold my breath for the some sixty five miles of route to have wire strung,converter plants, substations etc being built, cars being purchased and delivered... especially in terms of financing this most expensive option in the current economic climate. Idealism has a cost and laying off employees etc is not necessarily an indicator of pouring more money into what is essentially a seasonal traffic bump of 2-3,000 which is only a potentiality not a given.. If they sealed off auto access..then I would agree with you.The economic indicators are not favorable to electrification to say the least.In terms of refitting the line with new power...a diesel powered MU would be a wiser choice if anything, for providing the illusion that going green is a zero sum game.
Ya know, the funny thing is, anyone who's ridden this train knows that the Alco's and the F40's pumped out waaaay more smoke than the steam engine ever did. I severly doubt they could afford brand new GEVO units, so unless they are planning to buy some ex-Amtrak Dash-8's or Gennie's or maybe some second hand F-59's (are there any even available) , I dont see this changing.
Maybe I did not make this entirely clear, but my electrification model would probably have to include the provision to make the train ride a mandatory part of Canyon access by limiting automobile access. The concept of restricting automobile access to the Canyon is very green, and so is rail transportation. I really think that this is their ultimate goal.
If the train ride were not a mandatory part of access, the ridership probably would not support electrification. It might not even support the existing railroad if it is dieselized. Xanterra may not intend to operate the railroad at all if it cannot be ultimately made into a mandatory part of access. Or they may not realize how much the ridership will be reduced by ending steam, and will cease operation entirely if they find that ridership falls below their expectation for the dieselized railroad.
Bucyrus wrote:Maybe I did not make this entirely clear, but my electrification model would probably have to include the provision to make the train ride a mandatory part of Canyon access by limiting automobile access. The concept of restricting automobile access to the Canyon is very green, and so is rail transportation. I really think that this is their ultimate goal. If the train ride were not a mandatory part of access, the ridership probably would not support electrification. It might not even support the existing railroad if it is dieselized. Xanterra may not intend to operate the railroad at all if it cannot be ultimately made into a mandatory part of access. Or they may not realize how much the ridership will be reduced by ending steam, and will cease operation entirely if they find that ridership falls below their expectation for the dieselized railroad.
I agree that this is the only forseeable way electrification would occur.... but if this possibility was known beforehand by Xanterra as a contractor or not...this on the surface of things would seem to be a case of a defacto monopoly.... possibly guided in the decision to purchase through insider knowledge. I am not saying that this is the case and I am not a lawyer, but if this is the case of a monopoly being created by the banning of auto traffic.. this seems abit too cozy, doesnt it?
jmonty1750 wrote:My experience on three tourist operations is that steam is worth 30% in ridership. When the steamer goes down and there's a Diesel on the front you can count on 1/3 fewer passengers with interest declining the longer steam is out. If you already have to drive to Williams, it doesn't take that much much longer to drive the rest of the way to the canyon and be able to stay and leave on your schedule and not the train's schedule. The novelty over your everyday commuter train is the steamer on the front. Otherwise it's just a bunch of old train cars. With the fuel costs what they are, Xantarra may be willing to take that hit or lower the ticket cost to raise ridership and still come out ahead. That's a pure business decision on their part. The revenue increase is definitely not 1 for 1 on the cost savings for Diesel.
On another board , it is reported that 4960 is now "stuffed and mounted" as of Tuesday in front of the Williams depot. They never answered my letter. The experienced steam folks at the other board concur its financial not green. They also cite an article in Trains magazine which confirms the steam superiority in a majority of enviromental aspects versus diesel in terms of exhaust gases. Sad.I suppose its all a moot point now...one can only hope the others are sold to operators, not hotel managers....There was a wonderful video of steam hostlers at work there on the midnight shift...real living history... does anyone recall who produced it?
Bucyrus wrote:Did not the GCRR begin as a totally dieselized operation and then convert to steam?
They started out with ex-Santa Fe GP7's for use on MOW trains to rebuild the long unused trackage. For the first passenger train they refurbished a steam locomotive, #18. There is a lot more detail I can go into, but from the start they were primarily a steam operation for the revenue trains. It was only in recent years that FPA's and F40's started pulling passenger trains.
For a roster you can check out this link:
Grand Canyon Railroad Roster
Matt from Anaheim, CA and Bayfield, COClick Here for my model train photo website
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.