Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
Bucyrus wrote: Aside from the issue of steam, I would like to know more about how this railroad fits into the overall logistics of visiting the canyon. Does everybody have the option of either driving their car to the rim or leaving their car and taking the train to the rim? If the trainride is just an enternainment option, I would think that ending steam would have quite a repressive impact on ridership even though some might ride only for the trainride. For the railroad to really play out a green mission in connection to limiting automobile traffic in proximity to the rim, car access would have to be limited by law. This private automobile restriction is often part of the current traffic management philosophy.
Aside from the issue of steam, I would like to know more about how this railroad fits into the overall logistics of visiting the canyon. Does everybody have the option of either driving their car to the rim or leaving their car and taking the train to the rim? If the trainride is just an enternainment option, I would think that ending steam would have quite a repressive impact on ridership even though some might ride only for the trainride.
For the railroad to really play out a green mission in connection to limiting automobile traffic in proximity to the rim, car access would have to be limited by law. This private automobile restriction is often part of the current traffic management philosophy.
Last time I was there, you can drive but its very limited access, mostly only to the lodges, they really emphisis either taking the shuttlebus from perimeter parking lots or taking the train in from Williams, which up till now has always been marketed as a tourist train ride with a visit to the Grand Canyon to boot. The ride there and back was half the fun, corny train robbers and twangy country singers included. The way it sounds I fear Xanterra might de-emphisis the tourist train aspect and instead develop the idea of using Williams simply as a big parking lot and using the train to just shuttle people back and forth from the canyon. It would be nice to know what there long term plans were for the RR.
Have fun with your trains
I rode the Grand Canyon RR to the south rim of the Grand Canyon in August of 1994 from Williams, Arizona, and I believe the milage by rail was 64 miles.
At that point, the conductor on board the train told me that the Grand Canyon RR had acquired the ex-CB&Q 2-8-2 #4960 and was in the process of rebuilding her for service on that line.
I was a little disappointed in my one trip on the Grand Canyon RR in that the passenger coach that I and the rest of my party were riding in had windows that could not be opened beyond four or five inches. I had to get down on my knees in order to get any pictures of the surrounding landscape. And I was not permitted to shoot from the vestibules or doorways of the car we were riding in.
I too, am hoping that the 4960 and the other two steam locomotives on the property will find their way into the hands of another outfit that will at least protect and maintain, if not run them. I don't have an extensive background in science, but I certainly don't buy into the environmentalist-whacko theories of greenhouse gas emissions.
CANADIANPACIFIC2816
I agree with previous posters said about this is about being a fashion statement rather than an informed environmental decision.
In the mid-90's I stayed at their hotel in William's, ate at Max & Thelmas and rode the train to my hotel inside the park. It was a thoroughly enjoyable vacation. I was looking forward to returning with my kids in a few years but sadly it doesn't look like that will be possible. Modern diesel or electric locomotives would defeat the purpose of staying in Williams and taking the train.
- Luke
Modeling the Southern Pacific in the 1960's-1980's
I have found even worse news,
1. All 3 steamers will be MOTHBALLED & will put on display.
2. They have only car shop workers & electricians left. They fired the 2 primary diesel workers & a welder.
Someone needs to start a pention before the steamers are mothballed!
Technical Question
Here's the stats they provided (Trains Newswire, Sept. 11).
"Xanterra provided TRAINS News Wire with a letter it wrote to a steam fan concerned about the cancellation that outlines some of the operational factors of running steam and diesel locomotives. In the letter, Xanterra claims a steam locomotive uses 1,450 gallons of diesel fuel to run a round trip from Williams to the rim of the canyon, while a diesel locomotive uses only 550. The letter also cites the water savings, plus the savings in journal oil, steam oil, and bearing oil, plus the 1,200 gallons of water used daily by the steam engine."
So just how exactly does a steam engine use diesel fuel?
I've heard of wood, coal, and oil burners, but how does diesel come into the equasion? I've looked all over the internet for this information, but most resources seem to think that steam engines for forever only powered by coal. I don't have access to a real library where I'm at right now. Does anybody have source for this? Is a diesel burning steam engine really an oil burner?
And politically speaking, Xanterra flip-flops in it's own explantion. First it's rising fuel cost and falling ridership, then they print the fuel stats, then they state cutting the steam program was purely environmental. I think their hidden agenda is to buy up steam lines and then cut the program. Environmental terrorism. Why do you think this announcement was made on Sept. 11? We'll be wearing leaves for underwear and living in grass huts eating mushrooms if they had their way. We should all down there in a big group and chain ourselves to various things and sing songs about steam powered locomotives and eat fine cuisine off of fine china with sparkling silverware while wearing oil-stained coveralls and write our demands in coal on new, non-recycled paper.
yad sdrawkcab s'ti
ironhorseman wrote: Is a diesel burning steam engine really an oil burner?
Is a diesel burning steam engine really an oil burner?
Yes
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ironhorseman wrote: Technical QuestionHere's the stats they provided (Trains Newswire, Sept. 11)."Xanterra provided TRAINS News Wire with a letter it wrote to a steam fan concerned about the cancellation that outlines some of the operational factors of running steam and diesel locomotives. In the letter, Xanterra claims a steam locomotive uses 1,450 gallons of diesel fuel to run a round trip from Williams to the rim of the canyon, while a diesel locomotive uses only 550. The letter also cites the water savings, plus the savings in journal oil, steam oil, and bearing oil, plus the 1,200 gallons of water used daily by the steam engine."So just how exactly does a steam engine use diesel fuel?I've heard of wood, coal, and oil burners, but how does diesel come into the equasion? I've looked all over the internet for this information, but most resources seem to think that steam engines for forever only powered by coal. I don't have access to a real library where I'm at right now. Does anybody have source for this? Is a diesel burning steam engine really an oil burner?And politically speaking, Xanterra flip-flops in it's own explantion. First it's rising fuel cost and falling ridership, then they print the fuel stats, then they state cutting the steam program was purely environmental. I think their hidden agenda is to buy up steam lines and then cut the program. Environmental terrorism. Why do you think this announcement was made on Sept. 11? We'll be wearing leaves for underwear and living in grass huts eating mushrooms if they had their way. We should all down there in a big group and chain ourselves to various things and sing songs about steam powered locomotives and eat fine cuisine off of fine china with sparkling silverware while wearing oil-stained coveralls and write our demands in coal on new, non-recycled paper.
It sounds like you have green nailed pretty well. The whole green movement is being promoted with the missionary zeal of a religious movement, and there is a lot of horsepower behind it. Certainly all governments, all educational systems, 95% of all politicians, and the majority of all news media are pushing it. I would guess that at least 75% of the public is solidly onboard. I would say that the need to be green is the biggest challenge facing historical steam preservation.
My first impression was that Xanterra was concerned about greenness being threatened by the locomotive emission. Even if the actual pollution were not excessive, the steam itself gives the impression of eco-sinning. Every time television brings up the subject of industrial pollution, they show stacks pouring out steam, so it's not surprising that the public now makes no distinction between water vapor and toxic emissions.
But from what you posted, it sounds like they are mainly focused on fuel efficiency, which is another aspect of green. My understanding is that GC burns oil in their steam locomotives. Traditionally, this has been bunker C oil, but they may be burning straight diesel or some other blend, so the fuel is similar or identical to what they would burn in their diesel locomotives. Here is a link that mentions diesel fuel being burned in steam locomotives: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Steam_Locomotive_Operation
There has been a lot of discussion here about modern steam. It would be interesting to explore the issue of what the potential might be for improving fuel efficiency of their steam locomotives. I know that those locomotives have already been fitted with some modern improvements such as Lempor exhausts.
Because the green movement is so preachy, it is possible that Xanterra may simply have underestimated the public reaction to their ending of steam. With Xanterra's viewing the world through their green-is-good lens, they may have made a rush to judgment in which ending steam seemed like a no-brainer to them. They may not have even considered nor understood the love that many people have for the steam locomotives. So they may be surprised at the public backlash. If that is the case, it would pay to write them a letter and express disappointment at their decision and your commitment to boycott a non-steam Grand Canyon Railway.
Yes! Please do write to Xanterra.
You will find my letter (actually an email) near the top of this thread. Also needed contact information is all shown.
Since I was the "steam fan" mentioned in the TRAINS newsline, I replied to Judi Lages immediately. No response to my second contact has been received, howerver.
Please keep your letters and emails civil.
Glen Brewer
gbrewer wrote:Yes! Please do write to Xanterra. You will find my letter (actually an email) near the top of this thread. Also needed contact information is all shown.Since I was the "steam fan" mentioned in the TRAINS newsline, I replied to Judi Lages immediately. No response to my second contact has been received, howerver.Please keep your letters and emails civil.Glen Brewer
I have sent off my letter. Essentially, I suggested they have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. To paraphrase the letter ( via e-mail), while it is certainly their option to do what they please with the GCRR, it is also the public's choice not to support this decision by opting to use their automobiles,as the probability of the public detouring to the GCRR and paying additional expense for a less unique experience is unlikely. All of this is short sighted, etc.
MOPACnut wrote: I'm reminded why i hate greenies like them now (insert cussing and name calling here) Face it these greenies hate steam engines. There's a video on Youtube showing 2 narrow gauge steamers (hitting a cow ) and there's at least 1 commenting about the smoke the're making every week (one even explained how steamers work, though he had no idea what he was talking about, and i didn't either )
I'm reminded why i hate greenies like them now (insert cussing and name calling here)
Face it these greenies hate steam engines. There's a video on Youtube showing 2 narrow gauge steamers (hitting a cow ) and there's at least 1 commenting about the smoke the're making every week (one even explained how steamers work, though he had no idea what he was talking about, and i didn't either )
Except that Phil Anschutz is one of the most stalwart Conservative Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Anschutz) in the country so I doubt he would be making decisions to please the Democrats....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Diesel fuel is closely related to home heating oil, in fact I believe they're interchangable. A burner setup like you'd find in a home oil furnace (but much bigger) would probably be all that's needed. I've seen several stories that SP 4449 has been run on diesel fuel when the proper number fuel oil wasn't available. It sounded like a simple adjustment on the firing valve.
Personally, I also believe the financial explanation more than the enviornmental one.
Tom, I also suspect that the high cost of liability insurance may be one of the reasons why the Grand Canyon Railway is dropping it's steam powered operations.
The question of burning diesel in the fire box of a steam locomotive is also interesting. The Black Hills Central, otherwise known as the "1880 Train" here in South Dakota has three steam locomotives on their roster and what they burn is recycled motor oil. I was told this when I had last ridden the Black Hills Central in 1998.
Ray
CANADIANPACIFIC2816 wrote:Tom, I also suspect that the high cost of liability insurance may be one of the reasons why the Grand Canyon Railway is dropping it's steam powered operations.The question of burning diesel in the fire box of a steam locomotive is also interesting. The Black Hills Central, otherwise known as the "1880 Train" here in South Dakota has three steam locomotives on their roster and what they burn is recycled motor oil. I was told this when I had last ridden the Black Hills Central in 1998.Ray
Last time I rode the GCRy, that was my understanding about their fuel also (used, waste moter oil). They also used processed, recycled, waste water from Williams not otherwise good for much.
Glen
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.
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.
Believe it or not, there is research being done in molecular chemistry to do this with vegetable oil to provide more energy potential per volume. The general thinking is that this would work as a hybrid fuel added to oil in order to conserve it...according to speculation...its about four years out...who knows? Two adult tickets cost $160.00...add each kid at $35.00...thats still buys afew tanks of gas..so if the auto is their competition and they eliminate the trips unique quality...its not much of a sell...at least to me.I think they are squeezing the life out of it in a mistaken bid to increase the ROI...who knows what financing is leveraged. I dont buy the green propaganda. Although the engines are capped and appliances tacked or removed...and on site...I think they will be sold as assets. They are in over their heads.
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.
vs:
I just heard something interesting. As it happens, I have a friend who went out there a few months ago to interview for a job in the loco shop. Of course I wanted to tell him the news, so he'd feel good about not going out there to work.
The friend told me they WERE using biodiesel. He said he thought it was being used to run the steam locos, too. Apparently it was a fairly recent development. Maybe it was a blend. He wasn't too clear on the details, but he said he was sure the foreman told him that biodiesel had been introduced.
Logic would dictate that it was the money thing. However, I don't know. Steam attracts tourists; the GCRy is a tourist line. I'm not sure I can see the good business decision in discontinuing steam, not with the excellent facilities the GCRy had. But I sure can see the neo-green extremists pulling something like that, and from what my friend tells me, Xanterra is in that category.
If you want to see just how green Xanterra is, just take a look at this: http://www.xanterra.com/environmental-program-highlights-372.html
I would not be surprized if Xanterra would refuse to sell their steam locomotives to others for operation because it would go against their environmental conscience to enable the locomotives to operate elsewhere.
Does anybody know how popular the railroad was prior to operating steam? Was there a big increase in ridership when they converted to steam?
TomDiehl wrote: ironhorseman wrote: Technical QuestionHere's the stats they provided (Trains Newswire, Sept. 11)."Xanterra provided TRAINS News Wire with a letter it wrote to a steam fan concerned about the cancellation that outlines some of the operational factors of running steam and diesel locomotives. In the letter, Xanterra claims a steam locomotive uses 1,450 gallons of diesel fuel to run a round trip from Williams to the rim of the canyon, while a diesel locomotive uses only 550. The letter also cites the water savings, plus the savings in journal oil, steam oil, and bearing oil, plus the 1,200 gallons of water used daily by the steam engine."So just how exactly does a steam engine use diesel fuel?I've heard of wood, coal, and oil burners, but how does diesel come into the equasion? I've looked all over the internet for this information, but most resources seem to think that steam engines for forever only powered by coal. I don't have access to a real library where I'm at right now. Does anybody have source for this? Is a diesel burning steam engine really an oil burner?And politically speaking, Xanterra flip-flops in it's own explantion. First it's rising fuel cost and falling ridership, then they print the fuel stats, then they state cutting the steam program was purely environmental. I think their hidden agenda is to buy up steam lines and then cut the program. Environmental terrorism. Why do you think this announcement was made on Sept. 11? We'll be wearing leaves for underwear and living in grass huts eating mushrooms if they had their way. We should all down there in a big group and chain ourselves to various things and sing songs about steam powered locomotives and eat fine cuisine off of fine china with sparkling silverware while wearing oil-stained coveralls and write our demands in coal on new, non-recycled paper.Diesel fuel is closely related to home heating oil, in fact I believe they're interchangable. A burner setup like you'd find in a home oil furnace (but much bigger) would probably be all that's needed. I've seen several stories that SP 4449 has been run on diesel fuel when the proper number fuel oil wasn't available. It sounded like a simple adjustment on the firing valve.Personally, I also believe the financial explanation more than the enviornmental one.
I agree with the economic opinion. That's a lot of moola at $4/gal! I really doubt they'll lose much ridership by dropping steam. When I was there in 2004, there were lot of people arriving on the train, but very few took much notice of the locomotive. The canyon itself is the draw.
And, #2 diesel and home heating oil are kissing cousins. Sometimes they are identical - sometimes not - depending on crude stock, refining technique, blending, etc. The biggest difference is that #2 diesel has a 40 cetane rating making it suitable for use in diesel engines. Home heating oil does not. So, you can always use #2 diesel to heat your home, and you might be able to used home heating oil in you diesel (off road, of course....)
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?
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?
As pure speculation not having financial sheets to look at, my gut instinct is 2. I think your conclusion about #1 is painting with too broad a brush...there are too many variables...Is this outfit privately held or do they issue stock? If they were so rigid in their green bean philosophy, then why was fuel efficency even brought up if steam was considered a toxic commodity? Somewhat of a moot point. This is smoke and mirrors. I suspect they are very leveraged in this deal which corresponds to how rapidly this "transformation" took place. Call me cynical...but idealism and the bottom line seldom meet when it comes to business decisions to drastically cut expenses, take your pick green philosophy or red ink.. Time will tell...I also suspect when I looked at their history, they are trying , or wish to have this operation become a subcontracted entity to the park service and enhance the bottom line by subsidy as there is no competition with the exception of the private automobile.. Good luck. The way the economy is going...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.