A fine bit of pontificating on the part of CRY to be sure. What the PLA and GGRM are doing is exactly what you propose. As for the San Jose folks, the ball may well be in their court. Know however, that many years ago GGRM approached the San Jose folks about pooling their combined resources. The GGRM was informed that San Jose was quite willing to go it alone, as San Jose felt confident in their ability to have a locomotive up and running before GGRM. As 2472 made its first trip in 1991, and 2479 has yet to steam, I'd guess that the San Jose folks bet on the wrong iron horse. Oftentimes a massive reorganization at the highest levels of a preservation group can backfire, pushing those persons with experience, with political connections, and connections to the railroad industry out the door.

As for being a "naysayer", well, I'd prefer to think that I'm a realist. Clicking ones heals together three times doesn't always get results. As has been pointed out, real estate values in the Bay Area are out of reach. PLA doesn't own the tracks or right of way, and the costs of maintaining, let alone operating three mainline steam locomotives would make ones head spin. This in addition to the ongoing maintenance to track and rolling stock. The number of people involved in museums and preservation groups is declining. Naysayers haven't prevented these locomotive from operating, real life events such as boilers, bearings and the cost of insurance have.

By way of example, Union Pacific earmarks millions of dollars per year to cover upkeep and operation of their two steam locomotives and the passenger car fleet. Rest assured that it costs far more than it generates. Groups such as PLA recognize that steam sells, but steam costs, too. Idealism is great, but back it up with wisdom, common sense and realistic goals.

Will big steam run in Niles Canyon? Yes. A lot of it? No.

Flame away!