 |
Re: 2479 & Roundhouse to Niles
Author: JMann
Date: 01-06-2007 - 11:27
Bon Mot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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!
Bon Mot has good points but I want to correct a couple of them.
He said the PLA does not own the tracks in Niles Canyon. Not true. All of the track materials was either donated to or bought by the PLA and installed by us. 11 miles of track and OTM is a big assett and is carried on our books as such. If we were ever kicked out of the canyon this material would be either removed (unlikely) or sold by us. The ROW is leased to us by the county so we are in complete control of the tracks we operate on. We have the burden to maintain it but we also get to operate on it any time we want.
He also said that volunteer participation is declining. While it is true that we would warmly welcome more help, we have been seeing an increase in volunteer participation. 10 years ago almost all work was done on Saturdays. We now have people working in the yard almost every day with a big group of retirees working on Wednesday.
I agree with Bon Mot that the PLA has bigger demands on our income than just restoring and operating one steam locomotive. We are investing money to improve facilities with increased storage track space, finishing the new car barn, and have plans to build a locomotive barn, a pole barn over Brightside yard and pave the roads in the yard to cut down on dust. A big portion of the income goes to MOW maintenance and maintaining the equipment usen in our regular operations. We have plans to complete the wye in Niles but it will be after a run around track is built at the Niles station and a passing siding is built in the canyon. We are doing this along with restoring more equipment.
We have plans to build a museum in the wye in Niles. A roundhouse and turntable will be the centerpiece of it. But we are not basing it on getting anything from the San Jose group. As Bon Mot pointed out, they have their own plans and are not looking to join us to creating a single bay area museum. It's too bad. For us to capitalize on the land in Niles we need a group who can focus on creating the museum there and those guys have done a lot of work that can be applied to the project. As it is it will be a lot of years before the PLA can get to building a permanent museum there. Hopefully the county doesn't come up with new plans for the land before we get it done.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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!
Bon Mot has good points but I want to correct a couple of them.
He said the PLA does not own the tracks in Niles Canyon. Not true. All of the track materials was either donated to or bought by the PLA and installed by us. 11 miles of track and OTM is a big assett and is carried on our books as such. If we were ever kicked out of the canyon this material would be either removed (unlikely) or sold by us. The ROW is leased to us by the county so we are in complete control of the tracks we operate on. We have the burden to maintain it but we also get to operate on it any time we want.
He also said that volunteer participation is declining. While it is true that we would warmly welcome more help, we have been seeing an increase in volunteer participation. 10 years ago almost all work was done on Saturdays. We now have people working in the yard almost every day with a big group of retirees working on Wednesday.
I agree with Bon Mot that the PLA has bigger demands on our income than just restoring and operating one steam locomotive. We are investing money to improve facilities with increased storage track space, finishing the new car barn, and have plans to build a locomotive barn, a pole barn over Brightside yard and pave the roads in the yard to cut down on dust. A big portion of the income goes to MOW maintenance and maintaining the equipment usen in our regular operations. We have plans to complete the wye in Niles but it will be after a run around track is built at the Niles station and a passing siding is built in the canyon. We are doing this along with restoring more equipment.
We have plans to build a museum in the wye in Niles. A roundhouse and turntable will be the centerpiece of it. But we are not basing it on getting anything from the San Jose group. As Bon Mot pointed out, they have their own plans and are not looking to join us to creating a single bay area museum. It's too bad. For us to capitalize on the land in Niles we need a group who can focus on creating the museum there and those guys have done a lot of work that can be applied to the project. As it is it will be a lot of years before the PLA can get to building a permanent museum there. Hopefully the county doesn't come up with new plans for the land before we get it done.
