Dylan Knott wrote:The problem is tourists come to see steam and not diesels.
Let me throw the cat among the pigeons - just because I can!!!!!
Dylan - I agree with what you say re
TOURISTS i.e. someone from overseas who is a railfan etc.
But, and this is a general question directed at people reading this thread, - how many of the local passengers care what is hauling the train? And rather then answer on assumptions, has anyone actually surveyed their passengers (without asking a leading question) to find out?
It may be easy to assume people want to travel behind a steam engine, but is this a fact? ............ Or do they just want a train trip...........
Reality is probably the fact that clubs locally are run and operated by people who are themselves steam enthusiasts and so run what they enjoy - steam! And they can continue to run steam if the revenue from running trains is there.... The operation of steam is a means to an end in other words.
If my assumption is true, there is nothing wrong with this approach. But it does sadly mean that it is unlikely that heritage diesels will in the long run survive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost of running steam/diesel debate is interesting....
See this post....
http://www.friendsoftherail.com/phpBB2/ ... =40&t=3633
OK - this is in the States so costs may be radically different compared to here. However what is of interest is the fact that this decision was made.
Grand Canyon is basically a commercial operation, and they made what in effect is a commercial decision. This was based on a cost comparison re...
1. Comparative maintenance costs.
2. Comparative operating costs (including required tools and infrastructure).
3. Comparative revenue (i.e. net into the coffers based of fares, number of being hauled minus fuels, maintenance, running cost depreciation etc).
The reason I say this is interesting is that some of the heritage operations here are bordering in a commercial operation, and if the use of diesel is more cost effective then, this would not preclude the use of steam. Rather, it could become a useful cross subsidization mechanism for steam as it would be a greater revenue generator (if it is cheaper then steam).
And note - at the end of the day if anyone wants steam to survive, it will have to be cross subsisted, like it or not, and this money will have to come from somewhere. Look at Sandstone as a successful local example.
Are there local cost comparisons - include refurb, maintenance, running maintenance, related infrastructure and tool costs, running costs per passenger seat etc etc ?