michael on NGDF posted: "It's my hope that they don't start using these diesel locomotives for "special trains" that up until now has been handled by steam locomotives. I see the purpose for them during high fire danger. Run one of them and run 493 for those who want steam."
plywoody on TrainOrders posted: "This is such a terrible result to dieselize the historic steam railroad because of one engineer who failed to stop his train when the water spray at his stack was failing to work at a critical location. And because of politics and fear of liabilities Mr. Harper can not detail with a company explanation that it was an isolated single accident of one person’s bad judgment. .... " (I cannot confirm or deny the basis for this statement.)
I am not aiming this posting at any company or person - just my ramblings, observations and comments based on the past 40 years off and on involved as a volunteer with various operating railroad museums, as well as being employed in the railroad industry (common carrier freight, switching, mechanical and tourist).
Reality bites, and often bites hard. Regardless of how hard we try, there will be derailments, fires, accidents and injuries - they are inevitable, and a simple fact of life. It doesn't matter if it is a non-profit historical demonstration railroad or a for-profit tourist railroad, at the end of the season your bills have to be paid in full and you need to get through the off season with enough cash to start the next season, and hopefully make some capital investments in needed maintenance and improvements. It really doesn't matter if it is steam or diesel (or electric), the vast majority of your actual or potential income comes from guests that either don't know the difference, or don't care. As Pete Gores said when he was managing the Loop - we shouldn't become obsessed with being "historic" as most people don't care, we need to realize that we are "entertainment" first to attract them to spend their money and time to ride the train, and leave them with a good experience and hopefully a sense of history. I was a representative for a non-profit railroad at a local State Park's interpretive planning session a few years ago. The state had hired a professional company to design their long-range interpretive program which was to include a new center, exhibits and signage. It was quite eye opening to realize how little the average visitor will retain after visiting a historical site. There is an entire science based on how to present history to the general public. I've seen too many museum operations concentrate on running the train, and over the years I don't know how many times I've had a visitor ask "where is the museum?", not aware that is the operating train.
Reality bites, and often bites hard. Regardless of how hard we try, there will be derailments, fires, accidents and injuries - they are inevitable, and a simple fact of life. So what is "Plan B"? How will the railroad deal with stranded trains or any other situation? In my experience as a railroad manager, I've been in situations where I blow through Plan B like it never existed and often end up getting Plan J.4.2 or beyond to be the one that finally resolves the issue as the situation involves.
Consider the recent D&S situation - though you could easily substitute D&S's name for just about any other historical demonstration/tourist railroad in North America. Were there fire mitigation measures in effect - Yes! Many railroads have long standing measures to try to reduce the possibility of fires (especially in the dry west) and often patrol behind trains to detect and report any fires, and potentially extinguish them. I've actually seen a state forestry department insist on the railroad to clear 50 feet each side of the track, and more up hillsides. Does anyone see the impracticality of this, in cost, potential erosion/environmental issues and just the logistics? In some instances a single pass with a Cat at the fence line to create a firebreak is possible. I know of a few fires started by oil burning steam locos - one was from leftover embers puked out the stack because the crew initially fired it up with wood, all the others seem to be fireman or mechanical failures with the burner dumping oil on the ground. I don't know how many fires I've started with diesel locomotives over the years. Turbochargers usually help, but I did set the trailing tank car of water on fire (old wood running boards) once with a turbocharged diesel that had been carbonned up.
So what does the railroad do in high fire danger? There should be a plan that is based on the potential fire conditions, as well as operating considerations. The idea is not just to run trains, but to run trains efficiently and SAFELY! At what point do you restrict or park the steam engines in favor of diesels? Note that wile coal or wood burning engines are known culprits, most of today's firefighting professionals also consider oil burners in the same category due to open flame. And don't forget that if there are already several large fires consuming firefighting resources, it may reach a point that suspending all rail operations is the prudent thing to do, as you can't afford to start any fire in those circumstances.
As to plywoody's comments about the stack sprinkler not working - I have no knowledge or clue if this was the actual cause of the 416 Fire. But does D&S (or xxx RR) use a "Good Faith Challenge" and/or "Crew Resource Management" program that both held the engine crew responsible and empowered them to stop? And don't forget, it is the "company" that is responsible for the training, supervision, direction and actions of their employees/volunteers, so it doesn't really matter if their was an unfortunate incident, especially when it gets involved in the political or news spin cycle. It as absolutely amazing that no structures or lives have been lost in this fire, especially considering the current policy of "managing" fires rather than all out fight them. So you can whine, bitch and moan as much as you want, but here are the choices for D&S or any other railroad in the same position:
1. Just throw up your hands and cease operations. This could lead to laying off all the employees and potentially a financial failure. There are many places where it would create a huge adverse economic impact on the surrounding communities - sometimes those businesses are just leaching off the railroad, but don't forget that those gas stations, motels, restaurant and trinket stands are usually needed to support and provide an added attraction to the railroad's visitors, and often provide political support (hopefully counteracting the ever present @#$%&'s, protesters and critics).
2. Modify your operations to reasonably deal with the situation. This gets tricky because of the general reluctance to cancel reservations, give refunds or substitute equipment. But, would you rather have some income than potentially no income? This is also the time that preference needs to be given to the operating managers, not the marketing/sales department. What can reasonably be operated in a safe and consistent manner to offer as many seats as possible? I would assume (perhaps wrongly) that the harder a coal/wood burner is working, the increased draft is more likely to pull an ember or cinder out of the firebox and blast it out the stack past whatever arresting measures might exist. And presumably the more fuel it is burning the more chances there are for an ember or cinder. So - does it make sense to reduce the load on the steam engine? A couple ideas come to mind. First is to double up grades (or other high fire potential areas) with a diesel doing as much of the work as possible. Second is to reduce the size of the train without eliminating too many seats. I know it will be considered blasphemy here, but what comes to mind is CATS' open observation car. It is a non-revenue car, so if dropping that car from the train allows the engine to work 7% less, are there days that that potential 7% reduction in potential cinders and fire starts make this an obvious choice? Another common thing now is offering a first class service - does the revenue per car justify it, as these are often heavier cars with fewer seats but at a higher fare? 40 seats in coach at $50 might be comparable to 25 seats in first class at $80 - but if the first class car is heavier and requires a dedicated car host, do the higher costs/lower revenue per car justify that car on the train especially if it isn't consistently sold out?
3. Keep going full bore. When $#it happens (and it eventually will), deal with the consequences.
As much as no one wants to see diesels on D&S, CATS, the LOOP, or any other "steam" railroad, understand that most of the other options aren't pretty. If it weren't for tourists, the D&S and CATS would have both been scrapped by 1968 (Durango to Silverton even earlier). So they, and many others, have made it 50+ years so far without too many changes. While we may prefer time to stand still on the railroad, in reality time marches on and change is inevitable. Safety regulations, surrounding neighborhoods, the lack of replacement equipment and parts as well as a changing market require railroads to adapt. The mainline steam locomotives are trying to adapt required PTC technology, and at the same time Amtrak has cancelled all charters making mainline steam's future (unless sponsored by a freight railroad themselves) questionable.
Most of you aren't going to like what I am about to say. If D&S is successful in converting 493 or other engines to oil - they will run them as such. They can't afford not to. You need to average almost 100 days per year to get the most of a 1472 within the 15 year limit. Unless D&S sets setting their steam engines up to swap back and forth depending on the long range forecast and drought conditions for each season. Oil will cost them more than coal. Can they get at least a couple road diesels big enough to pull the economically minimum number of seats? Yes - but it is going to be very expensive - I wouldn't be surprised if it's $2million+ for used, they would be looking at $6+ million for new. You don't invest that much money, run it a couple months and then park it for a few years until you need it again. Mechanical things don't like being parked on a regular basis. I've seen it claimed after WWII that new steam cost 30% of a new diesel loco, but the lower fuel and maintenance costs of diesels justified the investments. Look at White Pass - how old was 73 when they were fully dieselized? Assuming D&S does get decent diesels (condition and type), expect them to SUPPLEMENT the existing steam engines. Diesels give them the opportunity to keep going in drought or high fire conditions without having to cancel trains or modify too much for operations. They don't have to keep another engine hot as a backup (and related expenses for such - a hot boiler counts against the 1472). Need to add a few cars to meet demand - a helper engine is available. Winter trains are easier with diesel than steam as water has a nasty habit of freezing and causing havoc. The railroad can offer additional trains and charters for a lower cost, so they might be able ot accommodate that off season group, delayed tour bus or night trip. The important thing here is that diesels potentially prevent service interruptions and offer additional revenue possibilities which strengthen the railroad's survival chances for another 50 years. And remember, on a scenic ride that can stand on its own 95% of the passengers won't care what the power is pulling the train. If your 8 cars back of the engine with 400 people on a train does it really matter? I've found the best place usually to appreciate a steam locomotive is off train near the track, not riding onboard. (In the cab I'm usually too busy to appreciate much.)
One last comment about "Plan B". I recently read a rail industry article questioning if there was a "Disaster Recovery Plan". They weren't talking about the little stuff - they were talking about the REALLY BIG worst case unexpected scenario situations that could threaten the very existence of the company. I have no clue if the D&S has such a plan or just made it up as they went along. All things considered, they seemed to have survived it so far, and the communities of Durango and Silverton do realize the railroad is an integral part of their economic base and need to find a reasonable compromise to keep the trains running. But everyone should keep in mind that you never know when mother nature is going to turn on you and cause things beyond your control. A major road being closed, slide over the tracks or even a fire in the region burying everyone in smoke can happen (The latter happened several years ago ending a high end tourist train in Canada).
What is Plan B through Plan Z.999.9?
(To any railroader seriously interested - PM me if you want info on the following resources: A fuel catalyst additive for diesels that reduces carbon; USFS rated diesel spark arrestor supplier that has version specifically for roots blown EMDs as well as all other sizes; an affordable high-pressure small gas powered pump for fire fighting use (will push 1-1/2" hose no problem).
