Resales, plain and simple. Possibly parts also. Look at how many of the SY-class came over. All of them ran a long time in excursion service. I'm sure now that they're here the engines can be sold at a profit even after Americanization to groups wishing to run a steam engine, for far less than it will cost them to restore an existing US locomotive (seems like that runs between 1.5 and 2 million dollars these days). Parts have to be imported from China, but they're like ours were in the 50's - old junk - so filling a container or two with spares shouldn't cost a heck of a lot. I mean, look at the stuff you can buy in a Wal-mart or Harbor Frieght that is purposely made to be imported to the US - and how cheap it still is. Now make it something that is surplus, it's value per pound as scrap, plus 3 cents an hour per guy for a few men to remove and load it. You could probably justify them on a fuel cost basis if you do all the math. Sure, they cost money, but all new power costs money - even a good used locomotive will set you back a considerable sum. Sure, coal isn't free, but it's not as expensive as oil. You'd need to compare how much is used, water bills for higher volume connections to municipal water - often excursions are filled via a fire hydrant or pumper, wouldn't be terribly expensive to set up your own system to do the same - the only issue here would be trained labor and maintenance issues. Steam lasted so long in China because even though it was more labor intensive, the labor was cheaper than the savings from less man-hours in each engine. Bill K. - ----- Original Message ----- > > >From Archives_@_Railfan.net > Message-ID: <id.30062006140247.00000_@_FPE> > Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:02:47 EDT > From: "Janet & Randy Brown" <jananran_@_mymailstation.com> > Subject: Re:Re: Re:(erielack) FW: QJs in Iowa > > The cost of fuel is a questionable justification. Those locomotives are not free; their purchase prive alone would buy a LOT of oil. > > Then, coal isn't free, either. So the saving is in the difference in the fuel cost, minus the purchase price -- THEN you can start on the complications Ken brings forth . . . augmented by more questions: who will inspect the boilers? Who will reflue them? And on and on . . . > > Randy Brown > - -------------------------------------------------------------- > Good question. The story (rumor?) which I heard was that the cost of fuel was the driving factor. However, considering that it will now take a 3-person crew, significant extra maintenance, considerable waste disposal storage space and removal cost, etc., the economics of fuel alone do not make it. Also, are not the Chinese steam locos built with the engineer's seat on the left? Wonder what brakestand comes with it? Back to a 6-ET knockoff? Who in the U.S. will test and certify Chinese brakestands, as required by the FRA? > > Again, good question. > > > Ken Bush > > - -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 6/30/2006 The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List Sponsored by the ELH&TS http://www.elhts.org ------------------------------
This HTML page is © 2000-2008 Blue Moon Online System and The Railfan Network
This page and the data contained therein may not be reproduced
for any form of commercial use without the explicit permission
of J. Henry Priebe Jr. or his duly authorized agent.