Mr. Peartree,

I have no difference with your view. And I find myself in general agreement with it.

OK, so..... are they simply not transparent about their strategy and business plan (despite being essentially a public agency) or do they not have such a plan in place? Is their ridership growing, implying the need for greater capacity, or declining, implying a need for better marketing?

Here are some historical numbers.

C&TSRR Ridership by Year to October 11, 2005
1994 58,102
1995 59,771
1996 54,829
1997 61,125
1998 70,666
1999 60.332
2000 50,216 RGRPC Startup Year
2001 56,044
2002 22,558 FRA track restrictions; USDA Forest Service mandated closure.
2003 16,829 One locomotive in service.
2004 30,045 Two locomotives in service.
2005 Original estimate was approx 45,000 with the addition of the third locomotive
On September 19,2005 ridership = 29,211. Estimate for season on Sept 19th was 32,000.. .

2005 33,023 passengers Final year RGRPC

2006 38,460 riders regular trains + 1,156 on specials C&TSMC first year


Mr Bush posted at the discussion forum
"We will not have an "official" ridership until the ticket system audit is complete. We expect it to be about 36,150..."
The entire post is here.


http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php ... msg-300426

OK, it has declined but is making noise about some growth but still 30% less than about 50K. This isn't the time to seek to invest in rehabilitation of larger power, but in bringing more people in so you grow to need larger power.

As far as I can tell… (a classic this is my opinion statement)

The Cumbres & Toltec was born out of a crisis, with a dual mission to both preserve the Cumbres to Antonito line, but also to be a economic engine for the area. The Preservation role is a favorite of railfans, but the economic engine was very important for the legislatures of the two states…

Born in crisis, it is pretty clear that the busyness plan was not well developed… There were hopes from railfans that the project would be self supporting (after the purchase)… I believe that the ridership projections were roughly 100,000 per year.
The commission has over the years hired operators… who were expected to operate and maintain the railroad. Early on it became apparent that this model didn’t deal well with the large collection of non-revenue producing fright and work cars… and out of that the Friends of the Cumbres and Toltec was born. The result was outsourcing operation to one company (there have been a series of operators over the years) and outsourcing “historic preservation” to the volunteers… (who have done a pretty good job of saving freight cars and other equipment on a railroad they do not control)

The railroad has only been marginally self sufficient… but as a bi-state agency, with the ownership shared, both New Mexico and Colorado have occasionally supported capital projects… its an uncertain and uneven funding model… luckily to some extent when Colorado was unwilling New Mexico stepped up, and while currently NM is not willing Colorado has supported work… As a government agency grants for track and bridge work have been received.

They seemed to have settled in to a model with a Commission owned company running the railroad, and so responsible for regular maintenance, and taking on increasing responsibility for historic preservation, with the Friends supporting a number of projects, especially restoration of historic freight and work equipment for display and occasional use on chartered trains. The railroad continues to look to both the states for funding for capital projects, but finds a way to continue when requests are not successful. This new model has brought some stability, and with stability program growth… They currently have 5 locomotives in service, the track is in much better condition, and the burnt bridge repaired. They have brought in a historic (to the line) 4-6-0 for restoration, are working to rebuild a series of historic passenger cars (the railroad doing 4, the Friends 1, several more in the mix)

The railroad is still a political beast, and there is a large and vocal community of locals (both the counties in Colorado and NM where it runs, but also state wide voters), volunteers (mostly the Friends), and interested parties (foamers and railfans) who make loud noises occasionally and tell the commissioners exactly what they should do…

The trade (and its lack of approval) is a result of all of the above... it was a trade for a long time out of service engine for an engine which while not recently operated was easily made operable, but which is running out of calendar days and would need a 1471 inspection in a few years... It would bring a engine type which commonly operated over Cumbres Pass back to the line... The D&S engine is smaller, and would pull less up the 4%+ climb from Chama to Cumbres.

But the other engine was the first to operate on the new C&TSRR tourist line and is a favorite of the fans and foamers... The on line reports about each's condition (by fans and foamers, not by staff) were full of miss statements of fact, and full of rosey hopes... and there were costs to C&TS for moving...

If this sounds like a swamp full of alligators it to many extents is...

Randy

Hi,

Change C&TS to Amtrak, you have a somewhat similar problem. Politics holding on to the past and afraid to go forward <GRIN>?

FWIW - I support both Amtrak and C&TS. I guess I'm a looser <GRIN>.

DOug vV

How unique is 483? I mean, if you took one of the other engines, and painted "483" on the cab, would anyone know the difference?

Would anyone except rivet-counting foamers know the difference is a better question. We need to forget about our preferences and concentrate on those of the people we want to bring in instead.

Hi,

In my opinion, 483 is special since she was the first steamer used on the C&TS. She and 484 (I think) pulled the C&TS for the first three years. The C&TS has some 55 years of history and that is "not chump change."

482 has not moved under her own power since about 1975-6. Some 50-odd years. Much of her went to the Durango & Silverton in the early 1990s in the trade concerning D&S 497 and C&TS 482. The D&S (for profit) wanted as many parts as it could to make 482 operational as quickly and easy as possible.

The main reason others put forth to keep her is that there would then be five (5) locomotives of the same class. Very few other historic operations have five locos of the same class. The C&TS also has four ($) K37's of a similar class. They were built by the D&RGW instead of ordering more K36's new. Much of the running gear is the same between the 480s and 490s. The 490 K37s used ex-SG C41 boilers, cabs and tenders suitably altered.

I understand the D&RGW used them interchangably in operation (in the final years anyway) even though the K37 could haul about one more car up a 4% grade than a K36. In the 1930's and 1940s the K37s were used where the most traffic was (Gunnison lines or San Juan extension) and the K36's were used on the other division.

This is as unbiased a summary as I can make it.

Doug vV

And, that's all true and fine and well, but it has little to do with what the railroad needs to be successful in its primary mission of bringing tourist dollars into the area. The Friends might find it suits their mission better...... but they don't own it. So, moving on, I'd certainly hope there is some rational and well defined plan and measurable goal for increasing ridership in place - this makes the mechanical / rolling stock requirement easy to define also - make sure we have the ability to move X number of passengers now, and X+A in 2 years, X+B in 4 years, etc....... subject of course to change, but it's the only way to manage and budget appropriately at present - if the mechanical department has so much money not being used they can experiment with trading the devils they know for those they don't for reasons that have no impact on executing their mission, they need to have their budget cut to reinforce marketing efforts. I don't think John would find himself with funding to spare right now if you ask him.

It's about filling more seats with nonrailfan butts - railfans will go there anyway and can't support the operation alone. Run the trains that all kinds of people want to come to ride when they want to ride them, and encourage as many of them to come and ride as possible.

Hi Dave,

I was trying to answer the "Why is 483 special" questions with backgound.

If economic profitablity is the only goal, trade 483 for 493, get the 490's running and drop fires on the 480's. One more car up the hill using the 490s.

Of course, narrow gauging the GM decapods might be even better. <GRIN>

Doug vV

No point running bigger than you will need unless the smaller stuff needs more expensive investment in it than the bigger stuff. I do get your point and don't disagree, just don't believe at this point that investing in more things that are not required to achieve prosperity commensurate with that which was had before is sensible. Once you are doing well, you can invest in less immediately important things.

I'd like to see a 3 foot decapod....... but not sure CATS is where it would do best. EBT, possibly, so we can equally offend Eastern fans.

.

In the case of both the D&RGW narrow gauge and the East Broad Top, I don't think that the next step in motive power upgrade would have been a 2-10-0 Decapod, but rather a 2-10-2 Santa Fe type. I wonder if either railroad ever gave consideration to doing something like that? The new steamers would have probably been 500's on the Rio Grande and numbers 19 and 20 on the East Broad Top.


Les

Some interesting larger narrow gauge locomotives were exported to Central and South America. Poke around there......