Hi,

Dave and I worked together on the GM 209 SG decapod restoring it. Me not much. Dave most of it. I was joking with him on a narrow gauge 2-10-0. I could see a Russian Decapod built for 5' gauge being regauged for 3' !!! Fall over (either laughing or locomotive).

However, half of the GM was built to narrow gauge standards (Gainesville to Jefferson).

In historical fact, D&RGW had looked into 2-8-8-2s. One plan was a K37 style 2-8-8-2 using parts of two class 113 locos (C28 SG 2-8-0)


The other 2-8-8-2 the D&RGW looked at was all new 2-8-8-2. The longer wheelbase was probably for the weight restrictions on Lobato and Cascade Creek steel viaducts.

The new 2-8-8-2 was rejected 7/8/27. K37's were the result of the decision.


The RGS looked at a 2-8-8-2 in 1930. Based on the notations such as "Grate Area 1.66 x K28" and "Cylinders, Drivers, Axle loads and spacing match to the rebuilt K27" and "BLW 2-8-8-2T Nat. Rys of Columbia" they seemed serious in looking at options. I think that by 1930 the RGS was in receivership and no longer under D&RGW control.


Recalling the Uintah 2-6-6-2T, the C&S looked into three 2-6-6-2s but instead opted for three ex-D&RGW 2-8-0s.

I can not find my notes, but I think EBT looked at a 2-6-6-2.

ET&WNC looked into a 2-6-6-2 in 1926.

So they were looking into bigger, but the Great Depression was more or less the killer for larger power.

With the sharp NG curves, I think the 10-coupled loco would have been too rigid for the 20 degree curves. Although never popular in the US, I think the lower axle loading and sharp curves of a Garrett might also have worked out .

Just fun speculation on kicking a dead horse. Anyone's idea is as valid as anyone elses.

Doug vV

First as your moderator... The thread is morphing... away from a approved locomotive swap and plans to failed locomotive swap to discussions of organizational culture and rail-fan knowledge... Now locomotive design... Acknowledging the shift, and noting changing the thread title is hard... such is the nature of discussions...

There is a known proposal for for mallets, similar to the Uintah locomotives, maintaining flexibility (the D&RGW had 24 degree curves) and axle loadings. But recognizing that the K36 (2-8-2) of 1930 was a pretty up to date locomotive... (this the "dead" loco to be traded to the D&S) while the K-28 coming to the C&T was a 1924 design... similar but lighter...

In the D&RGW system, the letter designates the wheel arraignment (K=Mikado or 2-8-2) while the number is the tractive effort... With a 4.5 % grade eastbound from Chama, tractive effort is an issue... so the K-28 will pull a couple less cars than the K-36...

The later K-37 mentioned in threads is a hybrid... a modern Baldwin frame using a 1902 boiler from a small standard gauge engine (along with other parts like tender shells and cabs and appliances) and while a bit larger have an old boiler which according to rumor may not be as well designed (lack of flexible stays is mentioned) but others would be better judges of that and if that is in fact an issue.

The other issue is how many locomotives are needed, and the inspection both annual and 1472 day and the work load... fans want more locos and more variety... and the C&TSRR "historic" mission might make that a goal, but the business mission may want to limit the number of locomotives kept operable due to costs of those inspections, and call for the larger K-36 as more standard (the railroad has 5 of that class, 4 in service) and more powerful...

Steam railroading is an art, a craft, but only occasionally a science...

Randy

Hi all

I think there are a couple of questions on the locomotive swap that need to be answered. The first thing that stuck me with the proposed swap was the history as I understood it of the 483. The first argument I heard was they wanted a San Juan Locomotive. Hmmm. I remember seeing photographs of 483 on the San Juan how is it not a locomotive assigned to the San Juan? The further question that this raised for me was the history of San Juan locomotive assignments truly understood? Consider this post on the narrow Gauge Discussion forum by Mr. Jimmy Blouch from March 31 2014..

http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php ... msg-262546

Thursday March 31 1949

ALAMOSA

Alamosa 7:00 AM clear, calm

Cumbres 7:10 AM clear, calm, 2” new snow, 65” on ground

Chama 7:00 AM clear, calm, 5” old snow

Durango clear, calm

No. 215 with engine 483, at Chama trade for engine 476
Conductor Edmisten
Engineer Holly (to Chama)
Engineer Dieckman (from Chama)

Depart Alamosa 7:00 AM with 4 cars
66
163
325
Alamosa
Arrive Cumbres 10:28 AN
Depart Cumbres 10:32 AM
Arrive Chama 11:15 AM, change engines
Depart Chama 11:20 AM
Arrive Gato 1:15 PM
Depart Gato 1:21 PM
Arrive Durango 4:05 PM with 4 cars

No. 216 with engine 478, at Chama trade for engine 482
Conductor Hines
Engineer Peterson (to Chama)
Engineer Holly (from Chama)

Depart Durango 11:15 AM with 4 cars
65
169
310
Chama
Arrive Gato 1:49 PM
Depart Gato 1:54 PM
Arrive Chama 4:00 PM, change engines
Depart Chama 4:05 PM
Arrive Cumbres 5:00 PM
Depart Cumbres 5:03 PM
Arrive Alamosa 8:30 PM with 4 cars

On this date in 1949 you have two k-36 and two k-28 involved in moving the San Juan At other times of the year you see the K-28 running the entire run. Due to issues on the territory the C&TS covers today the Rio Grande would assign K-36's including the 483 in passenger service. So how did the argument that the 483 was not a San Juan locomotive even be uttered? Is it arrogance, ignorance. or stupidity from some cause that causes such a statement? What is the history and what role did the 478 and the 483 play on Cumbres Pass and the Silverton branch? If you look at most K-28 assignments they worked branch and passenger assignments. By the 1950's the locomotives were primarily used on the Silverton Branch. The K-36 primarily worked freight for the Grande. Most of the movements on the Grande were not passenger but freight. 483 operated on some of the last trains over Marshall Pass, the Monarch Branch before it was standard gauge, and was involved in many of the last moves over Cumbres Pass in 1968. 483 worked the last WB freight from Alamosa to Farmington, Worked the National Park Service Special and helped the last movement over Cumbres Pass of the Rio Grande to Chama and then ran light back to Alamosa. Why is this history being ignored in this discussion?

I then considered the young New Mexico Attorney General who attended C&TS Commission meetings in the early 2000 that at times was difficult to deal with. While educated, the individual did not understand the complexities of the commission legal position. He kept looking at the law from his understanding of New Mexico law. The problem is the commission is not under either Colorado or New Mexico law. The C&TS commission is formed by an interstate compact and approved by act of the US Congress. It takes a true study of the documents to understand how the C&TS is suppose to work and what the commission can do.

But I was missing something or at least not seeing it. It struck me that what I may be seeing is ignorance caused by bias of some cause. what is the cause? I started with model railroading in my interest in trains. My education came from books friends magazines and other sources. Each with a bias. I used to think that certain locomotives were passenger and certain were freight and mix trains. As I study more certain "facts" were challenged. I find myself learning that railroading does not use one book for all situations. Often it seems to me to be a analysis adjust and adapt environment to overcome obsticals. This why the Bisbee AZ paper talks about EP & SW #1 being assigned to a one car passenger train at the end of its career with the newest passenger car on the property. How many people model an 1857 4-4-0 pulling a 1900 era passenger car?

So what are the lessons here? So why the outcome and change of position by the New Mexico Commissioners? What was both said and not said and what was considered when the swap was proposed. Was the individual artifact history research or considered? Is there something that makes one more important to one property over another. Both the D&S and the C&TS are National historic Landmarks How would a locomotive swap affect the such a status?

The bigger issues for me from a preservation standpoint is when we make decisions on preserving different artifacts are we making decisions based upon emotion, personal bias, possible revenue potential, what neat photo we can take next, historical information based upon research, or a combination of all of these items? For me when I take on the responsibility of working on a preservation project I have to work to put the emotional aside and work to stay as close to historical accuracy as I can. To accomplish this I need not only an artifact but a true unbiased history. That means time in an archive study records and documents. Putting a story together about its past. It is important to understand the history of company and what resources and management styles were present in making decisions. The EP & SW out performed the SP and AT&SF because the EP & SW management understood the mining needs of the Southwest better than the AT&SF or the SP due to the differences in management. That created its own history that a locomotive like SP 3420 can tell because of its unique history. But you only see a glimpse of that history when looking a driving boxes or pilot beam stamping. It takes doing a diverse research to find the entire story. Even then that history can be cluoded by the writings of those with little knowledge and large distances from the subject matter. The evils of such have shown up with SP 3420 several times from a prolific foreign SP historian who did not get off the Sunset passenger train bto see 3420 because he considered it a common as dirt Harriman 2-8-0 which none of the EP & SW locomotives were Harriman standards in spite of writings. Just last night I found a reference to SP 3420 on a Facebook page that SP 3420 was built for the EP & SW when in fact it was actually built for the El Paso & Northeastern railroad The misinformation out there continues to spread because of many causes. How we overcome and present our selves is important. Because if too many do not consider the history of the history entrusted to us, what will the next generation actually know about the true history of our properties and what we are trying to preserve? .
Robby Peartree

As far as the locomotive changes made at the top of your post, it was not uncommon to swap smaller engines (K28's) for bigger engines (K-36 and K-37'S) at Chama during the winter months. The bigger engines when equipped with pilot plows were better insurance for getting over the road when the weather was bad.

The very last run of the San Juan occurred during a bad storm and had 488 heading west, 484 heading east. At Chama, 488 was cut off the westbound and 478 took its place. When 484 arrived in Chama with the eastbound, 488 was put on the point as helper all the way to Alamosa.

As far as "San Juan Engines" go, 483, 484, 488 & 489 were all set up with steam heat and signal lines for passenger work. Other K36's equipped for passenger duty included 482 and 485. 480, 481, 486 & 487 were never set up for passenger work.

As for the K-37's only 493, 499 and one other (494?) were set up for passenger work.

We just had someone provide the 1915 Baldwin 2-10-2 proposal for EBT in the thread about the Rio Turbio restoration...

Hi All

To Expand on Earl's post, I did a search of old post on the Narrow Gauge Discussion Forum. Here are the post that are relevant to the discussion of what K-36 and K-37 were set up for the modern passenger service and when. The push for a "historic San Juan" is interesting considering that the same AFE (authority for Expenditure) that allowed the air signal and steam heat changes to nine of the the K-28 except 474 to steam heat and air signals also did three K-36 and three k-37. The K-36's were apparently done in two groups with 483 being in the first group. Based upon the AFE the 483 is as genuine a modernized San Juan Locomotive as any. The history here is interesting with the move to equip 6 of the larger 2-8-2's when the entire K-28 class of locomotives were still on the property. Given the reduction of the Shavano one would have assumed that nine locomotives (3 k-28 after the government acquisition for the White Pass & Yukon, 3 K-36, and 3 K-37) could have covered the San Juan but the Rio Grande decided to equip 3 more locomotives in the summer of 45. That would be an interesting discussion of locomotive assignments and availability. The greater issue to me is why the concept that a K-28 is critical to having an authentic San Juan came about. What am I missing in the historically correct railroading book?
So what is historically accurate? Is it found in the paper work in an archive, is it in a single picture from a single day, is it the embellished story that one want to tell no matter the lack of historical facts, what is history and what are we preserving? While this is just a sampling of the AFE notice in the list of AFE the type of work that they were doing and improvements that were made. On a locomotive like 494 it received steam heat and air lines in 7-10-37 but did not receive a dog house until 12-31-38. The reasons why one locomotive received certain changes and others did not can be many and varied. But by documenting these and other changes we begin to see that each machine even in a complete class as the K-36 and K-37 classes on the Rio Grande narrow gauge equipment. I have found similar type of behavior with the EP & SW.

Robby Peartree

K-37 AFE

AFE 5145 11-30-33 Apply Brakemans Cabin on tender of loco #490, cost $106.09.
AFE 5183 12-31-34 Apply Brakemans Cabins on
tender's, of loco #491, cost $119.90.& 496's cost $114.42.
AFE 5355 6-30-55 Apply brakemans Cabins on the tenders of Locos:492-$89.47 & 498-$116.59.
AFE 5643 5-31-36 Apply Brakemans Cabin on the tender of #499 $127.51.
AFE 5699 12-31-36 Apply Brakemans Cabin on the tender of #495 $110.00.
AFE 6077 7-10-37 Apply Steam Heating and Air Signal Equipment on Locomotives: 493,494,499,
Cost each was $239.78.
AFE 6302 12-31-37 Apply Brakemans Cabin on the tenders of locos #493, $115.61 & #497 $115.60.
AFE T-6664 12-31-38 Apply Brakemans Cabin on the tender of #494 $138.47.
AFE T-7103 6-30-38 Apply Priest Flanger on #499
$164.67.
AFE 7268 6-30-39 Construct and apply prist flanger on locos #'s 497 & 498, cost each $191.75.
AFE T-7248 12-31-39 Apply Cab heaters to loco's
490,491,& 492, cost each was $43.08.
AFE T-7537 12-31-39 Replace 26" cast iron tender wheels, 625# wheel, with 26" rolled steel wheels,1922.5# wheel. on loco's-490,493,494,497,498,&499, cost each tender was $222.78......................................
More to follow.

http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php ... #msg-11233

John Templeton June 29, 2001 12:37PM
Thanks to William for pointing out an error on the K-37,notes-part-2,.......
The correct date for AFE #5355 should read 6-30-35, not 1955 as shown in the posting,
Therefore 492 & 498 got their doghouses in '35.
I will lay the blame for that misscue totality on the computer, far be-it for me to err.............

K-36 AFE

John Templeton-Chama Station Agent May 26, 2003 10:20AM
AFE# 6077 7-10-1937 Apply Steam Heating equipment & Air Signal equipment. 3 units $719.34
#482 $239.78, #483 $239.78, #489 $239.78.
AFE# 6302 12-31-1937 Apply Breakmans Cabin on tenders. 2 units $235.12
#482 $117.56, #483 $117.56.
AFE# T6664 12-31-1938 Apply Breakmans Cabin on tenders. 2 units $402.62.
#485 $201.31 #487 $201.31.
AFE# 7248 12-31-1939 Apply cab heaters.
5 units $215.35.
#480 $43.07, #482 $43.07, #483 $43.07,
#485 $43.07, #486 $43.07.

http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php ... #msg-31641


John Templeton-Chama Station Agent June 08, 2003 04:58PM
AFE# 8705 8-31-1941 Apply Cyclone Front Ends, 2 units $1082.38, #480 $412.19, #489 $412.19.
AFE# 9150 10-31-1942 Apply Cyclone Front Ends, 3 units $1625.22, #'s 481-487-488 $412.74 each.
AFE# 10381 6-30-1945 Apply Steam Heat & Air Siginal Equipment 3 units $890.26.
#'s 484 & 485 $296.75 each, # 488 $296.76.
AFE# 3809 12-1955 Retire Locomotive # 485.
Cost to date $29,128.54.
AFE# 6007 12-1967 Retire Locomotive # 486.
Cost to date $28,753.03.
AFE# 7575 12-31-1970 Retire Locomotives(7 units):
480 $28,834.96, 482 $29,302.10, 483 $29,302.09,
484 $29,000.83, 487 $28,942.75, 488 $28,985.99,
489 $29,021.87.
AFE# 8975 1981 Retire Locomotive #481.
End of reports on the K-36's..........

http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php ... #msg-32061

K-28 AFE

http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php ... #msg-26117


John Templeton December 17, 2002 11:00AM
Owner: D&RGWRR
Series Nos: 470-479
Carrier Class: K-28-148
Kind: 2-8-2
Service: Freight
Gauge: 3'0"
Builder: American Loco. Co.
Date In Service: Oct. 1923
Original cost of group $342,622.13
Original cost each $34,262.21
New, SH or Rebuilt: New
Light Wt. as built per unit: 89 tons
Light weight Engine 136,700lbs.
Light weight tender 40,800lbs
Total.177,500 lbs.-88.7 tons
Cylinder size: 18" x 22"
Steam: Superheated
AFE #887 11-30-23 Purchase new from American Loco Co. 10 units $342,622.13
AFE #2056 1-30-25 Make and apply Prist Snow Flanger to Engines. Per engine 802# cast steel bumper spacer; 126# cast iron indicator arm and lifter shaft bearings, 1196# mild steel indicator bracket and rod, air cylinder bracket, lifter shaft arm and crank, lifter rod and holding catch?, blades, backing plates and brace, beam, guide yoke, ties and angle iron, misc. lot rivets, bolts, pins & cotters and 8" x 12" brake cylinder complete to engines 470,472 & 477 $755.34 Cost each $251.78
AFE #2156 12-31-25 Apply 2 arch tubes 3 1/2" OD x 77 1/2" long finished.
2 pcs. brick F-7 American Arch Co.
6 pcs. brick C-40 American Arch Co.
2 pcs. brick S-60 American Brick Co.
4 psc. brick S-80 American Arch Co.
4 Brass arch tube plugs 5# each finished.
To engines 470,472,473,475,477,479- $394.14, cost each $65.69
AFE #2660 6-30-26 Same as above, to engines 471,474,476,478 $262.76, cost each $65.69
AFE #3950 12-1928 Apply cab curtains to locos 470-479, consists of building up tenders with steel, hood curtain, and replace side curtain $479.95.cost each $38.90.
AFE #6077 7-10-37 Apply steam heat equipment and air signal equipment to locos: 470,471,472,473,475,476,477,478,479. $2158.02, cost each $ 239.78.
AFE #7022 12-31-1938 Apply Brakemans cabin on tender, loco 474 $147.27.
AFE #7248 12-31-1939 Apply cab heaters on locos 470,475,477 Cost each $ 43.08.
AFE #7249 12-31-1939 Apply Brakemans cabin on tenders of locomotives 472-475-476-477-479 $711.40
cost each $142.28
AFE #T-7850 6-30-1940 Apply pilot plows-D&RGW made to locos 471,473 $435.16, cost each $217.58.
AFE #T-8019 12-31-1940 Apply cab heaters on locos 471,472,473,474,478,479, $260.70, cost each $43.45.
AFE #T-8020 12-31-1940 Apply Brakemans cabin on tenders, locos 470,473,478, $406.95, cost each $135.65.
AFE #T-8326 12-31-1940 Equip engine trucks with automatic air brakes, conductors valve W.A.B. # 51479, engines 470-479 $227.09 cost each $22.71.
AFE #8655 12-31-41 Apply rolled steel wheels to tenders, locos 470-479 $3159.00, cost each $216.90.
AFE #8635 12-31-41 Const. Brakemans cabin on tender loco 472 $142.77.
AFE #9634 12-31-42 Apply pilot plow #478 $540.25.
AFE #9676 (1942 Sup.) 12-31-1942 Retire-7 Requisitioned by US War Dept. Book Value $245,954.40.
AFE #8975 1981 Retire remaning 4-1981

I think the focus on the "San Juan" is misleading. What really is in the minds of those supporting this exchange, is the opportunity to see a class of locomotive on the C&TS that has not been seen since 1968. Had this exchange occurred, the C&TS would have had a sample of all the modern classes of D&RGW power, a complete exhibit. It would have had value from an educational and interpretative point of view.

Now, I believe this will not happen, and many of those who wished to see this will not see it in their lifetime. We are all getting older, and for some, dreams have a finite window of years of opportunity.

For a variety of documented, practical reasons, the 483 will not be returned to service in this same lifetime. Even if it were returned to service, it would not provide any substantially different experience at C&TS than what is available today.

So, an opportunity for a life experience has been lost, and there is no evidence of any alternative benefit.

I don't think this was ever really about recreating the "San Juan". That probably started as a poor description of the image the advocates had. It is of course about recreating the image of a K28 at Cumbres.

Hi,

I fully agree.

Cumbres and Toltc Scenic Railroad: The Historic Preservation Study which documented the railroad in about 1980 specifically addressed the need to get a K28 for historical reasons if one ever became available.

Sadly, this is kicking the dead horse. Have fun.

Doug vV

Many years ago I sat in a house of one of the original volunteers on the railroad looking at a photograph of 476 on cascade trestle. From Rio Grands Narrow Gauge-The Final Years Alamosa to Chama authors Joseph P. Hereford, Jr. and Ernest W. Robart, I thought it was Ernie's photograph instead I found out it was my host photo as he was standing next to Ernie when the photo was taken. Both the photos are impressive and I am glad they recorded the event But I am also glad they and other pushed to save part of the narrow gauge line so we could have it today.

The Historic Preservation Study does not state ignore the historic value of the collection that is already there to get a k-28. The fact is after the Rio Grande ended the San Juan the K-28 went to Alamosa only for shop work. The Silverton line and the requirement that the Rio Grande not abandon it by the ICC is the reason that the K-28 even exists today. In the end of the narrow gauge movements the K-28 handled one move to get them to the Silverton line. It was the 483, 484,493, and 498 that handled most of the freight movements during of the last year. 483 worked the last freight from Alamosa to Famington as the 498 went to Alamosa in that set of moves The 483 handled the the last passenger special for the National Park Service. And 483 was the last Rio Grande locomotive to operate over Cumbres Pass. These were not insignificant events. The effort to preserve the C&TS was equally significant. A group of diverse and dedicated people came together to preserve what we know now as the C&TS. There efforts allowed the C&TS to even exists. 483 was the locomotive involved with those equipment moves that started the preservation movement. The rio Grande expected to have a mess at Antonito with the second delivery of equipment. Instead the volunteers succeeded in getting the first delivery out of the way. It is true every locomotive was involved in some historic event on the railroad but the 483 was involved with many events on the Cumbres line and to trade that representation of history because the railroad needs to get a K_28 to have one of each raises questions about what is the railroad preserving.

John Bush states in the announcement of the locomotive swap the following “The mission of the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad has always been to preserve the history and heritage of railroading in the West, and this engine swap will accomplish that by giving us a K-28 locomotive, which we currently do not have,” Lets look at this statement. If the C&TS is "preserving railroading in the West" then I ask you how many k-28 did the SP,UP, AT&SF or any other western railroad own beside the Rio Grande? If this is so why isn't there a Harriman type of locomotive on display. Where is the standard gauge preservation? The answer is the C&TS was set up to help preserve the Rio Grande Narrow Gauge. Emotion and a lack of objective thinking has gotten into this trade that would in this case do more harm than good for the C&TS. A destructive force in preservation is emotion. We are all passionate about railroading but it is imperative that those emotions do not blur what is historic. That is why I am stressing that the history of the Cumbres line. The K-28 class locomotives had a role on the Rio Grande narrow gauge operations but they had a limited involvement with operations over Cumbres Pass. The K-36 and K-37 did the work of lifting most of the heavy loads over Cumbres and other steep grades of the narrow gauge. And when the weather was bad or the train unusually large the K-36 and K-37 were used to get it over the pass.


One thing I understand that may not be openly public is that there is a push to create a "historic San Juan" for the C&TS. The efforts to get the baggage car is a part of that. This desire for such a consists weather truly historic or not could be clouding judgement. I still contend that in the years of passenger operations on the narrow gauge the passenger cars have gotten heavier in rebuilds causing the locomotives to be less effective at generating revenue. But whose fault is that, the locomotive or those designing and building or rebuilding the cars today? Revenue come from being able to bring in more money than cost going out. While the 483 is just a shell that shell has 8000 lbs more tractive effort potential than the K-28 and that equates to two more cars currently. That is a lot more buts in seats potential for fewer costs. And remember if you have a typical San Juan Consist of RPO, baggage coach and parlor car (i wonder where they want a get a historic parlor car) you have two cars without revenue production capacity in today's environment.

Robby Peartree

Well, this thread has gone off into a lot of different directions and ended up going nowhere. CATS is first and foremost an economic development project, which just happens to use heritage tourism as the means of accomplishing that. We should all be thankful that preserving a historic railroad was the way in which they chose to build the local economy, and understand that they can just as easily choose another if this proves to grow cumbersome and inefficient. The fact that they are running steam locomotives that are historically original to the railroad at all and seek to maintain the context is a plus for us, but irrelevant to the tourists they appeal to for their business - any choo choo would do fine for them. If they are doing so well that they can afford to pursue the luxury of trying to recreate a specific historic event, such as a specific consist with specific power, great - but it's not going to matter to anybody but railfans in the greater scope of tourism, and we will show up anyhow and make sure we tell them what they are doing wrong. Maybe we'll spend some money while we're there taking pictures.

This isn't happening now and it's still a great historic railroad, and if it happens or doesn't in the future, it's still great. Let them work things out as works best for their purposes - they know their situation better than we do.

Dear Dave

One of the most historic locomotives in the nation EP&SW #1 sits in a building where the Mass Transit authority recently wanted to put in a coffee shop without protecting the locomotive from vandalism in spite of the efforts of Mr. Conrad and the others in its restoration.. The reason the space it holds was not making money. While EP&SW #1 was sitting on the UTEP campus I had university leadership lie to me and a donor to their library about the university wanting to move the locomotive off of the campus. That was easy to see past them as the questions they asked the donor to the library was how did #1 get to the campus, it weight, how would you move it out. The citizens of Texas should be upset by what the expert leadership has done but ignorance is bliss until you get only good fertilizer for the lies to grow.

I sat in a commission meeting in 2003 and watched the then president of the Friends of the C&TS try to convince the C&TS commission that none of the applicants for a position that the Friends and commission were advertising were qualified except the operator to the railroad that needed money to pay outstanding debt so loan co signatures could get off the hock. The operator got it and assigned it to one of the "unqualified applicants". It took the reporter from the Pueblo Chieftain to break up the private meeting. The C&TS was moving quickly on this locomotive swap. Sources in Chama and connected to the management of the railroad were as confused about the details as those at a distance. It is absolutely frustrating that publically owned agencies entrusted with public property do not do even engage the public in the process. In most cases there is an announcement and discussion before the decision. The speed that this happened at it took those opposed to time to first find out what was going on and then respond to it.

There are great areas of ignorance when it comes to how the different tourist railroads and different museums are set up managed and interact with their local environment. While both the D&S and the C&TS are national historic landmarks. While the D&S is privately owned places like the C&TS, the NN, many state railroad museums and individual displays are publically owned. In the end the different organizations answer to different types of organizations based upon how each is set up. But the bigger picture is what lead to this sudden and fast paced decision? Was it their reading of a 35 year old Historic Preservation Study that was written in a different time and has not been updated? Is it a lack of understanding of the history of the San Juan extension? Why is it that the C&TS commissioner apologized for the mess.

A lifetime member of a museum recently told me how he lamented that the only things he gets out of their newsletter is when the next special event they are having and how he can attend the wine tasting or Thomas event. The news letter talks about the properties involvement in the local social world but the museum enjoys lifetime members without ties to the area. If we are not true to our goals and the ones we answer to how does the preservation movement survive. It is also important for people to question what is going on to make sure that the best of any organization is meet.

Robby