Re: RGS #20 frame

Rick,

I believe that you are "woefully misinformed" as to the reasons for my resonse to your post. If you actually read my original post I state the very thing you are saying. I may not want the diesels in the mix but I realize that it is necessary for the very reasons I give. I leave room that there could be other reasons for having a diesel but I am simply making a point that surely a primary reason for including a diesel is concern for failure. You made a very broad statement that previous posters, including myself, were wrong about the reason for the diesels to the exclusion of all other possibilities. You may have been referring only to the UP practices but that is not the way your post represented it and you did not allow that mechanical failure had anything to do with the reasons for a diesel in the train.

I do not intend to bite any hand that is feeding me and my opinion hardly matters to anyone at the UP anyway. I would have preffered the doubleheader but I was still happy with the show that Steve and the team put on with the awesome train that we had to ride. Surely, even you would admit that steam without a diesel would be better. Alas we do not live in the 1940's and we take what we can get even if we yearn for the day of yore.

Daniel