michael Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kelly Anderson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > michael Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I hope they dont fully restore this engine.
> For
> > me
> > > there's a lot more important things than
> > restoring
> > > a show pony.
> > >
> > >
> > > I supported the 168 project and I've ridden
> > twice
> > > this year.
> >
> > So, then why do you support #168 being
> operable,
> > but not #223? Both are "show ponies" with no
> > practical employment in the day to day
> operation
> > of the C&TS.
>
> Kelly, I support #168:
> 1. It's great to have a single example in
> operation of 19th century railroading.
> 2. A lot of western movie makers want a 19th
> century locomotive for their movies.
> 3. It's cool to have and ride behind.
>
> I think one example operationally of a 19th
> century locomotive is a great way to be a living
> museum, but 'I' just feel that two is a somewhat
> irresponsible use of grant money that could go to
> other things. The foamer inside me goes "That
> would be so cool" but the pragmatist goes, "wait,
> why are we restoring another locomotive that is
> not operationally helpful when the operationally
> helpful engines are cosmetically neglected." Also,
> 494 and 495 at the entrances of the C&TSRR
> Antonito yard look horrible. If there isn't time
> or money to cosmetically restore them, then how is
> there money and time to restore 223?
You might need to talk to donors. In the case of 168, there were drives and solicitations specifically for the purpose, and I believe there were other donors who specifically contributed substantial sums to the restoration. As an interested Colorado Springs resident, I contributed specifically to the 168 fund.. If a critical mass of individuals choose to fund a specific cause, then the old saw, "you can't look a gift horse in the mouth" definitely applies...
