Re: 463 and others

"463 has been doing a good job at pitching in with the 480's and 497 even though she can haul about 4 cars less from Chama to Cumbres."
A slight correction. 463 is good for 183 tons vs. 230 for a K36, a 47-ton difference (two cars less, not four).
"I was thinking that the east side with it's 1.42% grade might allow smaller power run regularly on the C&TS for a season or two and make a profit . . If a smaller loco would be based in Antonito (asside from the problems of servicing), would she really be able to operate at a profit on a regular basis Antonito to Osier? . . . I guess it boils down to what the typical tonnage of a westbound is and what the tonnage charts show for the smaller power."
There's an assumption here that a smaller loco is cheaper to operate on a daily basis. If it is, the difference is almost negligible. The only place I see saving money is possibly on the coal bill; we wouldn't pay our crews less because they were on a smaller engine, for instance. Since fuel is a very small part of the overall budget (2-3% for the C&TS), the impact on the bottom line would be hard to spot.
The key to profitability is not in cutting costs - it's in growing ridership. There is a minimum below which you can't sink - the daily payroll of ticket agents, car cleaners, track workers, shop employees, electricity and telephone bills, insurance, copier toner, etc., will still cost the same if you operate a smaller locomotive. The incremental cost of a helper pales in comparison to the daily rate of our payroll.
So rather than looking for cheaper motive power, we'll work on finding derrieres to fill all the empty seats. Once we are there, we can afford to bring in special locomotives and operate them whether they lower (or more likely raise) our costs or not.
JAC