rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Roger Hogan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have said it before and I will say it again.
> "I
> > think they have picked the best spot that is
> > available.
>
> I think we are having a severe failure to
> communicate here and it is my opinion that this
> “disconnect” is of the Friends making due to their
> desire to build this RVC to fulfill their mission.
> How can you or anyone else declare the North Yard
> location is the best spot for the RVC unless all
> the locations are analyzed based on some objective
> criteria. No where in Nan’s responses and my
> requests have the site locations or selection
> criteria been quantified. That seems like a
> pretty basic request that should have been
> addressed long ago.
From being at the commission meetings I know the commission has walked the entire yard with friends members more that once and they have had meetings with the stakeholders "facilitated by Santa Fe Museum planner and exhibit designer, Andrew Merriell and his associate Jennifer Atkins. The information about this meeting is available at Stakeholders meeting
> > 1. This area has always been neglected and as
> long
> > as money is a problem that will continue. This
> > might be the only chance that the area won't
> look
> > like a dump.
> >
>
> What are you talking about the North yard looking
> like a dump? I posted pictures from last week that
> don’t look dumpy to me. If it is a dumping ground
> it is because the Friends choose to have it like
> that. I see the tarped passenger car 0452 and some
> telegraph poles that John Cole’s crew will be
> installing soon; I hardly think this constitutes a
> dump. Yes the coal pile is in this area but it
> should be relocated anyway to an area across the
> tracks.
OK we can agree to disagree, in my opinion this area has been neglicted and it looks like a DUMP
> > 2. I think the location will be a big help to
> the
> > downtown area.
>
> How is the North yard area a better location than
> adjacent to Narrow Gauge gifts which puts the RVC
> right in the center of the business district?
A couple of reasons - First that land is not for sale. 2nd a lot of difference in cost when you don't have to buy the land
> > 3. If you read the E-mail answers Nan wrote you
> > will see they have done a lot of research and
> > asked the opinion of many.
> >
> > Link to the thread that has Nan's E-mail
> answers
> > to folks that contacted her about the site
> > location and about why it is being done. The
> 2nd
> > E-mail is below this one.
> >
> >
> [
www.goatbbs.com]
>
> > b.cgi/read/56578#56578
>
> Still doesn’t give any site selection
> rationale...
One more time we disagree - " The experts (architects, park service personnel and museum planners) tell us the RVC will only succeed if it is located near (or even in) the center of the action. Visitors want to be in the middle of all the activity—not at some location down the street. Even an additional block away is too far. The goal is to permit visitors to interact with the real railroad even while they are inside the facility. There is a delicate balance between being a part of a historic experience and interfering with it. And I think it is important to note that presently the North end of the Chama yard is not only being ignored—it is being abused. How long has it been since people have stepped foot into the log bunkhouse or the old car body that served as a dormitory for RR workers? The north end has become a dumping ground for large items with no place else to go, overgrown by weeds and a general eyesore."
> > 4. Great spot for museum visitors to see
> > demonstrations.
>
> Demonstrations of what? The coaling tower is non
> functional as is the sanding tower with no plans
> that I have heard of to put them back in service.
> The argument that this is where all the action
> takes place is somewhat time related. Will the RVC
> even be open during the early morning and evening
> when engines are most likely to be hostled and
> serviced? As someone else pointed out building a
> wooden deck along the Terrace Ave. sidewalk near
> 3rd Avenue accomplishes the same viewing
> opportunities that the RVC structure would afford
> at a fraction of the cost.
What has been discussed at the commission meetings are things like the Jorden Spreaded & Pile Driver. Outside on a wooden deck or a choice of inside or outside I would choose the choice.
> > The thinking NO WAY NOT ANYTHING NEW OR
> DIFFERENT
> > I believe would of caused the railroad to be
> shut
> > down a long time ago.
> >
> > A quote from one of Nan's E-mails "wheel-chair
> > accessible coaches, fairly recent modern
> > restrooms, a newer machine shop, coaches
> painted
> > red, the leasing of cabooses, the addition of
> the
> > Cinder Bear train and a shorter Sunday train
> only
> > mkaing the Cumbres turn, and finally, the
> notion
> > of a Railroad Visitor's Center. I believe this
> > makes a lot of sense, to progress and grow or
> at
> > least stay alive some change is a must.
> >
> > Just my opinion no more no less.
>
> The issue isn’t to impede the interpretation of
> the RR to visitors; the issue is to be sensitive
> to maintaining the historic look and feel of the
> railroad by not continually “improving” the site
> by making changes. Locations that don’t impact the
> historic views to the point the yard loses its
> historic character are available options. The
> cumulative impact of all the changes is to end up
> with just another non historic tourist RR that
> kills the charm of what Chama once had.
>
> Rod Jensen
Once again we disagree, I believe the changes I mentioned are good ones and I feel the same way about the Visitors Center. I remember there were folks having heartburn about the Chama downtown project and it has proven to be good for downtown and I don't believe has hurt the railroad.
