Randy Hees Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remembering that the C&T is not just a train, but is also has a role as a historic preservation
organization.... The railroad received three former RPO cars.... All converted to work
service. One has been restored as an RPO, one as a work car, and the third is being restored as a
ADA/concession car. In this way the railroad is able to tell two stories (RPO and work car) and
use one for operations.
I need to split hairs here as this is not quite accurate. Passenger car 53 is a Baggage/ RPO and I believe the only surviving example of a short Baggage/ RPO that would be more representative of use both on the San Juan Express and on various branch lines i.e. the Santa Fe Branch, plus it also was used on the RGS vs RPO #54 & #65.
Therefore I would posit that #53 would be more “typical” in a photo recreation consist for future excursions with the other open platform cars in the C&TS Historic fleet. I also think that #53 and a coach or two would be very believable in a mixed train consist or as a standalone chase train. By reinstalling the baggage doors and adding an end door in the baggage end (all permissible by Dept. of Interior Standards for reuse adaptation) the #53 will be more functional (end platforms for loading and access from either end than #65 and it also could have the ADA interior adaptations applied. Operationally from a weight standpoint utilizing #65 vs #53 will likely decrease the capacity of any EB train by one coach which could be significant given #168s pulling power.
Therefore leave the #65 in MOW use (and avoid having to build another set of trucks) to tell the story of this use without duplicating the RPO story that is told by the already restored #54.
I understand that there is much Friends history in the #053 restoration over the years that Bill Kepner details and assuming that whatever sill issues could be remedied given time and money. #53 is just too important and relevant piece of the Historic fleet to be relegated to a static display or only used at best once a year in a snow train as MOW #053.
Honestly I don’t expect that the powers to be (RR/ Commission/ Friends) will change course and rethink the use and restoration plan but since the original #65 restoration plan as submitted to History Colorado was not selected for funding maybe it is time for some rethinking.
Rod Jensen