Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: It's Not Just Another K-36

August 14, 2018 05:22PM avatar
Eddy Sand Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> #483 is not just another K-36. It SAVED THE
> RAILROAD and it's unfortunate that time has taken
> such a toll on the locomotive. Nobody wants to see
> it leave Chama.
>

To quote Greg Scholl [ngdiscussion.net]
Since 483 started as it was the only operational engine in 1970 and 484 started the 1971 season alone, and 483 was later operational that same year.

I just can't understand being emotive to assign fame to something that was the only thing serviceable and therefore available at the time, the startup C&TS may have been a year (or more) later had there been no operational locomotives sold as is where is, or the 483 flue-time was up one month after purchase?

Just think of the adulation the #19 would have today should that have been the only loco available at start-up smiling smiley

Sorry Eddy, but locomotives are just a block of steel with different numbers painted on the sides, only good when they actually do some work.
Subject Author Posted

Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

craig August 14, 2018 09:35AM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

cdaspit August 14, 2018 09:53AM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Ross Miller August 14, 2018 10:12AM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Tomstp August 14, 2018 10:17AM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Ross Miller August 14, 2018 10:24AM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Rich Murray August 14, 2018 11:41AM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

guymonmd August 14, 2018 12:09PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Popeye8762 August 14, 2018 12:26PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

drgwk37 August 14, 2018 12:31PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Ross Miller August 14, 2018 01:22PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Rich Murray August 14, 2018 01:33PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Volvoguy87 August 14, 2018 01:41PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Tomstp August 14, 2018 02:34PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Popeye8762 August 14, 2018 04:53PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168? Attachments

Chris Walker August 14, 2018 05:01PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168? Attachments

Jerry474 August 14, 2018 05:49PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Volvoguy87 August 15, 2018 09:32AM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Earl August 15, 2018 01:21PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

SR_Krause August 17, 2018 07:07AM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Chris Walker August 17, 2018 03:39PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

SR_Krause August 17, 2018 08:14PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

guymonmd August 15, 2018 11:06AM

It's Not Just Another K-36

Eddy Sand August 14, 2018 04:54PM

Re: It's Not Just Another K-36

Chris Walker August 14, 2018 05:22PM

Re: It's Not Just Another K-36

Eddy Sand August 15, 2018 09:04AM

Re: It's Not Just Another K-36

Chris Walker August 16, 2018 03:52AM

Seriously?

Kevin Cook August 16, 2018 12:27PM

Re: It's Not Just Another K-36

Volvoguy87 August 15, 2018 10:36AM

Re: It's Not Just Another K-36

Rich Murray August 15, 2018 11:18AM

Re: #483 - better Running in Durango than Rusting in Chama thumbs upthumbs up Attachments

Russo Loco August 16, 2018 01:11AM

Re: #483 - better Running in Durango than Rusting in Chama thumbs upthumbs up

Rich Murray August 16, 2018 07:26AM

Re: #483 - better Running in Durango than Rusting in Chama thumbs upthumbs up

cdaspit August 16, 2018 09:19AM

Re: #483 - better Running in Durango than Rusting in Chama thumbs upthumbs up

Will Gant August 16, 2018 09:53AM

Re: #483 - better Running in Durango than Rusting in Chama thumbs upthumbs up

hsuthe August 16, 2018 11:16AM

AMEN

Kevin Cook August 16, 2018 12:30PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

NGJunkie August 14, 2018 06:48PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Jerry474 August 14, 2018 06:51PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Earl August 14, 2018 06:00PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Tomstp August 14, 2018 08:08PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Will Gant August 14, 2018 10:43PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

JoeK August 15, 2018 07:59AM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Will Gant August 15, 2018 09:46AM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

jeffsmith August 15, 2018 10:17AM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

michael August 15, 2018 05:41PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Casey Akin August 15, 2018 10:55PM

Re: Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

Earl August 16, 2018 10:01PM

clarification on Can D&RGW 483 be the me too 168?

craig August 17, 2018 09:28AM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login