Earl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Casey Akin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Unfortunately, I think the largest problem for
> > this trade is the fact that 483 was involved.
> If
> > it were any other K-36 up for trade, there
> > wouldn't be nearly as much resistance.
> >
> > One thing to think about counter to this point,
> I
> > believe all other K-36's have run for the C&TS
> > longer than the 483 did. This could be argued
> that
> > it gives all other engines more reason to stay.
> > Everyday we live goes down in history, not just
> > the first and last. However, sometimes those
> are
> > the days that seem to matter the most...
> >
> > I for one was excited about the trade. The
> chance
> > to see 483 run once more (first for me anyway),
> > and the chance to see a K-28 in Chama again.
> Who
> > knows what the future will bring! As previously
> > stated, we have an operational K-37, with a
> second
> > on the way. All K class engines have a running
> > example, and with 493, all K classes will have
> two
> > running examples!!! Not to forget,
two
> > three C-19's a C-18, and a T-12 (soon). You get
> 42
> > and 278 running, and all remaining D&RGW
> classes
> > will be operational!!! (Okay, pipe dream I
> know,
> > but I can wish)
> >
> > I know 42 was already converted to oil, maybe
> the
> > D&S could revisit this possibility when 493 is
> > done. Of course I understand the size
> difference,
> > her limits, and also the costs. If it were
> > marketed right, it could bring some
> revenue.....
> > Maybe presidential trains, or special RGS
> trains,
> > or other special trains that don't require 10
> > cars. When is the last time an RGS freight was
> > pulled by an actual (second hand) RGS engine!!!
> >
> > I've got my blind fold on...
> > Ready, Aim, Fire!!!
> >
> > Casey
>
> All this hand wringing and pontificating about 483
> could have been taken care of in 1991 if the D&S
> had decided that 483 was a better candidate for
> overhaul than 482. They had choice of either
> locomotive. They chose 482 because the boiler had
> a decent rear tube sheet. 483 needed a new one.
> Part of the trade agreement was 483 would be
> stripped of any parts that were missing from 482.
> So, the missing parts from 483, which are unique
> to a K-36, no longer exist in Chama.
That's not necessarily true. The parts are in Chama. I've seen them this past summer during a Friends work session. However since parts are interchangeable, could be off various k36s. Since it's a hodgepodge, a lot of work making 483's running gear run right.
Everyone needs to keep something in mind, C&T only runs one train out of Antonito and another out of Chama. Occasionally a double header out of Chama. 463 with a helper out of Chama can pull a full 9 car train up the hill and return out of Antonito with no help. Same if a k28 were here. This is a different business model than the D&S. Self sufficiency is the goal and not a huge profit. Also, being publicly owned, the C&T has more museum aspect. So that's why a K28 makes sense here.
