Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

September 20, 2019 03:09PM
Boy 98 looks rough. I have often wondered how much savings there would be on restorations if locomotives were kept out of the elements. I remember seeing 493 and 499 inside the D&S roundhouse in Durango in 1994. I even got up in the cab of 493, and was recalling my days of seeing it live in 1968 (Last freight engine I saw going down the rails in 1968 on the D&RGW). I suppose all that time keeping it inside helped in the long run, despite the fact they had it in Silverton before the restoration began. I know years ago there was talk of a shed of some sort for storing the C&TS passenger coaches. I think more covered area for the locomotives is also a good idea, but also expensive. Maybe in the long run it saves money from rotting away rolling stock.
Greg
Subject Author Posted

Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Greg Scholl September 20, 2019 10:51AM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

evankamp September 20, 2019 11:01AM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Mike Stillwell September 20, 2019 11:15AM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

evankamp September 20, 2019 11:17AM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Mike Stillwell September 20, 2019 11:20AM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

drgwk37 September 20, 2019 11:27AM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

evankamp September 20, 2019 11:44AM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

drgwk37 September 20, 2019 11:48AM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

evankamp September 20, 2019 11:53AM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Joe Weigman September 20, 2019 12:03PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

cdaspit September 20, 2019 02:36PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483 Attachments

Jerry474 September 20, 2019 03:03PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Greg Scholl September 20, 2019 03:09PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483 Attachments

Joe Weigman September 22, 2019 12:04PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

drgwk37 September 22, 2019 04:24PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Kevin Cook November 12, 2019 02:26PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Will Gant September 25, 2019 09:22AM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

HRB November 12, 2019 02:10PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Sean Jackson November 12, 2019 05:17PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

jonaths November 12, 2019 06:19PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Carl T. Henderson November 12, 2019 09:07PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Dirk Ramsey November 12, 2019 09:11PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Joe Weigman November 13, 2019 01:33PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Earl September 22, 2019 08:42AM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

drgwk37 September 22, 2019 04:22PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Rob483 September 24, 2019 08:08PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Ryan Morris September 24, 2019 08:32PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483 Attachments

Jerry474 September 20, 2019 12:31PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Rick Steele September 20, 2019 01:07PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Greg Scholl September 20, 2019 01:13PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

Jerry474 September 20, 2019 01:17PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

guymonmd September 20, 2019 01:19PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

evankamp September 20, 2019 01:24PM

Re: Revisiting the trade for 478 for 483

cdaspit September 20, 2019 02:42PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login