Kelly Anderson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> michael Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I hope they dont fully restore this engine. For
> me
> > there's a lot more important things than
> restoring
> > a show pony.
> >
> >
> > I supported the 168 project and I've ridden
> twice
> > this year.
>
> So, then why do you support #168 being operable,
> but not #223? Both are "show ponies" with no
> practical employment in the day to day operation
> of the C&TS.
Kelly, I support #168:
1. It's great to have a single example in operation of 19th century railroading.
2. A lot of western movie makers want a 19th century locomotive for their movies.
3. It's cool to have and ride behind.
I think one example operationally of a 19th century locomotive is a great way to be a living museum, but 'I' just feel that two is a somewhat irresponsible use of grant money that could go to other things. The foamer inside me goes "That would be so cool" but the pragmatist goes, "wait, why are we restoring another locomotive that is not operationally helpful when the operationally helpful engines are cosmetically neglected." Also, 494 and 495 at the entrances of the C&TSRR Antonito yard look horrible. If there isn't time or money to cosmetically restore them, then how is there money and time to restore 223?