Rod,
I don't disagree with you that a master plan should be in place before individual car decisions can be made. I would have to say this is currently evolving, and in a backwards sort of way, needing a decision for 54 will help force the issue.
I know a lot of folks here would love to see equipment for a "San Juan Replica" be available for occasional service. As you point out, it really can't be justified on a finanical basis. There are some that would say that money is better put to use rebuilding the track, or a 4th locomotive, or just about anything else. And that is true, except I believe there are resources that would help rebuild an original passenger car, that may not be available for rebuilding track. Plus there is a lot of passion for seeing some real passenger cars on the property even if they are strictly museum pieces.
And it would be foolish to expect this equipment wouldn't need special attention everytime it went on the road. The wood vs steel frame issues are a very important consideration. While I don't believe there is any formal rule, Earl will tell you that in his time, they didn't like wood framed cars in the train, and that hasn't changed.
The reason we picked these cars is relatively simple; the 053 has been under restoration for a number of years and it had been determined that at least one side sill needed replacement. The RPO was tenitively picked basically because it will be several orders of magnatude simpler to restore than one of the coach bodies that we have. We want to get experience on something relatively simple than to jump right into something like the 469 or 292. We don't have the experience to even begin to consider that. We hope someday we do.
Thanks for your comments. I really do want to have anybody even mildly interested in this subject understand our rational.
