Greg, I am compelled to disagree with you on this one! Constructive dialog on safeguarding historical collections from loss by fire can only facilitate preservation.
There was previous reference to intentionally set fires, and I have personally witnessed the results of vandalism to the C @ TSRR caboose received in the Chama yard. Nevertheless, the greatest risk of fire destruction to the Chama RR assets would result from the extreme fire conditions that are locally experienced on a frequent basis. How many other RR museum collections are regularly subject to single digit humidity readings and sustained winds in excess of 30 knts?
The Village of Chama has servicable fire pumpers and motivated volunteer firefighters, but it would certainly be presumptious to assume that
there would be sufficient personnel, fire hose and most importantly sustained water flow capability to
contain an aggressive fire in old wooden railroad
railroad assets under hostile conditions. Please remember that the history of all western railroad communities, including Chama, are replete with archives describing severe fire events.
Assume that there was a lightning strike tomorrow to the upper level of the coaling tower. How would you propose controlling a high elevation fire without placing firefighters/RR employees at unacceptable risk? Might be a long wait for the closest available ladder truck!
I agree with PRSL that some separation of the rolling stock would create not only firebrakes but also access to more easily advance fire hoses should a fire develop.
About 5 years ago, I authored a study regarding
fire protection for the RR. It is not exactly on point as it was styled in anticipation of being affixed as an annex for a federal grant application for funds that were readily available at the time. Copies of the paper should be floating somewhere around Chama
In the interim, consideration of catastrophic fire risks should be elevated to the same focus level as operational safety.
Just my 2 cents!
