Re: Where are you getting your information???

Greg is correct in his summation. The only way the powers at the top could be moved to do something was the threat of the whole thing blowing up in their face. The pendulum started to swing in the opposite direction when money started flooding from heaven. A basic maintenance program finally was re-implemented and the difficult task of putting all the equipment back to usable condition has been under way.
The pendulum is swinging in the opposite direction now and if not watched will swing to far in the opposite direction creating another set of problems called Pork Barrel spending. Don’t get me wrong. If I had it my way government spending programs would all be limited except with respect to the C&TS. And the C&TS would have a fat bottom line. I am not going to get it my way nor is everyone else on this issue.
I see a not to distant future when social security go’s belly up and a large number of people that have not created a means for retirement are going to feel the crunch. As always programs will be implemented that help with this. But they require federal money. The fight for federal funding is going to be more difficult as time go’s on. It is in the best interest of all here to recognize that the railroad must hold the line and plan and spend in a logical manor.
I certainly hope that ticket money is not supporting the monthly costs of maintaining the two extra shops added to Antonito and now to Chama. I also feel that all money spent for benefit of the railroad should be consolidated to one program rather than all the little splinter programs i.e. the need for all the extra buildings.
The railroad is now run by more of a biad than a triad so there should be less blood drawn to make things happen. The current plans for 4 shop facilities that are not capable of supporting 5 or 6 locomotive on a long term basis doesn’t sit well with me. I know and except that my plan that was raised in 1997 is not accepted as viable. It did include financial responsibility and it did cover streamlining the maintenance program for 5 or 6 engines. It did not pass the don’t change any thing in the yard at all cost test.
Dose anyone know something that I haven’t raised here that will give the railroad firm ground to stand on in the next ten years? Are we going to create a plan that addresses known needs ten years from now, when the next bunch has egg on their face? Do you feel that I am wrongfully submitting that the current shop is inadequate to efficiently maintain more than 4 engines?
Dose anyone care enough to engage in spirited discussion?
I can be told that I am wrong and I will except it as long as the facts show I am wrong.
Please make me apologize for not understanding the complexities of the railroad.
I will gladly submit to a rational plain backed by facts.
Jack