Re: StL&RG did it, why doesn't *LINK*

To qualify this post I will show my stupidity to say I don't know much of the history of the old C&S. I assume it was always NG???
Well this leads me to ask this. What would be the possibility of standard gauging the line? Put in a third rail, that is outside the NG, and when and if the NG engines are finally ready to run, you can run both kinds some day. Meantime, you can run Standard gauge steam up there perhaps finding something easier than the limited resources in the NG world. This of course assumes the bridge is wide enough, and strong enough to handle this!!!
While this line is only partially historic,in that nobody seems to care what power runs on it, shays, Guatemala engines, diesels, etc, then why not just make it more neutral so its easier to get engines and rolling stock, have larger trains, and sell to the tourists. You could get real coaches as well.
While I know a lot of folks are passionate about the GLRR, especially ones that worked there in the past, I never really considered this all that historic, except that they laid rails over a former roadbed, that went out of business over 50 years earlier I beleive. From a business standpoint it sounds like getting those authentic engines rebuilt was a costly mistake. From where I sit, had they kept the old arrangement with the old owner going, and then rebuilt the 9 correctly, and perhaps some of the other engines, they could have transformed it into a very historic railroad, while maintaining a high level of ridership during that time.
I still think time is better spent elsewhere in Colorado!!!
Anyone want to share gas costs from Ohio to the Alamosa-Chama-Durango Steam Triangle!!!
1400 miles $3.50 a gallon, return trip....WOW!!!
Mileage usuall better on the return trip. Downhill, and with wind at your back!!!
Greg Scholl