John Bush and Jack Campbell:
While I can understand your points of view regarding the C&TS being a railroad unto its own and I respect the work that you and others have done in preserving and operating it over the years I have to respectfully disagree with your basic premises.
John, you say the #489 ceased to be a Rio Grande locomotive in 1970 when the RR was purchased by the states. I say it will never cease to be a Baldwin built engine for the Rio Grande. John, just like my mother who has passed on, God rest her soul, she gave her children an identity and purpose. Just like the #489 continues to serve a purpose in hauling passengers on today’s C&TS it was born for the Rio Grande and we need to embrace this legacy. I think this has been done to a very large extent, as the engines still bear the same lettering fonts, striping and physical details as they were on the Rio Grande which is no accident as you both can attest. I guess another analogy would be would you pry off the nameplate of a classic car and replace it with the latest corporate moniker or would you embrace its heritage and nameplate even if it is serving a new owner?
I think for many of us we long for the days when the railroad was a freight hauler and I think you would agree this is really why the railroad was built and lasted until 1968. Sure I want to see the San Juan recreated and run again but it makes even less economic sense in 2007 than it did in 1951 hauling <50 passengers east and west daily. My point is you tend to think in terms of operating an economically viable passenger carrying railroad, while many of us cling to the visions of the railroad when its purpose and reason for being was freight. The C&TS has no history as a common carrier of freight and so to many of us we want to maintain all aspects of this history in terms of the Rio Grande & freight service and all that this entailed. Is it realistic? Not really. In fact I have heard it said many times, people like me just want to have a 1:1 train set to play with, and you know what, there is a lot of truth to this observation.
Now here is the scary part that has been troubling me. The very people who are charged with preserving the history of the railroad are proposing building a visitor center north of the log bunk house infringing on the yard in an area of undisturbed ground with one of the most unique views of classic steam locomotive service facilities in all of railroading, and why? Why does something that has no direct application to the past or present RR have to impose itself at this site? And then like the model railroader who hoards all his rolling stock always lusting for another piece of equipment we now hear of a plan to cover the historic fleet with a 65,000 square foot structure. Do you realize that this is the equivalent of 4 tracks spanning over a quarter of a mile and could house every last piece of the historic fleet? And why?
I don’t know John, there has got to be a way for the railroad and its supporters to do a better job of preserving and showcasing the heritage that the past and present men and women have worked so hard to maintain. What troubles me is when we all are working for our own personal and organizational agendas we are slowly allowing something really special to slip away through the compromises and lack of discipline toward a common historic objective.
That is how I see it.
Rod Jensen
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2007 12:23PM by rod.