George, the mission of the RR is both of economic benefit to the communities and for historic preservation of the Antonito to Chama portion of the D&RGW San Juan extension. This “historic issue” keeps coming back to exactly who, what and how the C&TS is supposed to maintain and present the property to the public. None of the players in charge; the Commission, the CTMC or Friends in my opinion has a clear mission statement and vision that I have seen as to how the historic preservation aspects of the RR property are to be handled. Further, what really troubles me is how these plans are all being pushed forward independent of a master plan for the RR and in my view without consensus of the community, membership and railfan community at large. I see many great things that the Friends are doing and have done in preservation of equipment, structures and the infrastructure. But I also see many signs that they have forgotten that preservation is about maintaining the properties historic fabric and avoiding compromising this fabric by adding what in my view are well meaning but inappropriate changes. I will give some examples: why is it necessary to have donor boards mounted right in front of the Chama station, why are Friends material box cars spotted in front of the engine house and never moved? Why do you add rock fill to the Chama yard tracks where cinders are historic? It is all about the details and gosh darn it, the very people who profess to want to save the RR are slowly but surely turning it into just another “tourist” operation.
Now to the idea that the rolling stock has to be covered. I fully understand that leaving anything outside takes a toll on the equipment, but after 80+ years for much of the rolling stock since its last major rebuild I would argue it has held up remarkably well, all things considered. 65,000 square feet of covered storage is one quarter mile of 4 tracks or virtually the entire south Chama yard. And if they are proposing new storage track construction for the shed why not build it in Antonito where there would not be the impact to the historic Chama yard?
This is not about just ruining the view for photographers; it is about staying true to the mission of historic preservation and the National Register status that was integral to the RR museum mission. I still want answers to the rationale if the Chama visitor’s center is proposed to go north of the Log Bunk house. In the absence of any objective data this is just another unacceptable encroachment on the historic yard that is unnecessary in my view given other viable options. This is the largest project ever undertaken by the Friends and I have seen scant information, specific site data or fiscal impacts of ongoing operations of this facility released on this project. It all comes down again to transparency of the Triad organizations in moving these projects forward and without a clear historic preservation master plan it makes this all the more difficult to support.
Rod Jensen
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2007 09:11PM by rod.
