Rick:
This thread is not about the significant and positive changes that have occurred and are continuing under the current management and Commission. There is no argument that in order to be able to operate a tourist RR some compromises to the historic fabric must occur. The issue is how we are going to interpret the historic guidelines for preservation of the property and then apply this in the real world. Thanks in large part to Keith Hayes and the Friends, the RR has now been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In my view this will now set the RR on a course to more closely follow the National Park Service standards for historic properties. In fact if the Friends are going to continue seeking grants on behalf of the RR using this status, it will be incumbent upon all concerned to come to an understanding of how these standards would apply to the RR. To wit NPS 36 CFR 68.3 in part states:
“The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.”
Rick, I am not going to argue with you on the benefits of rock vs. cinder ballast. I will argue that the Chama yard has probably not seen any significant tie replacement or ballasting for 50+years so it has held up pretty darn well. The point is; ballast like each and every other component of the RR has a historic basis that needs to be carefully considered and evaluated to its impact on the overall historic character of the property.
My main beef right now is that from the outside it appears a small group of people; 4 Commissioners + Ex. Director, CTMC management and the Friends BOD are making decisions/ plans and with very little input from their various constituencies. This is not the way you run a publicly funded endeavor and it needs to be corrected.
One last point I want to make. I am in favor of a visitor’s center and perhaps some type of covered storage. The devil is in the details and so far no one can give me any facts on what is being approved or the rationale for the decisions. Further, if we are all so concerned about the survival of the RR and the economic benefits of tourism, shouldn’t re/ and/or building some historic passenger cars be a higher priority? For the 2.5 million they are projecting for the Visitors center we could have a recreated San Juan back in revenue operation. This would be something that would draw people in, increase revenue and support the mission of historic preservation & recreation. A 10,000 Sq. foot visitor’s center while a necessary component to the interpretation of the RR to the public is a significant piece of overhead that IMHO will not have the same impact as a historic train returned to operation on its original track.
Rod Jensen
