Re: Chama Visitor's Center and Covered Storage in Yard

Dang it Herb, there you go again having to inject reality into these foaming discussions...

OK since you have your historically accurate asbestos suit on lets get a few of our factoids straight here...

First, for the covered car storage, the sad reality is if we all would be honest about this situation there is way too much “stuff” to preserve based on the limited resources available. Second, I can predict once you build the covered storage that is probably going to be the last time some of this stuff will see the light of day in our lifetimes based on the above. So I guess the lesser of the two evils is to preserve it covered and hope for more money in future generations.

As far as the Visitor’s Center it is all about location, location, location. What is the point of trying to preserve the yard as best we can to keep it looking like it was back in the Rio Grande days if every time we turn around some new project is proposed or alteration made that compromises the historic accuracy? Yes, the parking lot is full of cars but guess what, it does have a historical precedent as you can see in the attached photo, so not all is lost. BTW notice the Shopping Center in the background uphill from the depot which is where I think the Visitor’s Center belongs. The only reason I can see for the North yard bunk house location over this site is it does have a better view of the engine facilities from there. But honestly, I can get that same view right now by standing on the sidewalk and looking at it 24/7 and it doesn’t add a building to the viewscape to do it. It is what is inside the Visitor’s Center building that is the draw, not an observation deck IMHO.

And now to my favorite project, the San Juan recreation. I make no claim to the market feasibility of this idea; this would require some serious marketing research first and foremost. But in the meantime let’s put our green foamer eye shades on and try and make it work. I am starting with the premise that the new San Juan train is a premium fare excursion and would not cannibalize existing revenue (a very big assumption). Second, whatever we do has to meet or exceed the revenue of the existing passenger service. So this means we probably need to generate about $20K per day for our train set. I am not sure about your weights but the original San Juan cars weigh in at around 24 tons per car for the parlor and coaches (BTW current C&TS coaches are 30 tons for the Chama cars and 28 tons for the Antonito cars for comparison purposes). Our ruling grade is Eastbound and our K-36’s will pull 232 tons up the hill to Cumbres.

So therefore if we have 10 seats in the parlor/ obs. (20 if we do the Gunnison version without the kitchen) and our 1937 rebuilt coaches seat 24 each. For regular daily service we will forego the RPO unless the USPS wants to underwrite it (LOL) and just use the baggage for concessions and such. So then maximizing our tonage we could have 6-7 coaches depending if we want to include an open air car. Now here is where we have to sharpen our pencils, if you are still with me. With upgraded track we are going to make the trip from Antonito to Chama in 4 hours, turn the train and return in the afternoon with a second batch of customers while our first group can either return by bus, spend their money in Chama, visit the new visitor Center etc. etc.

Our cost of the train is the same to operate a roundtrip except for the additional fuel/ wear and tear but we get 2X the revenue. Assuming a 75% load factor then even at an average of $100/ seat we are making more $ than the regular train. So could we fill our train with people willing to pay $100> for a 4 hour ride aboard the all new San Juan?


Rod

Chama, NM Rocky Mountain Railroad Club excursion, May 31, 1957
Mark Hall collection (note cinder ballasted yard)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2007 10:19PM by rod.