So what does everybody think about the brief on the Cumbres & Toltec and the situation that this railroad is in?<br>



paulkattner@hotmail.com

That is a tough line to run as we all know. Still, other operators have made a go of it in the past without stripping it of its resources. I have personally always wondered if it didn't make sense to offer a shorter cheaper impusle buy trip a couple times a day as well as the all day extravaganze which is of interest mostly to railroad enthusiasts but can be a bit of an endurance challenge for the average tourist. <p>The end of the world location doesn't help much either. <p>I suppose it might be in the best interest of the comission to hire a Ranger of their own to protect their interests.<p>Dave<br>



lathro19@idt.net

"I have personally always wondered if it didn't make sense to offer a shorter cheaper impusle buy trip a couple times a day as well as the all day extravaganze which is of interest mostly to railroad enthusiasts but can be a bit of an endurance challenge for the average tourist. "<p>It's been proposed more than once. But the contract with the operator has always required a balance of trips originating at east end. This keeps the operator from running 3 trains per day out of Chama, and out of Antonito only on weekends, for example.<p>Kyle was very scrupulous about maintaining as close to a 50-50 split as possible, and didn't run specials like Moonlight trains out of a desire to be fair to both towns. <p>The contracts I've seen call for no more than a 60-40 imbalance, allowing for a second Chama train 2-3 days per week if traffic warrants. (It's not likely an operation of this sort out of Antonito would cover its incremental costs - there's not a lot of day-tripping in the area.) I believe the current operator would have instituted this type of trip if enough coaches were available - on weekends in the busy season everything in Chama that can be construed as roadable has butts in its seats. And a seventh locomotive would make the CMO breathe a little easier - running extra trains on six engines would require some luck.<p><br>



SteamCentral

Very interesting, John.....is the tail wagging the dog? Seems like a bad idea to ask the operator to subsidize Antonito when the line need subsidy itself. If Antonito wants more traffic, let them become a destination worthy of creating it, and the railroad will furnish adequate transportation. <p>Which still doesn't have anything to do with short and cheap hauls for the 2.5 kids in the fake wood paneled minivans.<p>Dave <br>



lathro19@idt.net

I've never visited the C&TS, but since the main attraction is the line itself and the scenery, what would be the effect on the bottom line of running with diesels on weekdays? That would likely appease the "minivan" crowd, as would the shorter trips. I agree with Dave that for the entire operation to be viable, Chama might have to take the laboring oar and run more and quicker runs.<br>

Dave, Scott:<p>First off, Dave, I'll have to take the other side. The C&TS was SAVED as a cultural and historic property. It is OPERATED with the express purpose of being a boost to the local economy. And the reality of politics is that that boost must be spread equally. To that end any "subsidy" needed by an Operator is already factored into the terms and conditions of the contract (lower rents, etc.) <p>So no, I don't think the tail is wagging the dog. Chama already benefits from being closer to the population centers and having more "mystique" than Antonito. Besides, without some mandate, you have the classic chicken-and-egg situation (not that three decades of this requirement has helped Antonito a whole lot).<p>The operator is responsible only for running the trains and keeping the equipment used in reasonable condition. The Commission funds capital projects - bringing new locomotives into service, building new coaches, constructing new facilities, etc - using the rents and by seeking grants and other funding (ISTEA money, SBA, etc). This simplifies the relationship - no arguments over the value of improvements made by an operator, etc.<p>Of course nothing prevents an operator from investingin capital improvements - Scenic Railways got a sweetheart rent payment in return for a promise to invest a set amount of money in the property. <p>As for diesels, they don't do too well on the line - the one diesel on the property can only take 2-3 coaches up the 4% grades, and even then much slower than the steamer. Short of swiping some White Pass Alcos, there's not a lot of choices available - SD90MACs aren't gonna be comfortable on the line.<p>As to the implicit belief that the line isn't economically viable, one has only to look at the Kyle years to see that it can be. That doesn't mean it's a money tree - but modest profits can be realized. The revenue stream for 1997 and 1998 wasn't significantly different than for 1995-6 - but a lot less was spent on maintenance (it apparently went into promotions and advertisements). It's not that the railroad can't be operated profitably - it's that this operator didn't.<p>All that said, the idea of running extra trains out of Chama is feasible if additional coaches are built, or if Osier trains are limited to a certain length. But would the effort to offer shorter trips, which will of course bring in less revenue, actually do more harm than good to the railroad's financial picture? What if 50% of riders chose a shorter trip - revenue might go down by 10-15%, while costs actually rise (more train crews, coal, etc.) The seats have to be filled by NEW riders - total ticket sales have to increase, not stay flat. That's a tricky proposition when weekend hotel occupancy rates approach 100% today, and adding the shorter option has to be condered carefully.<p>JAC <br>



SteamCentral

John, I think we are agreeing more than disagreeing. New riders are what I would hope to attract with more attractive ride options. I believe many potential riders are turned off entirely and don't even go near Chama or Antonito because they don't want to invest a whole day and a lot of money. They might want to do a hour and a half train ride in the AM, and go through Mesa Verde in the afternoon. If more people need a place to stay, more rooms will be built. Free market at work. How about a Colorado version of the Red Caboose Motel? <p>Lets assume we do lose some long train riders to short rides - at what point do we break even? If seating capacity is already full, more seating opportunities at more cost per mile even with fewer miles adds up quicker. think of the people you aren't turning away since you can sell more seatings per day with the same equipment. This could lead to more hotel accomodations and greater local effect.<p>Political realities don't exist - they are just perceptions slanted in bizarre directions to fulfill and agenda. Antonito can be a better place than Chama if it works to become one, which might include better road access, and significant local improvements and attractions. Make it a place that has something to be worth going to, and make it easy to get to, and tourists will go. <p>Dave<p><br>



lathro19@idt.net

Anybody out there want to take a look at their tea leaves and tell me what could the long term political impact on this operation? <br>



paulkattner@hotmail.com

One way to view the finding that the Bartholemew organization is in default on its C&TS operating contract is in context with another initiative under active development by state, local and Federal perservation agencies, restoration of the East Broad Top Railroad in Pennsylvania. One conclusion already drawn by officials leading that one, after they considered the C&TS as an organizing model, might offer a perspective of some utility. Certainly, going through three for-profit operating concessionaires in its history, short compared to the great outdoor museums (Williamsburg, etc), suggests that the Commission governing the C&TS may be searching for an inappropriate solutiion.<p>John Craft captured very well the strategic goals of Colorado and New Mexico when he wrote that; "The C&TS was SAVED as a cultural and historic property. It is OPERATED with the express purpose of being a boost to the local economy. And the reality of politics is that that boost must be spread equally."<p>Planning for the EBT also seeks as complementary goals saving an historical and cultural treasure and stimulating economic development. These linked goals are common to most other industrial heritage restorations because the linkage provides effective leverage for public funding. These are growing in number so, the long-term outcome for C&TS could have wide implications for heritage preservation not limited to railways.<p>Can these goals be achieved and sustained over the long term in partnership with a for-profit operating concessionaire? For interpreting to the public and operating safely a mountain narrow gauge railroad with appropriate attention to preserving the historical artifact for, say, half a century-plus like the great outdoor museums to which C&TS and the EBT deserve to be compared, the long term answer may be no, not ever.<p>John noted that the Kyle years demonstrated that the C&TS can be operated to return "MODEST profits" (emphasis added). The question may turn on the narrowness of the profit margin relative to other business choices.<p>If a for-profit organization can make a better profit doing something else, then the managers' duty to its owners is to shift over to doing that something else. For staying in a narrow margin business, the only alternatives are for the for-profit to increase its margin by using up capital assets (a practice with a long, sad history in the railroad industry) or continuing operation for love in lieu of adequate profit. There may be technically competent for-profit operators who will do the latter but, sooner rather than later, costs usually bring that ride to an abrupt end.<p>Two years ago, the planners for the East Broad Top's eventual restoration, after careful investigation, rejected the for-profit concessionaire operator model. The basic reason was that a not-for-profit operator model provides a more natural fit and greater long-term probability of success in meeting the linked goals of a successful, high, standard, operating museum and economic stimulus.<p>Like the EBT, the C&TS should be sustained as a public good. The addition of an economic development goal makes this a classic case for application of the not-for-profit model. <p>That Colorado and New Mexico instead went the way they did on the C&TS may result more from expediency in the context of experience and capability available 30 years ago specific to preserved operating railways (versus museums, zoos, symphonies, hospitals, foundations, etc.). Because the C&TS was saved then and exists to operate today, they are able to adopt a better organizing model for the future if they so choose.<p>Because preserving and operating the railroad is a public good, the not-for-profit can accept donations for operation (not just capital improvement or restoration). The measure by which success is evaluated by the not-for-profit operator, itself, is the quality of preservation and operation of the railroad primarily, and revenue compared to expenses secondarily. Most museums are expected to obtain "related income" (largely donations for most) to cover operating costs exceeding direct operating revenue (admissions if charged). That's what keeps them accessible through affordable admissions/fares, one measure of merit for public good.<p>Similarly, achieving and maintaining some formula for distribution of economic stimulus becomes more legitimate as a meritorious end by removing the need to provide a for-profit concessionaire's expected margin of revenue at a level that compares favorably to the for-profit's alternatives. This is because effective operation by the not-for-profit will empower other for-profits (lodging, restaurants, etc.) to become established and flourish for a net economic gain to the community over the tax revenue foregone on donations to the not-for-profit. I would suggest that what is unnatural is to "subsidize" any for-profit concessionaire with "sweetheart" terms in return for the for-profit's promise to invest in what is at best a low-margin enterprise to begin with.<p>If they want to, Colorado and New Mexico could expand their options for keeping the C&TS in operation by allowing consideration of a qualified not-for-profit operator (most likely, created for the purpose). That might require some rewriting of legislation, but that's achievable with a will to do so.<p>In Pennsylvania, state-owned historic properties can be leased for up to 99 years to a public not-for-profit or put under a renewable management agreement with a private not-for-profit (there's a difference between the public and private forms). The much-respected Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission uses both practicies for some of its 58 properties. <p>We are at yet another point where operation of the C&TS will change one way or the other. Perhaps the CO-NM Commission should look again at the assumptions in its operating model. Some for-profit knight errant certainly could ride in, once again, ready to take up the C&TS challenge on the existing model. Should such an offer be accepted, what guarantee will we have that the C&TS won't be back at the same point in a few years' time, perhaps only further drained?<p>Phil Padgett<br>



ebt4evr@aol.com

Very thoughtful, Phil.<p>Operating a for-profit steam railroad is no way to get rich - ask Lindsey Ashby, or Linn Moedinger, or any of those who've done it. But neither is farming family-style, or making custom musical instruments, etc. For the most part, jobs like these draw those who take a substantial percentage of their "compensation" in non-monetary ways - job satisfaction, to be precise. And finding those people is about the only way we'll keep them going.<p>Whether those people set their corporations up as for-profit or not-for-profit can be (emphasis on CAN) immaterial. Kyle Railways kept its tourist operations going out of sentiment, not the desire to maximise profit - in that sense they acted like a not-for-profit. Only when Lynn Cecil passed away and a merger loomed on the horizon did they relinquish the C&TS concession. <p>Tax status takes a back seat, in my opinion, to the quality and motivation of the management. Better to have a competent staff content to eke out a small return than a roundhouse full of volunteers there merely to get their jollies playing trains. <p>Of course, a top-notch management in a not-for-profit corporation is the ideal. But having a view on several not-for-profit niches, most 501.c.3s won't pay for top talent even if they can. Good managers won't always have the devotion and attachment to the property that the rest of us do - but not being a dyed-in-the-wool enthusiast is sometimes a plus, not a liability.<p>There's probably no single right answer - and we should be happy to let the means vary as long as the end is clear and is achieved. But one thing's for certain; places like Chama, and Ely, and Orbisonia should be saved, put into and kept in good condition, and operated to show us all where we come from.<p>JAC



SteamCentral

One point worthy of consideration is looking at the CATS / D&SNGRR in relation to each other. D&S has had some ups and downs as a private, for profit tourist attraction, but has pretty consistently been a profitable enterprise from the start. They are near CATS, and operate very similar equipment on a railroad which is also long and ardous, and expensive to maintain. <p>Why is D&S profitable and successful, and CATS not? And, devils advocate, if D&S and CATS are similar, and one is successful, isn't the successful one interpreting the same experience the unsuccessful one is doing? If so, why do we need both? <p>Dave<br>



lathro19@idt.net

You are a little devil, Mr. Lathrop . . . ;-)<p>I think part of it you hit earlier - ridership figures. D&S hit a peak of about 200,000 butts on seats annually in the early 90s - it dropped off a bit, but has started rising again. C&TS put 70,000 bums into its cars in 98, but I'm told almost 10,000 of those were comps (the Christmas trains, again from what I'm told, were almost all free tickets). If that's true, then paid ridership has been stagnant around 60,000 since 1992 or so.<p>There's certainly a lot more for the average tourist in Durango - shopping, skiing, rafting, etc. (There's also a nice conference center near Rockwood that puts a lot of business people on the train for a day.) And of course Durango has a 50-year history as a destination.<p>All that extra mileage (55,000 per year for D&S, 20,000 for C&TS) leads to even higher maintenance costs in Durango. But with annual revenue of over $6 Million (vs. around $2 Million for C&TS), there's room to absorb it.<p>I may be off base here, but I'd suggest that D&S's worst hour was around 93-95, when costs were cut pretty hard. Locomotive maintenance suffered, good people left, and for a while D&S tried to run five daily trains with only four serviceable engines. Just how DO you do a complete boiler wash and monthly inspection overnight? I don't think even the First America ownership had an impact like those days did. Thankfully they didn't last - and let's give the much-maligned Mr. Bradshaw credit for reversing himself.<p>I'm not sure you can say the C&TS isn't successful, either - although there's no denying that Mr. Bartholomew hasn't been, despite a 12% rise in fares this year. Just based on what I've seen (not what I've heard), it appears he underestimated the amount of maintenance required of the engines (easy to understand - his only steam experience has been Edaville) and put the money into advertising and promotions. By the time he realized his mistake, it was too late. (Yes, there are other, more sinister theories, but I'm not convinced.) But you'll get no argument from me that without larger ridership figures it'll never be the profit center D&S is.<p>Will Chama and Antonito ever become tourist meccas on the order of Durango? I doubt it. Chama appears to be headed for a destiny as a second-home paradise of ranchitos, a suburb in the middle of nowhere. Antonito is - well, Antonito. But that doesn't mean the ridership won't eventually top 100,000, just that it won't happen anytime soon. The trick, as discussed earlier, is more options without cannibalizing the existing product line.<p>Do we need both? If we only had what we needed, there'd be no cable TV, no video games, no sports <br>cars. And no Strasburg, no C&TS, no TVRM, no D&S. And life would be exceedingly dull.<p>JAC<br>



SteamCentral

So heavy investment in marketing and advertising for CATS didn't raise ridership - interesting. Let's then backwards engineer and figure out how much line and equipment can be maintained in operation and provide reasonable profit for a private operator based on that number of butts in seats. Or, let's create more destination activities to get more seats butted. Either way, but to continue to enforce economically unfeasable economic restrictions on ANY operator is a short road to more trouble.<p>And with D&S handy, our choice isn't between no sports cars or sports cars - it is between the Miata at this car lot or the Mustang at the one down the street. We can get cable or satellite dishes - sports or arts. But can we budget for both of each?<p>No, this quuestion still needs more consideration.<p>Dave <p><br>



lathro19@idt.net

Hi,<p>This is my first time finding this board. Having been through much discussion on this topic on the narrow gauge discussion board, I like this discussion as being less emotional.<p>I can only offer what I have run into and nothing really profound.<p>1) I prefer the C&TS over D&S because Durango has a tourist trap feel about it. I'm not sure of how to express the feeling I get there and tourist trap is not the best wording but it's the best I have right now.<p>I live in Atlanta, GA. I do not need to see the hustle bustle of Durango. I relax much better in Chama. I love the desert on the Antonito end also.<p>2) I have ridden the C&TS about 15 times since I found the railroad operating in 1986. I had been by since 1972 but had never been able to get everything coordinated with when they were running.<p>In 1972 I rode the D&S for the first time. My experience was vastly unsatisfactory.<p>My second trip on the C&TS was in 1990 and I have returned about every other year since. <p>This year(1999) I rode the D&S ar Railfair for the second time. As a 15 year old in 1972, my perceptions were different than they are now at 43. However I still prefer the C&TS.<p>As a model railroad and now as a live steamer, I like anything that is D&RGW narrow gauge and I have no bias from that point.<p>3) I have told three friends about the C&TS. They had never heard of the C&TS but had of the D&SNG. two say they prefered the C&TS to the D&S and were sorry that they had not known about it sooner. The other did not ride either the C&TS or the D&S because the rides were "too long".<p>4) Since 1994 (?) I have rented the caboose (05635 the converted stock car and not the original 0503 because the 0503 has a private toilet and larger windows)about 5 times. I have invited people (especially young kids) back even though it is "my private car" to share the experience with them. Many (about 60%) say they prefer the scenery to the D&SNG. They wish they had known about the caboose rental as they would have done it. Some say they prefer the C&TS's lower fares. Many I've met on the C&TS (maybe 75% and mostly non-railfans or model rails) like the atmosphere of Chama because it is like walking back into time (both the rail yards and the main street).<p>From my unscientific sample, I feel that the C&TS could have similar passenger loadings to the D&SNG if it were better advertised to the general public. I do feel that both railroad can be supported.<p>The D&S has another advantage over the C&TS. The D&S runs year round (if only to Cascade Canyon Wye). To keep Cumbres Summit open during the winter is prohibitive.<p>One suggestion would be to run from Antonito to Big Horn or Osier during the winter. However the travel balance comes into play here. Would running Cumbres Turns from Chama in the summer and Osier turns in the winter be a ballance ? I do not know.<p>No matter how I look at it, C&TS I think can never be more than a seasonal operation. As such, having all 10 mikes the C&TS has operational would give a great saftey margin for unexpected happenings (i.e. 484 going on the ground this past spring while plowing).<p>Another major advantage the D&S has over the C&TS is that the D&S has been well ballasted and care for. Some sections of the C&TS may not have seen ballast since the D&RGW last ballasted the line before the 1968 abandonment.<p>If the mikes both lines use are considered BMW's, the D&S has a major paved U.S. route to tun on and so little wear occurs during each trip. The C&TS is a dirt forest trail passable by 4x4's. Each trip generates considerable wear. Look at photo's of the C&TS track. It is basically a logging company line quality that should only have geared locomotives. As I understand it, funds for ballasting the eastern 11 miles of the C&TS to D&S type standards is available.<p>Sorry I got windy here, but I think some points needed to be made about the C&TS. Obviously I wish I could have seen the entire line prior to 1968. Today's tourist trade would not have been able to support the entire narrow gauge west of Antonito even if I wanted it to. However I do feel there is room for both operations.<p><br>



douglasvanveelen@mindspring.com