The C&S commission has been reported to have approved a swap of a broken and derelect former D&RGW K-36, presently owned by the C&TS, to the Durango &Silverton RY for its an also very broken K-28 #473.

You can read more about the details on the NG Goat, or the NGDF.

I personally couldn't care less about the trade, but if a K-28 is coming to the C&TS, then the full set of ALCO blueprints needs to also come to the C&TS and they need to be scanned and backed up and spread around. The D&S has had those blueprints and has guarded them rabidly (yes, rabidly since Mr Bradshaw's selling of the RR) from all who wished to model or replicate a K-28, and no amount of money was enough to get a set, from the D&S. The C&TS needs every bit of info that the D&S has, and it should be included in the swap. Everyone please make sure that happens!

I am not in contact with anyone involved with the RR involved with the swap, but am posting this in hopes that the intent of this gets spread around and makes it back to the pertinent ears.

Take Care Everyone! Feel free to comment.

Yesterday, the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad Commission voted against swapping locomotives with the Durango & Silverton.

Steve Forney filmed the Commission's meeting and posted clips of the discussion and vote here: NGDF - C&TSRR Commission Settles Loco Swap Question

The Commissioners representing Colorado (Lucy Kay and Dan Love) voted in favor of the trade, while the Commissioners representing New Mexico (Randy Randall and Billy Elbrock) voted against the trade.

I have not had a chance to listen in, but too bad the swap did not happen. It would check another box from the recommendations of the original study of the line by acquiring a missing K-28.



Wesley

Can you share how that is stated in that study?

Pp 63-64 "The Missing K-28 Class"



Earlier in the same chapter the authors also discuss K-27 463 then owned by the town of Antonito, and the smaller locomotives dispersed around the west, including 168 and 315, as being candidates to enhance the interpretation of C&TSRR through short-term loan.

The Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad study was originally published by the University of New Mexico Press in 1980.

Wesley

One of the early arguements I heard was they were trading a non San Juan Locomotive for a San Juan Locomotive. Here a four links for photographs the 483 on the San Juan passenger train. .

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/si ... 1841/rec/1

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/si ... 835/rec/57

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/si ... 832/rec/55

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/si ... 833/rec/56

The 483 was the only bumblebee K-36 as seen here

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/si ... 387/rec/20

The issue I see for the C&TS is the railroad existance is to benifit the area with economic developement. Spending more money repairing a 483 would create a greater capacity to do just that.


Both the 483 and the 478 are historically significant locomotives to the Rio Grande. The fact remains that the K28 were pulled and replaced with a larger locomotive or double headed with a larger locomotive when conditions warranted it. To me this is a railfan rule book and photographers pushing for something they have not seen before.

The C&TS and the D&S have accomplished an undesirable situation with increasing the weight of their passenger cars over and above what the Rio Grande had If you are hauling more weight per passenger then you need more power to get it up the hill. Getting the weights back down would do a lot to make all of the locomotives more economically viable..

The Historic Preservation Study has done a lot to promote preservation on the railroad but it should not be seen as a master plan for the railroad. Additional research and study on individual topics need to be done to understand the history of the C&TS.

Robby Peartree

I have a K-38 blueprint for you http://www.ectma.org/prt_prints/038.html
And here is a K-28 http://www.ectma.org/prt_prints/043.html
;-)

Is a return to service for 483 realistic? Is there a budget for such a job? In the past 20 years, C&TS has had periods where they struggled to maintain the minimum locomotive fleet in service. They need three locomotives on any particular day, and they have four in service plus the smaller 463.

Speaking of fleet plans, what about the four K37 class engines at C&TS? The desire to retain 483 "as a big engine" ignores the K37 engines on hand.

No it does not. The C&TS used to haul 50,000 plus passengers. The need for more seating and hauling capacity is a real issue. One thing that could be done is do a 1472 day inspection on 483. After the boiler goes though a hydro all you need to do is transfere the missing appliiances from a locomotive at the end of its 1472 day to the 483. You could easily set up a program where the boiler and running repairs are done and the appliances transfer from locomotive to locomotive. Further If the cylinders are indead walking on the frame of the 470's then the repair work will be costly and time consuming. Look at the SP 786 as an example of what needs to be done.

The k-37 are a capable locomotive but the issue becomes that some "experts" at one time questioned if the K-37 could even be brought into compliance with the new part 230 inspection requirements due to their age. The problem with the trade was for the C&TS it did little to truly help their bottom line. The New Mexico commissioner said in the meating that he felt that all of the details were not known when the vote to proceed was taken in July. It is an important lesson for all of us. WE are passionate about our efforts. It is important to keep your emotion in check when looking at possibilities. Making decisions based on emotion and not on facts can create bigger issues than one already faces.

Robby

Hi,

483 operated the first 6 years of the C&TS life. It has not turned a wheel under its own power since about 1976.

When the D&S 497 and the C&TS swapped 482, many of the parts from 483 were given to the D&S.

So 483 is not a "let's inspect it" loco but more like a "revive a skeleton" issue.

I've heard rumors about bring a K-37 back to life by the C&TS. The best way seems to be using 492's boiler (better than 497s) and 497's running gear (better than 492s). Your issue about the "part 230 inspection" is well taken and I will not try to address it - I live in Georgia and so do not have any real first hand knowledge of these details.

If I understand the situation correctly, 483 does not even have a complete tender. It's tender went to the D&S with 482 in the 1992 era trade. 483s tender (still on the C&TS apparently) is in pieces and incomplete. As with any restoration, it just takes money.

Trading the 478 for the 483 is dead for now but the cost to revive the 478 would probably be a lot less than to revive 483. (It is my understanding that the 478 has 100 more steaming days but the 15 year time limit will occur before the beginning of the 2016 C&TS season.)

With 463 (K27) and four K36s (484,487,488,489) holding down the full load of operations, 483 is sort of a non-starter as I saw it. The C&TS has four K37s (492,494,495,497) with a 497/492 combo to make a sixth "currently not required" large loco not to far from running (probably closer than 483 maybe). I think it was an opportunity lost but that's just my opinion.

Add to the museum D&RGW history side, the 168 (T12 4-6-0) from Colorado Springs is now on the C&TS property, the moves for history might be good to consider.

To step to the side, there historic San Juan passenger car set is being worked on. I think the RPO is ready for the rails and the baggage car is next. There is a tourist coach in the wings. The San Juan was pulled by the T12, K27, K28, and K36 classes regularly and I think one of the K37s was equiped with steam lines for passenger service.

Although the T12 and the historic passenger car set not near ready for running, the possible movie attraction of the T12 might be a revenue source - maybe not big.

Thanks for listening to my ramblings.

Doug vV

Doug vV

The idea of getting the last year of investment out of a running gear makes it sound like you can just simple lift one locomotive and snap on part from the other like a model. I suggest you read about tramming a locomotive and realize both the 492 and the 497 have been in significant accidents and I doubt the frames are exactly identical ant there would be machining of shoes and wedges for 1 season? Is it worth it is not for me to decide.

It is important to remember that in backdating the historic passenger cars they are destroying the reason the car survived. Is it original function the only thing of its history that should be preserved. If they do back date it will they document the history of the intervening years? There are a lot of questions not being answered or perhaps even asked in the hopes of having something "historic".

Robby

Hi,

You bring out good points. Unfortunately, I am finding I am forgetting more than I remember. I'll shut up so you will not be upset by me.

Doug vV

The C&TS appears to cover its operating costs. Major capital (r-o-w and locomotive) dollars have to come from the states or other sources. The 1472-day tear downs and inspections seem to fall under major capital.

One reason for establishing the joint commission and operating the C&TS was to develop a tourist industry in two of the most economically depressed counties in the region (if not the country). This seems to have happened; it is reported that a study a few years ago showed that the impact of the railroad was $14million annually to the region.

The substantial work at restoring 463 back to operation was funded by the Friends of the C&TS. It appears that the work to restore 168 back to operation will need outside funding at this time.

One thing that may have caused the negative votes by the commissioners is that the physical trade of the locomotives was unfunded. And other factors of money and emotions.

Dear Mr. Norden

I would be careful saying the capital cost have to come from the states or other sources as the documents forming the commission do not state where capital funds can, or will come from, or who is responsible for them. The joint commission was formed by an act of US Congress to get the railroad from having to deal with two different state governments for the operator.

On the issue of what is or is not a capital investment has been a long discussion on the C&TS. The fact remains that no matter what view you have of any railroad they have to fund and do periodic inspections no matter how they account for them. I do not know beyond the statement in the commission meeting report what the reasons were for the change.

Robby