I hope readers of this board will consider contributing to the "Another Century of Narrow Guage Steam" fund raising drive by the Friends of the C&TS. See the link below for details.

Neither the Friends or the RGRPC have given up on operating the C&TS despite all the recent negative news. The arbitrary closure of the railroad for over a month by the Forest Service and loss of over $500,000 in revenue forced RGRPC to notify the Commission that they will terminate the existing contract at the end of the season. RGRPC would like to continue, but gave notice because they will almost certainly end the season with inadequate funds for a winter work program. And as a government agency, the Commission understandably feels obligated to seek competitive bids.

But when the dust settles, it is likely that the Commission and RGRPC will be trying to negotiate a new deal for next year. A not-for-profit RGRPC simply makes too much sense given the current economics of the C&TS.

But whoever ends up running the railroad, the Friends are committed to helping the railroad survive. And private contributions will be critical to supplement whatever state or Federal money can be found. The most critical current challenge is ensuring funding from somewhere for a winter locomotive work program, because unless a lot of FRA work gets done between now and next May, there will be only one legal engine (the 487) next May.

So far the Friends have recieved pledges of over $400,000, with over $100,000 in the bank.

The good news is trains are running again.

Friends Fund Raising Link
jbwest@att.net

I'm finally putting my money where my mouth is. I'm faxing over a donation today. Although I have never been able to get out to the C&TS, I don't want to sit by and do nothing and blow a shot for myself or my son (or his son) to do so in the future. I apologize for not having done so sooner, but it takes a while for some of us young pups to pay back our college loans ;-)

TJG

> I hope readers of this board will consider
> contributing to the "Another Century of
> Narrow Guage Steam" fund raising drive
> by the Friends of the C&TS. See the link
> below for details.

> Neither the Friends or the RGRPC have given
> up on operating the C&TS despite all the
> recent negative news. The arbitrary closure
> of the railroad for over a month by the
> Forest Service and loss of over $500,000 in
> revenue forced RGRPC to notify the
> Commission that they will terminate the
> existing contract at the end of the season.
> RGRPC would like to continue, but gave
> notice because they will almost certainly
> end the season with inadequate funds for a
> winter work program. And as a government
> agency, the Commission understandably feels
> obligated to seek competitive bids.

> But when the dust settles, it is likely that
> the Commission and RGRPC will be trying to
> negotiate a new deal for next year. A
> not-for-profit RGRPC simply makes too much
> sense given the current economics of the
> C&TS.

> But whoever ends up running the railroad,
> the Friends are committed to helping the
> railroad survive. And private contributions
> will be critical to supplement whatever
> state or Federal money can be found. The
> most critical current challenge is ensuring
> funding from somewhere for a winter
> locomotive work program, because unless a
> lot of FRA work gets done between now and
> next May, there will be only one legal
> engine (the 487) next May.

> So far the Friends have recieved pledges of
> over $400,000, with over $100,000 in the
> bank.

> The good news is trains are running again.


Port Huron Museum

tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

That the Friends, who created the RGRPC, have essentially abandoned their b****** child.

The operating company is desperate for cash.
The Friends have closed the purse strings.
The money-raising campaign pays for the salary of the person who failed to raise money in the first place. The man who is urging you to donate is the same man who frittered away nearly $100,000 of RGRPC money on junk hopper cars that are still not usable.

I would urge you to do whatever will directly benefit the RGRPC.
Buy a season pass, come out and ride, make a donation.

PO Box 789
Chama, NM 87520
1-888-286-2737

drgw483@la-tierra.com

I'd like to help out. But after reading your post, I'm a little foggy on who all the players (good/bad) are. Can you explain a little better what's really going behind the scenes with C&TS concerning poitics and funding?

Thanks

For a comprehensive discussion of players and problems, please see the posting by Chile John Pritchard, C&TS OP-ED Piece, posted today at 6:44 p.m. This is the straight stuff with dates and dollar figures.

vglover@nmia.com

I could not disagree more firmly. Anyone who wishes to see the C&TS survive would do well to donate to the "Century of Narrow Gauge Steam" Campaign.

Since their informal beginnings in 1981 and continuing with their formal establishment in 1987, the Friends of the Cumbres and Toltec have led the fight, with dollars and with sweat equity, to preserve the C&TS for the long haul.

The RGRPC was established by the Friends to operate the RR in 2000, when it became clear that the Railroad Comission was not able to find another qualified operator. The RGRPC walked into a difficult situation and made the best of it, running the railroad for two critical years (three couting this year) while making a major dent in the backlog of deferred maintenance. Unfortunately, a combination of the flaws in the two state's approach to structuring and funding the RR combined with the actions of the Forest Service and the timing conincidence of the onset of the new boiler regulations made it impossible for the RGRPC to continue under the current operating agreement.

The RGRPC did a good job under difficult conditions. However, it was and is a short-term entity established for a short-term purpose.

No matter who operates the RR next year, whether it is the Friends through a reorganized operating company or a different operator entirely, the long-term future of the RR depends upon the continued success of the Friends of the C&TS and their capital fundraising campaign. All true friends of the RR should in my opinion send their money there--and should do so in complete confidence that it is money well given.

Speaking for myself, I recommend that readers place no credence whatsoever in arguments that attempt to discredit the Friends' captial campaign, or attempt to encourage you to send your money anywhere but to the Friends organization with its proven record of achievement.


eledbetter@rypn.org

Send the money to the Friends, or you can send it to us in the form of a C&TS Autograph fundraiser where You get a Video and autograph cover as well.
All this goes to the FRIENDS of C&TS, and we keep nothing! So far it has raised over $2K and we are about out of autographed sleeves, which are only a slight increase over the cost of a regular video. See the link below for more info, or contact me. Your donation will not be wasted!
Greg Scholl

PS The cool thing is that autographs are by the actual guys who were operating the trains in the videos that you purchase. Unusual items!

Friends Fundraiser Videos

sales@gregschollvideo.com

You can say all you want, but I live in Chama and I have seen for myself. You know only what you read in The Friends newsletter. The Friends engineerd the RGRPC and meddled it to death.

drgw483@la-tierra.com

The situation is really too complex for fast answers. The CTSRR faces a multitude of inter-related problems.
The players:
The CTSRR Commission, which oversees the property for the Owners: The states of Colorado and New Mexico. They are the ones who disburse any money from the states, the EDA, etc.

The RGRPC, the operating company created by The Friends. The major problem they face is that were under-financed to start with, frittered away cubic dollars during the first two years, and having to pay for work that should be the responsibility of the owner. They were in financial trouble LONG before the forest closing and the FRA closure. In March of 2002, the board of the RGRPC was 'purged', 3 members were replaced.
Things are better, but the new board has inherited vast problems.

The Friends of The CTSRR: The so-called 'museum support group', which for years was ruled with an iron fist by Theresa Shaw who is now the paid 'executive director'. She was charged with raising money through grants. To date we can count some $45,000.00 raised by her.
$15,000 to increase membership
$15,000 to print a spanish-langiage walking tour.
$15,000 I forget what it was for, but you get the drift.

This spring the executive committe basically took over the fund-raising. They are having some success, but STILL nailing the membership for more money.

IMO, the Friends is hampered by elitism, cronyism, arrogance and the 'not invented here' syndrome. The members have done great work over the years. The leadership is, IMHO, corrupt, and has been for years. Things are better now that the board has re-structured somewhat. But there still are problems.
Ask yourself: Who needs the money?
The RGRPC is desperate. They are barely able to get out a daily train. They are struggling to get a fourth locomotive out of the shop.

The Commission has way too little money for the job. Again, the railroad is on the ropes. Without a signicant influx of cash, there will not be enough engines to run next year.

The Friends do not tell us where the money is going. They tell us they have several hundred thousand in cash and pledges, but they will not give another dime to the RGRPC.
But on the trains, docents from The Friends daily solicit membership in The Friends and donatoins to The Friends.

The Commission HAS to tell us where the money is going.

My money will go to The Commission and the RGRPC.



drgw483@la-tierra.com

> I could not disagree more firmly. Anyone who
> wishes to see the C&TS survive would do
> well to donate to the "Century of
> Narrow Gauge Steam" Campaign.

I couldn't put it better myself, Erik.

What is now the C&TS has suffered from years of underinvestment in all areas.

While the condition of the ties and rail has always been good or at least acceptable, the roadbed has been slowly deteriorating since the last "San Juan" operated in January 1951.

Locomotives received practically no maintenance under the previous operator, with the result that RGRPC in herited three unserviceable locomotives and three barely up to the task.

There are not enough passenger cars and locomotives to allow a schedule that would lead to a self-sustaining ridership (read revenue) level.

And basic infrastructure - bathrooms on the trains, lunch facilities at Osier, etc. - are strained in the regular season.

And the C&TS suffers from challenges all tourism business face. The "peak period" is getting shorter as schools stay open later in the spring, and resume earlier in August. Families don't plan their vacations as rigidly as they used to.

The obstacles are daunting. But there were those who said the railroad couldn't possibly operate in 2000 after three years of neglect and no operator on the property two months before opening day.

We started on time and carried over 50,000 passengers.

In 2001 ridership grew 10%, and revenue grew over 20%.

Had the FRA and Forest service problems not crippled the railroad, it's anybody's guess what would have happened this year, but it certainly would have been far better than what RGRPC has had to endure.

The C&TS needs capital. Lots of it. Capital for surfacing the roadbed, to lower maintenance costs on locomotive and coach running gear.

Capital for track mechanization, to lower the cost of keeping the roadbed in good shape.

Capital to thoroughly overhaul the locomotives, to reduce daily maintenance costs.

Capital for additional coaches and locomotives, to allow the railroad to carry 75,000 or more riders annually and become self-sustaining.

Capital for shop facilities, and labor-saving improvements to lower operating costs.

The Friends will not be able to raise all of the millions needed. But they have already put millions more into the property than anyone else would or could have. And they haven't given up.

JAC

What 'millions'? Show us the books.
It is a fact that in April of 2002 the RGRPC was broke. The Forest Service and the FRA had nothing to do with that. It is a fact that the original RGRPC board, of which you WERE a member, frittered away hundreds of thousands of dollars, and ignored the demands of the FRA, which led to condemnation of track.



drgw483@la-tierra.com

Devil's advocate here John, but assuming additional train sets were to materialize overnight capable of carrying the 75,000 butts in seats you figure as the self supporting level would 75,000 butts in fact materialze to fill those seats?

Would it be cheaper to upgrade to Mallets or Garrats and higher capacity coaches to get the seats to fill with fewer trains?

If some impulse-buy time and money commitment trips from Chama - say 45 minutes and $12.00 - were run 4 times daily and only one train the length of the railroad what would be the likelihood of increasing revenue while diminishing costs?

I would like to see CATS prosper as much as anybody but it has always seemed to me that the operating strategy forced upon the operators by the board limited potential responses to market forces and intensive use (turn over) of the capital equipment.

Dave


irondave@bellsouth.net

> Devil's advocate here John, but assuming
> additional train sets were to materialize
> overnight capable of carrying the 75,000
> butts in seats you figure as the self
> supporting level would 75,000 butts in fact
> materialze to fill those seats?

Personal views here, of course, but based on hours staring at spreadsheets with real data:

It's about money.

More riders.

More dollars in the till from each rider.

Preaching the "revenue per rider" mantra in 2001 led to earning as much ticket revenue with 55,000 riders as the previous operator did carrying 70,000 riders in 1998. (We spent more, too, trying to erase deferred maintenance.)

The future in my opinion is not in short, inexpensive trips. It is in increasing the percentage of people who pay more to ride the entire railroad (i.e. over on train, back on bus or vice versa) instead of out to Osier (or Cumbres, or Lobato) and back. Also increasing the percentage of premium-class fares.

What I'm about to say is true for every operation, but perhaps more so for an operation with a 4% grade: even if the property were Strasburg-perfect, there is a careful balancing act to be observed between capacity of coaches, capacity of supporting infrastructure (be it parking, food service, restrooms) and advertising budget. You can advertise so much you turn people away every day - obviously that's wasteful.

One thing we noticed analyzing C&TS ridership figures for 1994-2000: annual ridership never exceeded X percent of total available seats (total seats x days operated), and most years it was within 2-3 points of X. (Many of you have probably noticed the same thing.) Oddly enough, the same mathematical calculations that govern highways and telephone networks come into play here. Another thing we noticed was that the percentage of total ridership in a given month (May - October) was eerily consistent from year to year - July was within a point or two of Y every year, for example.

All this wandering is a way of saying "Yes, Dave, we could spend enough in the advertising budget to make 75,000 riders materialize." Now, would the incremental ad cost exceed incremental ticket revenue? I think not, based on the performance I saw.

> Would it be cheaper to upgrade to Mallets or
> Garrats and higher capacity coaches to get
> the seats to fill with fewer trains?

I don't think that train weights and capacities are the big deal they are made out to be. Far from it.

The cost difference between a single train with a helper to Cumbres and two trains to Osier is extremely small. Add in the fixed payroll - ticket agents, shop and track crews, management - not to mention other fixed costs (from the electricity bill to ties, from computers to vehicles) and the intense spotlight on train crews and other incremental operating costs, on the C&TS at least, is misdirected in my opinion.

Now consider the infrastructure additions required at Osier to handle those longer trains. Used once per day. Wouldn't it be more cost-effective, and less instrusive, to turn over the seats in the lunch facility 2-3 times instead of once?

Additional trains are the lowest-cost, highest return strategy you can find.

> It has always seemed to me that
> the operating strategy forced upon the
> operators by the board limited potential
> responses to market forces and intensive use
> (turn over) of the capital equipment.

I'm going to assume that by "Board" you mean "Commission". The only limitations I'm aware of on the Kyle, Bartholomew and RGRPC contracts were one that required at least 120 operating days, and a maximum 60/40 split on departures from Antonito and Chama.

Neither is a significant problem in my opinion.

Just my opinion. Other people whom I respect come to different conclusions. And of course you've got a bit of High Country experience yourself. But at the end of the day, no matter how you get it, taking in more cash is essential.

JAC

Thanks John, a lot of what you say is sensible and I haven't had your insiders view of the balance sheets. Agreed on the lunch room. Question is given its location, how can you turn it over more times?

Do I misunderstand your posting or are you telling me that historically about 98 of train capacity was filled using the current operating and marketing model? If so, kudos - but wouldn't better marketing and increased capacity then pay off well if in fact the additional incremental costs of more capacity are (as you say) inconsequential?

At GLR the capacity of the train and the parking lots were equal. Turning over the same train 6 times per day and the same parking lots 6 times per day paid. A second train didn't make sense because there was no place for more passengers to park.

I can't help but wonder if that is the case at CATS, or if given the vast amount of underused scrub and sagebrush in the vicinity additional infrastructure to handle higher capacity is viable.

I also wonder if having options that weren't all day survival trips wouldn't get more tourists travelling with younger children with short attention spans in seats.

Just food for thought. The Strasburg model has a lot going for it in a destination like Strasburg, but my question is whether the same model is valid in a remote place like Chama or Antonito where the railroad is the only game in town.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> Question is given its location,
> how can you turn it over more times?

One thought rolling around in my mind (for the day, off in the future when everything was peaches and cream) viewed from the platforms in Osier:

a train that departed Chama arrives Osier at (just to have a starting point) 11:30am. One engine's capacity train (let's call it 225 folks). Said passengers disgorge and gorge.

Let's say it takes about a half-hour to get the first folks in the lunch line through it, fed, and to the point where they're bussing their trays.

a train arrives from Antonito at noon. Process is repeated, filling seats as they're being vacated.

a train arrives from Chama at 12:30pm, just as the first train from Chama is ready to depart. Do it again.

You get the picture. Lots of holes to fill in the idea, but it gets much greater utilization of the lunch facility - less need to expand the building, etc.

Again, I stress one possible solution - not the only one.

> Do I misunderstand your posting or are you
> telling me that historically about 98 of
> train capacity was filled using the current
> operating and marketing model?

If you mean 98 percent, no way. I purposely left the number out because there's an RFP coming up, and I don't intend to give any aid and comfort to anyone who might be planning to bid against RGRPC. I'll send it to you privately if you're interested.

> At GLR the capacity of the train and the
> parking lots were equal. Turning over the
> same train 6 times per day and the same
> parking lots 6 times per day paid. A second
> train didn't make sense because there was no
> place for more passengers to park.

> I can't help but wonder if that is the case
> at CATS, or if given the vast amount of
> underused scrub and sagebrush in the
> vicinity additional infrastructure to handle
> higher capacity is viable.

I don't think too many people would like to see Chama paved ;-) but parking is something to be dealt with.

> I also wonder if having options that weren't
> all day survival trips wouldn't get more
> tourists travelling with younger children
> with short attention spans in seats.

For years there has been an "afternoon mini" trip in which folks at Chama could take the bus to Cumbres and ride the train back, about a two-hour trip in the afternoon. RGRPC offered the same thing in the morning (in reverse - train up, bus back), a trip which was almost too well received ("too well" because on some days a $29 butt to Cumbres might possibly displace a $60 butt to Antonito).

Dedicating a trainset to shorter trips might pay off. But it's a three-hour round trip to Cumbres by train, with another hour to prep the engine for the second climb, so at best you get two turns. A trip to Lobato or Cresco might do better timewise, but building turning facilities might be a challenge.

> Just food for thought. The Strasburg model
> has a lot going for it in a destination like
> Strasburg, but my question is whether the
> same model is valid in a remote place like
> Chama or Antonito where the railroad is the
> only game in town.

I wish I knew. I wish there were enough engines and cars available to find out by experimenting. It would be a nice problem to have.

JAC