Consider it cyclical. In the UK, boilers were interchanged between frames to get locomotives back out on the road to keep earning their living, here we interchange small parts for the same reason. It's possible that in the future, when one of the operating locomotives is approaching a major overhaul, they will have gone through the boiler, frame and wheels on this one and only need to go through the parts from the one rotating off to get one back in service without missing a beat. In Latin America, it would be considered in stored serviceable condition. I'd be worried if a line of dead power were growing while trains were deleted from the schedule for lack or power to pull them...... but not until.

Hi,

The point that the D&RGW had retired many of the 2-8-2s as Parts donors since the 1950s and were incomplete themselves BEFORE the line was abandoned (1968) and sold (1970).

In all likelyhood, only four or five of the K36 and K37 D&RGW locos remaining in 1968 (17 total) were operated.

483, 484, 493, and 498 were known to have run in 1968. 497 and 491 were known to have been overhauled before abandonment but never operated.

Many of the rest were not complete when the D&RGW sold them to the States of CO and NM. So, YES the Taxpayers of NM and CO would need to purchase parts to complete the remaining locos on the C&TS (483, 484, 487, 488, 489, 492, 494, 495, and 497).

463 (K27 was donated by a cowboy movie star (Gene Autry?) to the City of Antonito and repaired by funding from several sources and is currently operable. The 464 was purchased as a derelict (Parts used by the D&RGW for the K28s on the Silverton) and returned to service by Knotts Berry Farm. It is currently at Huckleberry in operable condition (the only remaining two K27s).

The three (3) remaining K28s the D&RGW had for the silverton are 473, 476, and 478. One is undergoing major overhaul (I think 478). 476 is operable (I think) and 473 is currently a parts donor for the other two (I think). 473 can be made operable again but it is more expensive to restore than the other two 470s.

Doug vV

P.S. from Greg Scholl:

481 3/28/61
482 4/20/59
483 12/6/68*
484 08/29/68
485 1954 - when it fell into the Salida turntable pit and scrapped.
486 11/4/61
487 10/22/67
488 12/--/66
489 5/13/61

490 out of service pre-1961 - scrapped
491 4/19/63
492 11/--/66
493 7/24/68
494 5/14/62
I was informed that 494 was seen hot in Durango in June, 1962. She made her last trip east from Chama to Alamosa on 8/3/62.
495 1/28/61
496 1954 - scrapped
497 12/26/67
498 8/28/68
499 12/4/63

The picture first struck me at the level what is preservation? 492 itself has a history. It operated to Hermosa on the Silverton branch during D&RGW ownership. The wreck on the Marshal Pass line is well noted. Each locomotive, operated, not operated, or sitting in a park has a history. We often sell history as a part of the experience. The photographer commentary creates a question that should be considered by those in the efforts to preserve railroading.

The acceptance of a locomotive as being a parts source like a parts car is interesting. I will point out that in the 1970s when parts robbing was acceptable on the C&TS, the Rio Grande on the Silverton kept 3 k-28s running without stealing parts from the 481 or the 497 which were stored in Durango at the time. When Bradshaw made the move for more motive power the lack of theft made restoration work easier and the output faster.
The result of certain policies on an artifact like 492 can be seen by any visitor today. For the uninitiated visitor we have this view for them to make impressions of efforts or just as important the value we have in other artifacts. The result may be no different from a neighbor complaining about a parts car in their neighborhood. In the end our greatest support often comes from people who know little of what we do. The two photographs can leave quite an impression.

The C&TS preservation study was written 40 years ago. The photograph in 2016 shows the results of preservation decisions over many years on one specific piece of the collection, in this case the 492. Yes it is seeing the micro result of a macro policy, but what is the impact of such decisions? As we get deeper into Preservation do we choose to measure our results with time? Are we capable of self critique? Or do we never look back because we are always perfect? The question raised here is what we are doing resulting in a positive result. For the 492 it is in much worse condition today. For the C&TS is this only a deferred cost? Is the RR better off now than it was in 1970? As time passes the same questions can be asked of any collection. Is what we are doing for the benefit of our collections. The hardest thing to take is critical observations but in the end they tell us where we have the opportunity to grow.

In the years since railroad preservation has started we have a large number of years and efforts to study their results. Looking back, we can see what worked and why and what may be improved upon. I want to thank Fritz Klinke for the photographs over time and the idea of what is the results of Preservation.

Robby Peartree

Hi,



Do you mean that anything 40 years old or older is worthless? That there is nothing of worth in anything at least 40 years old? Then 492 is worthless.

What I seem to see is you putting up a lot of smoke and mirrors to keep people confused.

There are 13 GG1s around Rivets (the prototype and 12 with welded bodies). Not all are preserved the same way.

I have no idea what you are arguing so I leave this to you. I agree to disagree.

Have at it.

Doug vV

Are any of us better off now than we were in 1970? No, since I had some very interesting life experiences right around the corner and no financial concerns worth worrying about back then. Yes, since I have learned those (and other more prosaic) life lessons and have a much better basis for thought and ideation, so I can more fully appreciate what is better and what is worse now than I could then, back when I was immortal, ignorant and didn't know how happy I should have been.

I'm also in worse physical condition, by the way. Anybody have the contrary experience?

Measure by time? Huh?

CATS is doing a pretty good job of being what they are supposed to be. D&S is outperforming CATS. Much of what other organizations collected for preservation in 1970 are now junk or gone or well on their way to gone........ we bit off a lot more than we can digest. Just what is it you want us to think about here?

That's not really saying much. Aside from the basic appliances, (air brake equipment, injectors, lubricators, and safety valves) there aren't many parts that are interchangeable between the K 36/37s, and the K 28s. None of those parts were in particularly short supply back then although I would bet that if an air pump was needed to get an engine out on the road it would have been borrowed. Also remember, that although the Silverton was an orphaned narrow gauge operation, it still had the resources of the parent railroad and its heavy repair and machine shops behind it.

First I raised this as a question. The differences between the locomotives condition in the photos should create a pause. If we cannot self-critique our actions and their results, then we will only be able to do so much. To improve you have to learn and to learn you have to observe and take criticism. Fritz posted picture allowed me to use 492 as an example. It was his commentary that created the idea for this thread.

A study is a detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation. It is not a site plan or preservation plan. It addressed the situation as seen at the time. The Historic Preservation study of the C&TS is 40 years old. It has had a significant impact on the C&TS including being the inspiration for the Formation of the Friends of the C&TS. The impact of the effects of activities on the RR I would say need to be taken understood and critiqued if the railroad is to improve. The Historic Preservation study has had its positive impact it could not have anticipated the response it has created. While these efforts have been large and envious to many organizations, the issues seen then may not be the same ones needing to be addressed now. The opportunity to review what works and what has not worked is for us to create. That creates an opportunity for us to improve.

There are many posters on this board who were not born in 1970 including myself. Impressions of steam railroading do not come from direct memories of that time. How we understand how things were done is thru preservation efforts. By understanding what is working well and what can be improved makes the experience for both the preservationist and the visitor better.

Mr. Fisher’s post raises the point that what is the needed resources to have a successful operation. Roundhouses and shops were filled with many spare parts. Today how many operations have a similar inventory of spare parts? Railroads were not just parlor cars and steam locomotives for people to take pictures of. The air shop, wheel shop, boiler shop, tender shop and others specialty shops were a part of a shop complex. The size of materials inventory maintained while truly impressive was not glamorous or readily seen. Many operations do not have a spare parts that were once common then such as injectors. The result is it takes longer to fix certain problems today. Many of these problems that we have to address the item as it fails were handled differently in the age of steam due to the inventory available. The gift to the Harriman roads of common designs is the common appliances and the fewer types of appliances that needed to be inventoried. When you look at one railroad taking over of another railroad you see a sorting of power and overtime and a rebuilding of power to a system standard of appliances for faster shop turn around.

The picture is interesting; the commentary is a view you may or may not agree to but it is a valid view point that should be considered.

Robby Peartree

473 is operable and regularly used.

476 sat in the Durango roundhouse museum for several years and is currently being restored to operation, a process which started this past spring.

478 operated last winter and ran out of time (15 years or 1,472 days — I don't remember which she hit first, it was that close). She needed more work than the 476 to return to operation and is now in the museum.

K-36 class engines 480, 481, 482, and 486 are operable and regularly used. The railroad does not have any K-28 or K-36 engines being used for parts.

I wonder if there were covenants or other restrictions when D&RGW sold off the Chama line and the equipment, shop, structures, and inventory to the states?

I think everyone is drifting away from the focus of this topic, the 492. Hopefully everyone agrees that her current condition is not what it could/should be. What could have been done/can be done to change that?

Apparently when parts were taken from 492 for operable locomotives, the operator chose not to put the parts being swapped off operable locomotives onto the 492 and the CTS commission chose not to require them to do so. Based on my observation of the C&TS over the years, despite much hoopla about the historical integrity of the railroad, when it comes to the commission and the operator, operation always trumps preservation, even if the cost do both simultaneously is minimal. At a site with such a vibrant and successful volunteer group, why has FCTS not been asked or allowed to put a simple coat of paint on the locomotive (and others like 494 and 495) and protect the exposed innards from corrosion?

Hi,

Several K37s (and K36s) were received by the C&TS from the D&RGW were incomplete. D&RGW did not deliver all locomotives complete. The D&RGW took parts from the donor loco and scrapped the bad part. This was pre-C&TS in the 1950s and 1960s.

The C&TS has replaced the bad parts on the donor locos when possible.

I seem to recall that 494 (I think) has a 480 driver under it. Several side rods have been swapped instead of the old one being scrapped.

The assumption that the C&TS had 9 K36 and K37 locomotives complete and functional from the D&RGW is an incorrect assumption. The assumption that the C&TS has thrown away bad parts instead of returning to the donor incomplete locomotive is also incorrect.

The 492 last ran in November 1966 and became a D&RGW donor locomotive (see the listing earlier in this thread. 492 was not delivered to the C&TS in a complete condition - as in eBay, it was for parts - as is.

FWIW

Doug vV

.

The modern D&RGW (now part of the Union Pacific) is standard gauge. The steam lines mentioned here--Durango to Silverton, Co., and Chama, N.M. to Antonito, Co., are 3-foot narrow gauge.

Hi,



Thanks for bring this up. I had heard about that and had forgotten about it. I turned 61 last month. My rememberer is going.

The removed parts are also away from people with sticky fingers. Heck they take miles of unused rail also (Yee Gods! - from "The Music Man" - 1962).

Doug vV

The point for me starting this thread is not what the Rio Grande did but what are the results of 40+ years of preservation. The history of the 492 at the end of Rio Grande ownership can be found. 492 was stored serviceable after 1966. In 1970 it was still in the roundhouse (Rio Grande Narrow Gauge- The Final Years, Alamosa to Chama by Joseph P. Hereford, Jr. and Ernest W. Robart). Rumor has it that it was fired up in Chama after it was taken there by the volunteers (various). But the story of 492 current condition is not found in the history of the Rio Grande and when they did what but in the actions and decisions made since D&RGW ownership.
The events were made by operators under the eye of the regulatory bodies (since 1977 that is the commission). You can search for images of the 492 and see the changes over time. Decisions made at various time have had their long term impact. Because of posted photographs from various sources we can see the changes over time. This photographic record is only a beginning point to understanding the events that lead to 492 current condition.
More and more pieces of RR property are reaching the point where they are more than twice the age of their active RR years. It is no longer artifacts like EP&SW#1 but more modern pieces like most of the 4-8-4s in existence today. The time in preservation is long enough that the history created during the time the artifact has been preserved that the results of preservation efforts can be measured. What has worked, what has not, can be seen but the more important opportunity is to look objectively at the results or lack of results of the efforts put in to preservation and determine how we can improve. An important part of the opportunity to learn from our past efforts is to do it objectively. Events such as the ownership dispute of DL&W 952 or my struggles with the City of El Paso over the ownership of SP 3420 shows the importance of better documentation of legal matters in the future.
The photographs of 492 over time show the difference in the locomotive’s condition. That changed and why while being preserved is a critical question. Were the results of events beneficial? If the results were not beneficial, is there reasonable ways to avoid such results in the future? In 492 case, perhaps fundraising for better shop space and capabilities as well a spare parts supply such as injectors and crosshead parts may be in order so the stripping of parts stop. There may be other solutions. Looking at the results of our efforts objectively is critical in my view if we are to grow as an effort.
Respectfully,
Robby Peartree