We're now on 3 pages and still trying to clarify what this thread is about.

Of course we want to be objective. Objectively, CATS is doing a very good job of bringing tourists to a remote region and being an economic development engine, which is its purpose. The gains are far exceeding the losses in terms of not losing a lot of historic fabric. They have adequate power and capacity to run the trains they need to run to succeed.

This one locomotive is just a part of the physical reality of what they use to carry out their mission. It's purpose currently is to be stored in pieces since restoring it won't help in their mission at present. Whether it becomes a candidate for restoration in the future is something anybody not directly involved in the management of the railroad is too ignorant about to have a valid opinion.... which doesn't mean there aren't emotional opinions abounding. This, however, has nothing to do with objective reality.

CATS has sources for spare parts well developed, including injectors. She's not down for spares, she's down for irrelevancy to carrying passengers requirements at this time.

Comparisons to real world conditions 40 years ago are pretty well meaningless in the context of operating conditions today.

This is going around in circles and getting nowhere. There's no victim here. There's no crime. If you want to see more CATS locomotives restored to operating conditions, create the need for it in terms of requirements for more trains to be hauled at the same time.

It seems to me that what is at the core of the debate here is this: If a locomotive is inoperable, should it be preserved in that condition indefinitely; and restored if funding becomes available and there is a need or desire to restore it?

Or is it okay to remove parts from the inoperable locomotive for use elsewhere and/or to let the locomotive persist unpreserved and subject to weather and natural deterioration indefinitely; and restored if funding becomes available and there is a need or desire to restore it?

Apparently, the point is that if you keep robbing parts from an inoperable locomotive, it reaches a tipping point of no return to restoration and operation. So in effect, the remaining un-restorable locomotive carcass is practically worthless in that stripped down context. However if you had all the parts for the complete locomotive, that part embodied in the bare carcass would be worth a great deal for what it contributes.

The problem is that this is a very difficult calculation. Offsetting the possible eventual sacrifice of the remains of a largely stripped locomotive is the fact that its donor parts have great deal of value in sustaining existing operable locomotives.

I agree that the ultimate decision belongs to the owner and there is no morally right or wrong judgment that anyone else has the right to impose on the owner.

No assumptions corrected, just confirmation of what I said. They chose not replace parts that they took for other locomotives. I'm not suggesting to put rebuilt, ready to run part on her, just slap the broken or worn out part back on her so she looks like a locomotive rather than a piece of junk as she surely appears to casual visitors. It also furthers the appearance that the C&TS views the 492 as a pile of parts rather than a historic artifact. That is their choice, but I don't have agree and I am entitled to say so.

I am glad its primer and not rust and that the lagging is off. However based on photos, the primer is over a decade old at this point.



I am not saying they should, or even could. I am asking the perfectly valid question why they have chosen not to. With a trillion D&RG NG fans here it seemed likely someone might know, but I am not going to burn the time of FoCTS volunteers by requesting an answer from them to a question of limited importance.

I am fully aware of what it feels like for the needed preservation work to massively outstrip the available volunteer labor and money. However I always courteously answer the question "Why haven't you..." because I am keenly aware that most people asking such questions honestly do not know why. There are reasons certain projects received priority and it facilitates understanding of the situation to convey that information. A positive outlook on such questions is much more productive.

Incidentally, I found that 494 and 495 appear to have had just such cosmetic work in the last few years and look worlds better. Perhaps there were resources for only two at the moment and a choice needed to be made.

494 in 2012:
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/mikado/drgw494-ragon1.jpg

494 in 2014:
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/mikado/drgw494-garbutt1.jpg

495 in 1993:
http://davesriogrande.net/Rosters/DRGW/locomotive/495.jpg

495 in 2015:
http://davesriogrande.net/Rosters/DRGW/locomotive/495_5Jul15.jpg

This ties in with my comment earlier about the stripped hulk of a New Haven 2-10-2 that was restored for service in WW II. It was actually looking worse in a lot of ways than this 2-8-2 does today, yet it was brought back because it was needed.

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, it's my opinion if you have a boiler, frame, cylinder block, and drivers available, the engine is restorable. All else is relatively (notice that I did say relatively!) easy to repair or replace.

What is needed is what others have commented on, and what was needed for that New Haven 2-10-2--the traffic levels to justify a return to service.

By the way, if my memory is right, I think the New Haven engine may have even been removed from the roster, meaning it was written off but for some reason never sold or scrapped. I would bet the New Haven's managers were glad they hadn't let that hulk go when they found they needed it again!

A few things:

Barry Scrapyard

K27s from rip rap in New Zealand

Rick's Ingot on Wheels

Trading parts off between working and nonworking locomotives is a time honored way to keep traffic moving. I see no danger of CATS scrapping any of its steam power, whether stored or not. Many hulks hanging around without being disassembled condition in city parks and in self identifying museums are in much greater danger.

I'm helping a friend by remote control in his quest to build a Dewey Brothers replica by recycling a stationary boiler and motor from a steam crane.

Unsustainable "preservation" is akin to paying to have the deck chairs rearranged on the Titanic while it's sinking. Make choices and limit using those resources for sustainable preservation projects. Trying to save everything - including red herrings like this one that aren't endangered - means saving nothing in the long run.

So 50 years after it was taken out of service, No. 492 still survives. It's not Toyotas and razorblades. There are thousands of locomotives that were scrapped within months of their retirements. Be glad it still survives. End of story.

I tend to agree with the initial idea of this post, that sitting there is junk yard looking condition does not make the kind of statement that preservation is a priority. As has been pointed out here, the item removed have been stored away, but in the current condition, it does not inspire care and upkeep. The restoration of the 494 & 495 were carried out I believe by the FOCTS a few years ago, and I am so glad that this was done. Makes them look like they are important to the owner, not the pile behind the garage. Just my $.02, and probably not worth that much!

Steve

Well, let's ask a question here--how do we change things?

How do we get the additional traffic level to justify returning this engine (and possibly the others) to steam? If not that, how do we marshal the resources for a cosmetic restoration--and keep that up afterwards as well?

A great question that deserves a valid answer. I surely don't pretend to know all the answers, and it is easy to talk from 1500 miles away.

My first guess is the short answer is marketing! As was posted in another post, "Have you checked your site lately?" I am not saying that their site is poor, but online marketing is the future and we need to be in step with it. Perhaps one way to involve the younger folks is to get them working on your web site. This property is owned by the states, so that can be a help and also a hindrance. Should be easier to tap into the tourism organizations etc. You have to enhance the whole area to get people to come to do things in addition to the rail road.

As for need for additional locomotives, they seemed to want another one last year when they pulled the 168 from Colorado Springs. 492 & 497 were sitting there at that time, they just wanted something different?

Steve

Ron said


In my opinion, the answer is 'neither'. Perhaps the 'right' solution is to do exactly what a good museum does with a large artifact that it can't restore or store indoors: cocoon it.

This is not like the shop in Cleveland that keeps the Breda LRVs going. There you can just keep the victims on some rip track somewhere out of sight, and few will complain. Even stripped, 492 has historic value, even if relegated to the status of permanent parts source in the absence of the requisite cubic dollars for her restoration, and it isn't rocket science to carefully block her up, keep her in primer cap the stack and remove lagging, keep desiccant in the water spaces, etc. as volunteer time and money permit. She's just as much a display of 'relevance' to museum preservation as a properly curated parts source as she would be in cosmetically-only "restored" condition -- if she is not turning to rust on an accelerated basis hidden away on some back track.

I happen to think that stripping every available part off a 'parts locomotive' and moving it inside out of the weather, starting to rework it, cataloguing it, etc. makes far better sense than leaving it outside to corrode or stick and then start using heroic measures of hammering, grinding, or gas cutting to wrench it loose when needed. That also applies to using 'war-weary' removed parts that, at some point, may need to be themselves reworked or renewed when all the better spares are used up.

If money, time, and interest can be obtained -- and this, really, is the point that Mr. Peartree is addressing -- then by all means put the removed parts on the locomotive, make replicas or imitations of the missing pieces, and put the locomotive into some semblance of completed and cared-for state as a static exhibit. But shy of that, every dollar and hour is almost certainly better spent on actual operating equipment, or (sorry to be crass) money-making operations that keep the lights on and the fires safe. My point is that the minimum amount of diversion from 'core competence' that stabilizes the "historic fabric" of 492 is appropriate, but I agree with Mr. Peartree and his original source that at least the appearance of doing a little more to "stabilize the artifact" ought to be consciously done, and perhaps promoted as a teaching example.

In a word, yes. Considering the huge interest and excitement generated by 315 or even 463 when they're running on the C&TS, having "something different" like 168 could be very lucrative for the railroad. My understanding is the 168 doesn't have the tractive effort to take a regular train over Cumbres Pass in the eastbound direction without a helper, so it will never be a regular service engine. Rather it will be for charters and special events, as well as movie work. Having 168 means the next time Hollywood comes looking for an authentic 1880s or 1890s consist to appear in a Western, the C&TS will finally be able to provide it.

-Philip Marshall

Hi,

Several things have happened over the years.

One thing is that the C&TS goes from nowhere to nowhere for 64 miles. I love the area but a cousin by marriage believed that there were only two places in the US - New York City and Los Angeles. It was waste land in between.

The C&TS was doing real well (ridership in the 50,000 range) until about 2001 when the economy softened. It has never recovered to the 1990s ridership numbers (currently in the 35,000 range).

Kyle ran the line for many years and donated a lot of money from his system of short lines around the US to help out. When he died, a series of mediocre operators ran the property into the ground c2001-2, there were only two operable locomotives - down from 5 with Kyle.

From before 2000, the roadbed of the line was not well ballasted - it was mostly whatever scrub was around. In about 2004(?) the Lobato bridge burned and it curbed the season. The popular end of the line is the west end and the 9 miles of 4% grade there was cut in two. They solved it by moving by truck a locomotive and cars to Cumbres and bussing people from Chama to Cumbres. Bad luck. Of course the main shops were at Chama and it was cut off from the operating eat end.

The bridge was repaired in time (I think) for the next season. Over on the NGDF, there were lots of posts about the bridge's progress in being rebuilt. Fascinating reading about the c1890 structure. The states got behind and pushed.

Today, the C&TS has completed a muti-year ballasting campaign (5 years I think) that has the line the same as some SG mainlines. Looks great.

The line now is on better condition that it has been almost since it was purchased from the states. The ballasting of the line in and of itself was a better investment (reduced wear and tear on rolling stock) than restoring an unneeded locomotive.

They just got a new marketing fellow. I look forward to seeing what he does.

I have always though that the myth of the "Wild West" is still an attraction for those east of the Mississippi. Many come to dude ranches to experience the cowboy ways. How about getting eastern tour companies to make a package deal? for the week of the dude ranch, spend a day and/or offer a ride on the C&TS. If you want to ride horses in the back country, get them there by the C&TS and them let them horseback ride in the National Forests?

FWIW.

Doug vV

One of issues here is accessibility. The C&TS is an "open" facility where the public is encouraged to wander around and see everything - warts and all.

There is nothing removed from 492 that cannot be replaced to make her operable again.

Not having a big roundhouse/shop blocking the view of the public puts all your undesirable looking equipment on public display.

If one were to go over to Durango and get in behind the roundhouse and find sister 498, you will find her is far worse shape. At least 492 still has a tender and a stack.

I agree that every stripped down carcass of a locomotive is rebuildable as long as there is something there to start with.

My comment about a tipping point is meant to refer to what is likely rather than what is possible. My point is that the more stripped down the locomotive is; the more the cost of restoration tends to exceed the benefit. That is assuming that the removed parts actually gone and not just removed and placed in storage. So removing parts from a locomotive and letting the rest deteriorate in the weather, renders it less likely to be restored.

Again, I am not saying that this is wrong or that anyone but the owner has the right to decide. I am only trying to understand the point made by Fritz Klinke in the original post. He seems to be criticizing the treatment of #492 when he refers to its condition as a “sad commentary.” I take it that he is objecting to the fact that when you cannibalize a locomotive for parts, you make it less likely that the locomotive will be restored and more likely that it will be scrapped. Perhaps he is advocating the building of new parts or acquiring parts that are not part of another stored locomotive, and to use those for repairing existing operational locomotives.

Of course that would raise the cost of maintaining an operating locomotive, but the alternative is the cost of losing a repairable locomotive by using it up as a parts donor. While this may have been traditional railroad practice, that practice conflicts with the mission and motives of railroad preservation. Maybe that is what Fritz was referring to.

.