Yes best to scrap the whole idea, if its not accurate then whats the point .........ridiculous.

Mike

History is being made daily. This is certainly historic and it hasn't even happened yet.

I think what Rob is not articulating well is that it isn't an accurate replica of some other event that happened daily in the past, not that that has anything to do with the event that's the subject of this thread.

Mike understand that the reasoning for trading the 483 for the 478 was that the 478 was passenger power and 483 was not inspite of the history that both locomotives pulled the San Juan. Further the R&LHS used for years a photo of a c class and a t-12 on a eb passenger run on their membership brochure.
My comment is sarcasm about the arguments about passenger power on the C&TS.
The C&TS has had a number of supporters over its forty plus year resistance. I would argue the first historic passenger run came with the governor's special in November 1970. While the equipment was not full passenger cars the railroad was operating. If it had not operated then it would not even be here today.
The box car passenger conversions were in the style of the Rio Grande's reuse of equipment.
Today many of the great accomplishments we do are in many ways the result of others foresight or plain luck.
The ignorance and bias to history that shows in propaganda titles that many of us put together is disturbing to me if we are to move our efforts forward.

Robby Peartree

This train is not a remake of the San Juan, but is a remake of a historic passenger consist. The Cumbres and Toltec obtained 0 passenger cars when the line was abandoned, as the Durango and Silverton was still operated by the D&RGW, and the passenger equipment was moved there. The Vumbres and Toltec have used passenger cars made on flat cars as tourist faux cars. Various passenger cars exist outside of the D&RG, such as the 284 in Golden. Various coaches have been acquired such as the 292, 470, the 256 from golden, and baggage car 163. The train will be mainly pulled by the T-12 168 when that engine and the consist are completed.

To add to this, K-36’s 482, 483, 484, 485, 488, and 489 were equipped with steam heating to pull the San Juan and the Shavano. The 478 trade was nearly done not because of the historic passenger cars but to add a missing piece to the collection of the C&TS. It fell through because 483 is a special engine to the C&TS, as it was the first engine to operate trains on the line.

Stemguy73 wrote "The Cumbres and Toltec obtained 0 passenger cars when the line was abandoned, as the Durango and Silverton was still operated by the D&RGW, and the passenger equipment was moved there. The Vumbres and Toltec have used passenger cars made on flat cars as tourist faux cars."

"To add to this, K-36’s 482, 483, 484, 485, 488, and 489 were equipped with steam heating to pull the San Juan and the Shavano. The 478 trade was nearly done not because of the historic passenger cars but to add a missing piece to the collection of the C&TS. It fell through because 483 is a special engine to the C&TS, as it was the first engine to operate trains on the line."

Bullshit!

That the C&TS received zero cars that were on that train. The PRO 54 was not apart of the initial purchase agreement but delivered by the railroad. The Historic Preservation Study lists it in the roster and states "The elaborate post office and baggage room interiors were completely removed, and doors were blocked, until nothing of the origionals remains." It goes on to further state that "There really is very little left of these cars that is characteristic of the D&RGW era except for the overall outline."
Further since the creation of the current passenger fleet the C&TS with 6500 series flat cars wiped out all representative examples of the cars that were purchased initially. The current examples of 6500 series flats on the C&TS were purchased by a couple of parties for the railroad from the D&S to correct the oversite.

The K-28 purchase was pushed by people playing trains instead of looking at the business they are in. The Preservation Study does talk of acquiring a K-28 but it does not say to do it at the expense of other history.
One of the arguments about acquiring the K-28 was the ability to recreate the "San Juan" nevermind that they had locomotives that pulled the San Juan including 483, 484 and 488. By the way both the 484 and 488 were both involved with the last day of San Juan operations.
In historic preservation it is too often seen that the "experts opinion and bias become historical fact instead of personal opinion because of the drive of egos to live in a version of a biagon era instead of telling the story of what was the true history.

Robby Peartree