> While I argue with you to a point, I HIGHLY
> suggest you sit in on one of either H. Roger
> Grant's or Richard Saunders classes on that
> subject at Clemson University. Both have
> written a great deal about the history of
> the American Railroad with a fairly unbiased
> and REALISTIC approach that has been highly
> recognized by railfan and academic alike. No
> real wonder Robert Franzen of Grand Canyon
> fame is a former student of Dr. Saunders! In
> fact, oh great Superheater, you might be
> surprised how many members of academia are
> supporters of rail preservation, and of our
> highly industrialized history.

> TJG

I'm sure I would. My apologies to the silent plurality. Anytime you speak in generalities you risk painting with too broad a brush.

Unfortunately, whenever I read the course catalogs from any large institution, especially in the following fields: History, Sociology, American Studies, Labor History, Labor Studies, Economics, Labor Economics, etc., the course descriptions seem always to have been written by a "wobbly".

I'd love to sit in such a class, unfortunately, South Carolina is a long way from Pennsylvania.

If I seem unduly critical of academe, here in PA my former alma mater (Penn State or is that State Penn)is asking for a 14% increase in funding. I say "asking" in the sense that they have maintained that absent this increase they will have to raise tuition (aka create aggravated voters)

When I began there in 1980, tuition was 1416 for a full year (36 credits) and as of 200-2003 it was 8950 for a commonwealth campus full year tuition. Thats a sustained 8.74% annual increase in those 22 years - far above inflation and indicative of bad fiscal management.

Before I'm accused of going to far off topic -Let me say there's NO WAY the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission could command increases in fees like that and survive and I'm pretty sure they didn't ever DARE to ask for a funding increase like that.


superheater@rrmail.com

> I believe this is a Hail Mary Play by CHS to
> find a replacement engine. Since they only
> own this and K-37 #491 on display at the
> CRM, there are few choices. The other two
> C&S locomotives in Central City #71 and
> Idaho Springs, CO. #60 are off limits for
> restoration. They are the local show pieces
> of these two communities and they are very
> possessive of the locos.

Well since we have progressed to this I will insert my opinion. While the #9 is a basket case, the #71 which has operated in most of our lifetimes recently could be a possibility. Gilpin County Historical Society owns the engine, and their guff as to why the lokie stays in CC is due to the current operator at GL. Remember they used to have an operation at CC? I am sure others will interject, but the CHS may wind up walking down this path. No I am not a dreamer and have connections in the area so let the others speak.

As for me I will be out to ride the loop one last time in June, and I can hardly wait...

Jeff




btflco@juno.com

Perhaps it is because I come from the maritime preservation world where most steam ships/boats are static, but my comment about cosmetic restoration of C&S #9 went by un-noticed.

There is another state between neglected out in the open and fully re-built for steam operation.

Take away the amusement park paint, perhaps even build her a shelter as has been done with other Colorado narrow gauge engines.

With a budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars to return a basket case steam loco to operation, where is the money to come from?

Cosmetic repairs cost so much less and the engine is still there if the gold appears?

Ted Miles

ted_miles@nps.gov

>Ted,

Take a look at what the CHS has already built in regards to a shelter. The C&S passenger cars that came with the #9 are housed in a Car Pavillion. That Pavillion was built without the taking in recommendations from Lindsay Ashby as to the location of the connecting track. The great "Crystal Palace" was erected to store the #9 and three passenger cars and one caboose (ex-D&RGW).

However when the time to connect the building to the GLR mainline came about, the alignment was wrong. The trackage could not be connected to the mainline since the curve would be too great. So the partially rebuilt coaches were moved in by flatbed truck and the caboose could not fit through the entrance door.

Two passenger cars were refurbished only on inside by a partial restoration. The wood work and other interior areas. The trucks and underbody were never rebuilt. The C&S business car was never touched. On top of all this the building is off limits to tours, since the CHS has no one there to conduct tours to explain the history of the railroad.

Now the CHS is going to repair the #9 to pull what? The lead time to rebuld the #9 is ticking away. If the CHS wants to have it ready for May 2005. The coaches would also need to be rebuilt for operation. However the CHS may have approached the C&TS to lease 5 surplus freight car coaches?

It would be great to see #9 rebuilt and used in occasional trips along with the C&S passenger cars. Realisticly the ware and tear on the on these cars on regular service would beat them to pieces. Using #9 and the coaches on special occasions would be the best solution to the preservation and operation of these historic pieces.

Maybe CHS plan is, to use these C&TS coaches and eventually #9 in daily service. This is what they have offered to future operators if they restore the locomotive! I think if this is the plan it will not be a profitable operation. The cost of restoring #9 and the short train that it could pull would not even match what is operating now under the Ashby's. The best solution to this whole mess would be to reopen negotiations with the Ashby's. However the CHS has backed itself into a corner and now must find a different solution.

We will see over the summer if the CHS can find a viable candidate to operate the railroad. Just remember the Car Pavillion story, is this how the CHS uses it's resources and money, then the Georgetown Loop is in trouble. Are there other operators capable of bringing in equipment and operating the Georgetown Loop as the Ashby's are doing today?

Dale Brown

> Take away the amusement park paint, perhaps
> even build her a shelter as has been done
> with other Colorado narrow gauge engines.

> With a budget of hundreds of thousands of
> dollars to return a basket case steam loco
> to operation, where is the money to come
> from?

> Cosmetic repairs cost so much less and the
> engine is still there if the gold appears?

> Ted Miles


dwbrown1@fuse.net