Destruction of Amtrak Redondo Junction Roundhouse
Pierre A Plauzoles
I just learned earlier today that Amtrak has set dates for the destruction of what is said to be the last major remaining building (and possibly the oldest) of Santa Fe heritage in southern California, namely the Redondo Junction Roundhouse on the right bank of the Los Angeles River. At 94 years old, it is still a fully functional facility, but if Amtrak has its way, the first group of stalls to go (eleven, I believe) will be torn down early in the second week of April, with the remaining stalls coming down within a year and a half, maybe less.
I fail to understand the rationale behind this move. Could someone enlighten me? Is the structure seismically unsound? If so, why wasn't something done about it earlier? Is it in the way of something else they want to do? perhaps a flyover over the Los Angeles River and the UP tracks to the harbor? Personally, I think a flyover would be nothing more than a luxury: today's signalling systems are such that it is really not that necessary for safety, and the frequency of meets is not such that it would be necessary for that reason. Has an environmental impact statement been prepared on this? If not, why not? Perhaps one of you who are more "in the loop" than I can shed some light on the matter?...
To get back to the roundhouse itself, what is so bad about preserving a little local history? Why could the ATSF 3751 and whatever visiting steam locomotive comes along use it for maintenance and storage? Why could it not be turned into a museum just like others have been in other areas? I agree that the part of town where it is located is not the greatest, but then revitalization has done great things for a number of other towns and cities (and parts thereof), Old Town Sacramento being a prime example of what a museum can do. If Northen California has Old Town Sacramento, what is wrong with our having something similar?
REMEMBER: THERE IS ONLY 18 DAYS LEFT UNTIL THE WRECKING BALL MAKES
ITS FIRST SWING. AFTER THAT, IT WILL BE TOO LATE TO SAVE THE FIRST
GROUP OF STALLS.
Andrew C. Toppan
> I fail to understand the rationale behind this move. Could someone
> enlighten me? Is the structure seismically unsound? If so, why wasn't
It's probably quite simple: Amtrak is trying to turn a profit (or at least
break even), and one typically doesn't meet that goal by preserving old
buildings.
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more
HaRRy
<plauz...@bigvalley.net> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
»I just learned earlier today that Amtrak has set dates for the
»destruction of what is said to be the last major remaining building (and
»possibly the oldest) of Santa Fe heritage in southern California, namely
»the Redondo Junction Roundhouse on the right bank of the Los Angeles
»River. At 94 years old, it is still a fully functional facility, but if
»Amtrak has its way, the first group of stalls to go (eleven, I believe)
»will be torn down early in the second week of April, with the remaining
»stalls coming down within a year and a half, maybe less.
The roundhouse has historic value -- that I don't dispute -- but it's certainly
not the oldest "major remaining building of Santa Fe heritage in southern
California".
For example, the National City (San Diego County) wooden frame station
building, built in 1881 which is in the last stages of restoration, is
considerably older, and being the most southwestern station ever on the AT&SF,
the true "end of the line", it is certain a major building.
Also, the Escondido station of the Santa Fe built in 1887 still stands and is
now a museum. And the Encinitas station building built also in 1887 still
exists, though it has been moved from it's original site.
And the Carlsbad station was also built in 1887 still stands, in its original
location along side the busy Amtrak San Diegan route, though now offices of the
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce.
(Source for all of the above: Railroad Stations of San Diego County, 1988,
ISBN #0-09621857-0-1, probably out of print)
HaRRy, San Diego
--
http://communities.prodigy.net/trains/
Expect a train on any track, at any time, in any direction!
(To e-mail reply change no.spam to home dot com)
Pierre A Plauzoles
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:42:33 -0800, Pierre A Plauzoles
> <plauz...@bigvalley.net> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
>
> »I just learned earlier today that Amtrak has set dates for the
> »destruction of what is said to be the last major remaining building (and
> »possibly the oldest) of Santa Fe heritage in southern California, namely
> »the Redondo Junction Roundhouse on the right bank of the Los Angeles
> »River. At 94 years old, it is still a fully functional facility, but if
> »Amtrak has its way, the first group of stalls to go (eleven, I believe)
> »will be torn down early in the second week of April, with the remaining
> »stalls coming down within a year and a half, maybe less.
>
> The roundhouse has historic value -- that I don't dispute -- but it's certainly
> not the oldest "major remaining building of Santa Fe heritage in southern
> California".
>
> For example, the National City (San Diego County) wooden frame station
> building, built in 1881 which is in the last stages of restoration, is
> considerably older, and being the most southwestern station ever on the AT&SF,
> the true "end of the line", it is certain a major building.
>
> Also, the Escondido station of the Santa Fe built in 1887 still stands and is
> now a museum. And the Encinitas station building built also in 1887 still
> exists, though it has been moved from it's original site.
>
> And the Carlsbad station was also built in 1887 still stands, in its original
> location along side the busy Amtrak San Diegan route, though now offices of the
> Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce.
Thank you for the update. These are all stations. Are there any other Santa Fe
facilities (such as roundhouses or shops) still in existence in southern California
-- or for that matter, anywhere in the southwestern US? The San Bernardino Shops
are, as far as I know, long gone. As Andrew Toppan tells me (rather coldly),
Amtrak is probably just trying to get deeper into the black. I can agree with the
principle that this is a laudable goal, but, like the Bible says that Man does not
live by bread alone, but by the Word of God, so it for corporations: they depend on
a decent cash flow *and* a positive corporate image. If that corporate image is
tarnished, its durability is impaired. Case in point: some years back, it was
bandied about that Union Pacific had the right idea wanting to keep its fleet of
passenger equipment for excursions. I think this attitude is correct: the shippers
a railroad counts on for its income are human beings not aliens from Pluto. The
machines (computers, typewriters, and so on) and the officers and staff that make
up the corporation may work as a unit, but the brains behind the whole thing are
still the humans telling the computers what to do and how to do it. That said, it
is then up to the public relations department to put the best spin on everything
the company does. Education of the public can be a strong asset when properly
used, but if there are no tools , the work can't be done, and "show-and-tell" is
what education is all about, which is why museums are considered educational
institutions just as schools from the "Mommy and Me" level all the way to the
university level are.
Pierre A Plauzoles
> Pierre A Plauzoles (plauz...@bigvalley.net) was seen to write:
> > I fail to understand the rationale behind this move. Could someone
> > enlighten me? Is the structure seismically unsound? If so, why wasn't....
[see original post for continuation of message]
> It's probably quite simple: Amtrak is trying to turn a profit (or at least
> break even), and one typically doesn't meet that goal by preserving old
> buildings.
So what? If you lose public support foir your corporate activity, your company
goes belly up or has a harder time getting what it wants done. If the public
knows nothing of your compny's activities, when you ask for something, the
reaction is likely to be something akin to "What the !@#$% for??! !@#$% NO!!"
Not a very friendly attitude, I admit, but nevertheless true. Educating the
public on what you do makes the wheels of bureaucracy turn a lot easier.
Trying to make a buck is not an excuse for destroying your history. Throwing
the 3751 out of the roundhouse is a pretty bad move in public relations if you
ask me. Why can't they ask the local community if something can be done to
preserve the structure instead? I am sure there is a possibility of that if
the funding can be found. Keep in mind that I am not saying this HAS TO BE
DONE, but rather that Amtrak should at least try, and that I am not aware of
any attempt on Amtrak's part (or anyone else) to save the roundhouse for future
educational use (or other use, such as housing a steam locomotive or two).
Another thing: the railroad industry does not have very many friends among the
general public, and the more it can do to gain more froiends the better off it
will be -- and that industry, believe it or not, includes every ounce of
anything that bears Amtrak's name in one way or another except for the buses.
Now, can someone get back to my original question (see above)?
Thank you.
Pierre A Plauzoles
sphinxa...@bigfoot.com
Merritt Mullen
> Thank you for the update. These are all stations. Are there any other Santa
> Fe facilities (such as roundhouses or shops) still in existence in southern
> California -- or for that matter, anywhere in the southwestern US? The San
> Bernardino Shops are, as far as I know, long gone. As Andrew Toppan tells me
> (rather coldly), Amtrak is probably just trying to get deeper into the black.
> I can agree with the principle that this is a laudable goal, but, like the
> Bible says that Man does not live by bread alone, but by the Word of God, so
> it for corporations: they depend on a decent cash flow *and* a positive
> corporate image. If that corporate image is tarnished, its durability is
> impaired.
Yeah, but the best thing for Amtrak's public image is to be seen as a modern
21st century transportation system, not as a museum of 19th century
technology. While I am a member of the National Trust and strongly support
historic preservation, I know of no reason for preserving the Redondo
roundhouse at Amtrak's expense.
Almost no one in the general public (or those among those likely to use
Amtrak for transportation) really cares about a dirty old roundhouse (which
is not available for public perusal anyway). If tearing it down means
improved Amtrak service, I'm all for it.
Ford Tri-Motors and DC-3s are interesting, but I don't expect the airlines I
fly with to be using them.
Merritt
Pierre A Plauzoles
> Pierre A Plauzoles (plauz...@bigvalley.net) was seen to write:
> > So what? If you lose public support foir your corporate activity, your company
> > goes belly up or has a harder time getting what it wants done. If the public
> > knows nothing of your compny's activities, when you ask for something, the
>
> How would keeping an old, obsolete roundhouse help maintain "public support"
> for Amtrak? The public as a whole doesn't give a damn about roundhouses or
> railroads; they would probably think of the roundhouse (any roundhouse) as an
> ugly, decrepit pile of junk, if they thought of it at all.
>
> Amtrak's "public image" should be that of a modern transportation company, not
> a rolling museum maintained in 19th century facilities.
What do think of Old Sacramento's facilities? Are they a pile of junk? If that is
your opinion, then just plain stop emailing me on the subject. If not, then maybe we
can keep discussiong this.
Thank you.
Pierre A Plauzoles
> Pierre A Plauzoles at plauz...@bigvalley.net wrote on 3/25/00 9:34 AM:
>
> > Thank you for the update. These are all stations. Are there any other Santa
> > Fe facilities (such as roundhouses or shops) still in existence in southern
> > California -- or for that matter, anywhere in the southwestern US? The San
> > Bernardino Shops are, as far as I know, long gone. As Andrew Toppan tells me
> > (rather coldly), Amtrak is probably just trying to get deeper into the black.
> > I can agree with the principle that this is a laudable goal, but, like the
> > Bible says that Man does not live by bread alone, but by the Word of God, so
> > it for corporations: they depend on a decent cash flow *and* a positive
> > corporate image. If that corporate image is tarnished, its durability is
> > impaired.
>
> Yeah, but the best thing for Amtrak's public image is to be seen as a modern
> 21st century transportation system, not as a museum of 19th century
> technology. While I am a member of the National Trust and strongly support
> historic preservation, I know of no reason for preserving the Redondo
> roundhouse at Amtrak's expense.
!@#$%^&*()!!@#$%^&*(()) Who ever said *anything* about Amtrak footing the bill???
I know !@#$% well I didn't!!
> Almost no one in the general public (or those among those likely to use
> Amtrak for transportation) really cares about a dirty old roundhouse (which
> is not available for public perusal anyway). If tearing it down means
> improved Amtrak service, I'm all for it.
How would Amtrak's improve *because* of the destruction of the Redondo Junction
Roundhouse??
> Ford Tri-Motors and DC-3s are interesting, but I don't expect the airlines I
> fly with to be using them.
... and I suppose you are now going to tell me I think TWA is flying that
Constellation I see around here once in a while?? You usually make more sense than
that. I know better than that. What about UP and its steam program? Does it make
the UP an antiquated piece of junk? No way in the world.
>
>
> Merritt
Pierre A Plauzoles
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 09:34:05 -0800, Pierre A Plauzoles
> <plauz...@bigvalley.net> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
>
> »As Andrew Toppan tells me (rather coldly),
> »Amtrak is probably just trying to get deeper into the black.
>
> Pfui. Amtrak is trying to get out of the deep red. I'm for saving historic
> buildings when feasible, but saddling companies with assets that they don't
> need or want, that are obsolete and already replaced, because they are
> "historic" is in essence the taking of private property without just
> compensation.
Like I was telling Andrew, I never said Amtrak should be footing the bill for the
preservation, just that Amtrak should at least *attempt* to work with the
preservationists who would like to see it saved. The people who work there would
probably like to see it saved, but can't get involved due to conflict of interest
rules. It has to be a public effort.
> And frankly, I see that roundhouse often and just don't see the problem. It's
> mostly an eyesore (and an area of blight, to be sure).
... and Oceanside was better before the locals decided to redo the station?
Remember, Amtrak didn't want to move in at first (I think their reason, though
probably not said publicly, was that it wasn't their idea to begin with). Look at
it now. If it isn't to your liking, it certainly pleases me enormously in
comparison to what was there thirty years ago.
Merritt Mullen
> Merritt Mullen wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but the best thing for Amtrak's public image is to be seen as a modern
>> 21st century transportation system, not as a museum of 19th century
>> technology. While I am a member of the National Trust and strongly support
>> historic preservation, I know of no reason for preserving the Redondo
>> roundhouse at Amtrak's expense.
>>
> !@#$%^&*()!!@#$%^&*(()) Who ever said *anything* about Amtrak footing the
> bill??? I know !@#$% well I didn't!!
>
I don't think Amtrak saw any benefactors running towards them with money in
their hands to save the roundhouse and provide Amtrak with the substitute
land they need to replace that on which the roundhouse sits. Do you really
think that ANYONE would come forward with cash to save the roundhouse?
>> Almost no one in the general public (or those among those likely to use
>> Amtrak for transportation) really cares about a dirty old roundhouse (which
>> is not available for public perusal anyway). If tearing it down means
>> improved Amtrak service, I'm all for it.
>>
> How would Amtrak's improve *because* of the destruction of the Redondo
> Junction Roundhouse??
>
Are you implying that Amtrak is spending the money to demolish the
roundhouse out of sheer meanness? Don't you think they are doing it in
order to improve their maintenance facilities? Or perhaps it is in the way
of the Alameda Corridor project. In any case, it is being done for a
positive purpose. Amtrak certainly doesn't have the money to go around
destroying buildings for frivolous reasons.
>> Ford Tri-Motors and DC-3s are interesting, but I don't expect the airlines I
>> fly with to be using them.
>>
> ... and I suppose you are now going to tell me I think TWA is flying that
> Constellation I see around here once in a while?? You usually make more sense
> than that. I know better than that.
The point is the roundhouse and land it sits on is used by Amtrak for
maintenance of its equipment. It is not set aside as a museum. My point
was that Amtrak should have 21st century facilities to run a 21st century
transportation company. That TWA Connie you see flying around is not
carrying regular airline passengers.
> What about UP and its steam program?
> Does it make the UP an antiquated piece of junk? No way in the world.
As a private business, UP is in a better position to maintain museum pieces
than Amtrak is. Anyway, I bet UP feels that the steam program actually
helps their bottom line by providing good will and advertising for the
company. The Redondo roundhouse serves no such purpose (it is not even
something the public is aware of). If it belonged to
UP, they probably would have torn it down long ago.
Merritt
HaRRy
<plauz...@bigvalley.net> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
»As Andrew Toppan tells me (rather coldly),
»Amtrak is probably just trying to get deeper into the black.
Pfui. Amtrak is trying to get out of the deep red. I'm for saving historic
buildings when feasible, but saddling companies with assets that they don't
need or want, that are obsolete and already replaced, because they are
"historic" is in essence the taking of private property without just
compensation.
And frankly, I see that roundhouse often and just don't see the problem. It's
mostly an eyesore (and an area of blight, to be sure).
HaRRy, San Diego
Andrew C. Toppan
> So what? If you lose public support foir your corporate activity, your company
> goes belly up or has a harder time getting what it wants done. If the public
> knows nothing of your compny's activities, when you ask for something, the
How would keeping an old, obsolete roundhouse help maintain "public support"
for Amtrak? The public as a whole doesn't give a damn about roundhouses or
railroads; they would probably think of the roundhouse (any roundhouse) as an
ugly, decrepit pile of junk, if they thought of it at all.
Amtrak's "public image" should be that of a modern transportation company, not
a rolling museum maintained in 19th century facilities.
--
Steve Hoskins
Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>The point is the roundhouse and land it sits on is used by Amtrak for
>maintenance of its equipment. It is not set aside as a museum. My point
>was that Amtrak should have 21st century facilities to run a 21st century
>transportation company. That TWA Connie you see flying around is not
>carrying regular airline passengers.
It isn't even owned by TWA anyway. It's owned by the "Save-A-Connie"
foundation who bought it out of a junkyard, restored it, and painted
it to look somewhat like TWA. It says "SAC" on it.
>> What about UP and its steam program?
>> Does it make the UP an antiquated piece of junk? No way in the world.
>
>As a private business, UP is in a better position to maintain museum pieces
>than Amtrak is. Anyway, I bet UP feels that the steam program actually
>helps their bottom line by providing good will and advertising for the
>company. The Redondo roundhouse serves no such purpose (it is not even
>something the public is aware of). If it belonged to
>UP, they probably would have torn it down long ago.
I agree with you 100%. If it were preserved, who the heck would want to
drive through that not-so-pleasant neighborhood to go look at it anyway?
Didn't the Redondo roundhouse suffer some kind of damage in one of the
many earthquakes over the past decade?
Douglas Smith
> ... and I suppose you are now going to tell me I think TWA is flying that
> Constellation I see around here once in a while?? You usually make more sense than
> that. I know better than that. What about UP and its steam program? Does it make
> the UP an antiquated piece of junk? No way in the world.
And Smitty replies:
I remember TWA Connies from when I was a kid in the 60's. As for the UP, it may be
a "world-class" freight operation, but it still does many things in an antiquated
fashion. As for the steam engines, they're beautiful, but even Steve Lee asked me
once, "Would you want to run a railroad with these things?" In the meantime, calm down
and take a breather. Personally, I hate seeing old buildings be lost to history. But
there's got to be some kind of incentive for preserving it, not just an occasional
visit from a peripatetic steam locomotive. Another museum? Heck, we're not funding
the ones we have. Fortunately, there are some museum operations that have roundhouses
preserved, but so many of the great ones have been lost. And if Amtrak needs this
property for something else or they don't wish to pay taxes on the building, they're
going to take it down. It's a business decision. As for the tax matter, buildings of
historical note should be taken from the tax roles as an incentive to preserve them.
But there also has to be more than just a feeling of nostalgia.
Douglas Smith
We're not speaking of Old Sacramento here. That was a block of buildings that lent
itself well for preservation. This is a decrepit (from others' descriptions) old
building that sits on property that a going concern wants to develop. There are other
roundhouses in the country which are preserved.
Pierre A Plauzoles wrote:
> "Andrew C. Toppan" wrote:
>
> > Pierre A Plauzoles (plauz...@bigvalley.net) was seen to write:
> > > So what? If you lose public support foir your corporate activity, your company
> > > goes belly up or has a harder time getting what it wants done. If the public
> > > knows nothing of your compny's activities, when you ask for something, the
> >
> > How would keeping an old, obsolete roundhouse help maintain "public support"
> > for Amtrak? The public as a whole doesn't give a damn about roundhouses or
> > railroads; they would probably think of the roundhouse (any roundhouse) as an
> > ugly, decrepit pile of junk, if they thought of it at all.
> >
> > Amtrak's "public image" should be that of a modern transportation company, not
> > a rolling museum maintained in 19th century facilities.
>
Andrew C. Toppan
> What do think of Old Sacramento's facilities? Are they a pile of junk? If that is
As best I can tell, those facilties are not preserved with taxpayer funds
intended for railroad transportation subsidies.
> your opinion, then just plain stop emailing me on the subject.
I haven't emailed you yet. This is a newsgroup, not email.
Andrew C. Toppan
> !@#$%^&*()!!@#$%^&*(()) Who ever said *anything* about Amtrak footing the bill???
> I know !@#$% well I didn't!!
OK, where are the preservation groups with the $$$?
> ... and I suppose you are now going to tell me I think TWA is flying that
> Constellation I see around here once in a while??
TWA isn't flying it.
Charles Hobbs
"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote:
>
> Pierre A Plauzoles (plauz...@bigvalley.net) was seen to write:
> > What do think of Old Sacramento's facilities? Are they a pile of junk? If that is
>
> As best I can tell, those facilties are not preserved with taxpayer funds
> intended for railroad transportation subsidies.
>
> > your opinion, then just plain stop emailing me on the subject.
>
> I haven't emailed you yet. This is a newsgroup, not email.
There's a bit of discussion about this over at
http://www.trainorders.com--with a
couple of people saying "We must save this building at all costs--hey,
the Oscars are
in town today, let's see if we can get a movie star or two to back us
up", but
most people saying, "It's too late" and "We've got bigger fish to fry".
Charles Hobbs
Douglas Smith wrote:
>
> And Smitty replies:
>
> We're not speaking of Old Sacramento here. That was a block of buildings that lent
> itself well for preservation. This is a decrepit (from others' descriptions) old
> building that sits on property that a going concern wants to develop. There are other
> roundhouses in the country which are preserved.
Isn't there at least a turntable (if not a full roundhouse) at Taylor
Yard (UP/Metrolink
along San Fernando Road)???
HaRRy
<plauz...@bigvalley.net> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
»HaRRy wrote:
»
»> On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 09:34:05 -0800, Pierre A Plauzoles
»> <plauz...@bigvalley.net> wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
»>
»> »As Andrew Toppan tells me (rather coldly),
»> »Amtrak is probably just trying to get deeper into the black.
»>
»> Pfui. Amtrak is trying to get out of the deep red. I'm for saving historic
»> buildings when feasible, but saddling companies with assets that they don't
»> need or want, that are obsolete and already replaced, because they are
»> "historic" is in essence the taking of private property without just
»> compensation.
»
»Like I was telling Andrew, I never said Amtrak should be footing the bill for the
»preservation, just that Amtrak should at least *attempt* to work with the
»preservationists who would like to see it saved. The people who work there would
»probably like to see it saved, but can't get involved due to conflict of interest
»rules. It has to be a public effort.
The land is Amtrak's, on which they pay taxes. The facilities are Amtrak's.
If the roundhouse is kept by Amtrak, then they have to pay the taxes and
continue to use a decrepit and obsolete facility.
If the roundhouse is given away, then Amtrak loses the land and space for a
modern facility (which is also a "taking of private property" situation).
If some unknown entity (which so far doesn't seem to exist) buys the property
and building, Amtrak still loses the space for a new facility. But anyway, no
one with $$$'s has stepped forward. Why can't the people who work they "get
involved"? What company rule or law would they be breaking? Answer: none.
The fact is that most people, including I'd wager the vast majority of those
who work there, want that "thing" taken down and something modern and efficient
put up to replace it.
Simply declaring something "historic and we ought to save it" ignores a large
number of issues that aren't trivial.
»
»> And frankly, I see that roundhouse often and just don't see the problem. It's
»> mostly an eyesore (and an area of blight, to be sure).
»
»... and Oceanside was better before the locals decided to redo the station?
»Remember, Amtrak didn't want to move in at first (I think their reason, though
»probably not said publicly, was that it wasn't their idea to begin with). Look at
»it now. If it isn't to your liking, it certainly pleases me enormously in
»comparison to what was there thirty years ago.
»
Do you have a shred of documentation or substantiation for your negative
comment about Amtrak in the paragraph above?
I wasn't in Oceanside 30 years ago, but you seem to be making my case. "Old"
does not mean "we gotta save it". You apparently like the new Oceanside
station and don't miss the old one. Amtrak would like to build a new
maintenance facility -- which from your Oceanside analogy should please you
just as much.
Douglas Smith
Dunno. Not my neck of the woods.
Mark Alan Miller
"facilities". If you're talking about the buildings of the railroad
museum, none of them are old. They are all either modern buildings
or reconstructions of historic ones. No historic preservation was
involved. Many of the other buildings in Old Sac are also
reconstructions, and many of the older buildings have been altered to
appear even older than they are. None of this has anything to do
with the Redondo Junction roundhouse, which is of no great historic
significance and is in a location that makes it a poor candidate for
restoration, unlike Old Sac, which had the potential to be a major
tourist attraction with its riverside location and proximity to
downtown Sacramento.
Mark Alan Miller
Pierre A Plauzoles <plauz...@bigvalley.net> wrote in message
news:38DD9CB6...@bigvalley.net...
> "Andrew C. Toppan" wrote:
>
> > Pierre A Plauzoles (plauz...@bigvalley.net) was seen to write:
> > > So what? If you lose public support foir your corporate
activity, your company
> > > goes belly up or has a harder time getting what it wants done.
If the public
> > > knows nothing of your compny's activities, when you ask for
something, the
> >
> > How would keeping an old, obsolete roundhouse help maintain
"public support"
> > for Amtrak? The public as a whole doesn't give a damn about
roundhouses or
> > railroads; they would probably think of the roundhouse (any
roundhouse) as an
> > ugly, decrepit pile of junk, if they thought of it at all.
> >
> > Amtrak's "public image" should be that of a modern transportation
company, not
> > a rolling museum maintained in 19th century facilities.
>
> What do think of Old Sacramento's facilities? Are they a pile of
junk? If that is
Pierre A Plauzoles
> I'm not sure quite what you refer to when you talk about Old Sac's
> "facilities". If you're talking about the buildings of the railroad
> museum, none of them are old. They are all either modern buildings
> or reconstructions of historic ones. No historic preservation was
> involved. Many of the other buildings in Old Sac are also
> reconstructions, and many of the older buildings have been altered to
> appear even older than they are. None of this has anything to do
> with the Redondo Junction roundhouse, which is of no great historic
> significance and is in a location that makes it a poor candidate for
> restoration, unlike Old Sac, which had the potential to be a major
> tourist attraction with its riverside location and proximity to
> downtown Sacramento.
Granted. I was thinking of the idea that the area is really a museum
complex. As such, it preserves the State's (really the region's)
railroad history. Outside of Perris and Campo, what have we got here in
southern California? one museum in Boron that appears to be having a
tough time getting started and another outfit, this one a common carrier
railroad, in Fillmore. Although I may be wrong, I doubt very much that
the total acreage would reach 200 acres between the lot of them
(excluding the Fillmore and Western's trackage and the trackage used for
excursions around Perris -- owned, I think, by either BNSF or
Metrolink)..
Howard Bingham
<mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
--
[snip]
--
|Yeah, but the best thing for Amtrak's public image is to be seen as a modern
|21st century transportation system, not as a museum of 19th century
|technology. While I am a member of the National Trust and strongly support
|historic preservation, I know of no reason for preserving the Redondo
|roundhouse at Amtrak's expense.
--
Especially with all that High Technology Acela equipment that has yet to
roll a revenue mile, which Bombardier may end up having for lunch, with
the performance guarantee's Amtrak has in their contract..
--
|
|Almost no one in the general public (or those among those likely to use
|Amtrak for transportation) really cares about a dirty old roundhouse (which
|is not available for public perusal anyway). If tearing it down means
|improved Amtrak service, I'm all for it.
--
Would it make a good location for an Amtrak station, or tourist
attraction, one could put a crousel in the turntable pit (Assuming their
is, or was a turntabl.)..?
--
|
|Ford Tri-Motors and DC-3s are interesting, but I don't expect the airlines I
|fly with to be using them.
|
|Merritt
--
For those who are not familiar with the Ford Tri Motor, one is hanging
from the rafters of the Smithsonian Museum, and as far as DC-3's go, there
are still a few out earning their way on several short haul airlines &
they are also in service in a bunch of South American locations..
Now when will the next UP steam excursion be..?
I understand that the UP 3985 will roll to the Democratic Convention (In
recent years, it has been at Republican Convention's too.).
Be sure & watch for Amtrak to renovate some of those 40+ year old Ex:
Santa Fe Hi-Level's in the not too far distant future, as Amtrak will need
them in order to fulfill their promised expanded service on some
Southwestern US routes..
Howard Bingham, Houston, Tx.
Supporting an expanded Amtrak in Texas
See: http://www.railspot.com/txarp/
--
(Any opinions expressed hearin, are personal & not those of my employer.)
E-mail: dbin...@bcm.tmc.edu, hbin...@insync.net