 |
Re: More cold water in a hot boiler
Author: Eric Gonzales
Date: 05-04-2019 - 22:56
Hail the 4014,
Please do no misunderstand me. I have fully acknowledged at least some of the issues, including arrogance and egos that have been in play. Never once have I said that this has been a perfect setup. Far from it. Yes, there should have been better planning. As of last May, while in Cheyenne for Depot Days, the schedule was to have been doing test runs sometime between November and December of last year. Obviously, that didn't happen.
Yes, I have my list of grievances. Me personally, I'm an SP fan, and do believe that it should have been a UP engine (pick your number) and preferably the 4449, or possibly the 2472. Yes I am aware of the less than pleasant remarks that Ed has made about other groups, and I'm not happy about them. My list can go on.
My point though, in being as abrasive as I was, is to still give credit where credit is due. In addition, and more importantly, its to strip some credibility from a lot of these naysayers who really don't have a clue about whats going on, but instead for them, everything is doom and gloom. By issuing the challenge as I did, its hoped to either get them to actually reveal what is relevant and useful that they know, or if they truly are armchair engineers and operators, to get them to shut up. Regardless of my personal issues with the railroad, or with the steam program, I do not believe that it is proper to strip them of the credit that's due for what has been achieved. The fact that a 4000 is running at all is a remarkable feat in its own right. That should not be taken away from this crew.
Please do no misunderstand me. I have fully acknowledged at least some of the issues, including arrogance and egos that have been in play. Never once have I said that this has been a perfect setup. Far from it. Yes, there should have been better planning. As of last May, while in Cheyenne for Depot Days, the schedule was to have been doing test runs sometime between November and December of last year. Obviously, that didn't happen.
Yes, I have my list of grievances. Me personally, I'm an SP fan, and do believe that it should have been a UP engine (pick your number) and preferably the 4449, or possibly the 2472. Yes I am aware of the less than pleasant remarks that Ed has made about other groups, and I'm not happy about them. My list can go on.
My point though, in being as abrasive as I was, is to still give credit where credit is due. In addition, and more importantly, its to strip some credibility from a lot of these naysayers who really don't have a clue about whats going on, but instead for them, everything is doom and gloom. By issuing the challenge as I did, its hoped to either get them to actually reveal what is relevant and useful that they know, or if they truly are armchair engineers and operators, to get them to shut up. Regardless of my personal issues with the railroad, or with the steam program, I do not believe that it is proper to strip them of the credit that's due for what has been achieved. The fact that a 4000 is running at all is a remarkable feat in its own right. That should not be taken away from this crew.
