Comments on: Rescuing El Carrizal’s Heritage: Please Support Us

By: Proyecto Arqueológico El Carrizal, Ver.

Proyecto Arqueológico El Carrizal, Ver. — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:23:16 +0000

Hello Patrick, thanks for your comment, which we do not consider valid since the train station is NOT a private building, but a federal one. Hence, government owns it and, as they lease the railways and cannot take care of these historical monuments, they include the stations within the lease contract. There have been many cases in Mexico where government just asks the company to donate the leasing rights of the building to the local governments. It is a simple procedure and it doesn’t affect the company, since they don’t use the building at all.

By: Wesley D. Stoner

Wesley D. Stoner — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 13:56:18 +0000

Just an added note: in the US, old buildings are frequently “re-purposed” as Patrick suggests. In this case, it may be appropriate to repurpose the structure as a tourism office to teach about the history and prehistory of Carrizal.

By: Wesley D. Stoner

Wesley D. Stoner — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 15:24:04 +0000

I think Patrick’s comment is appropriate, but I don’t know that aiming at creating revenue is realistic. It will cost a lot to renovate and any type of business would probably rather demolish it and rebuild in the same place. It just so happens that I dealt with a similar situation recently as a representative for a State Historic Preservation Office. An early train station was going to be demolished by CSX, but it was eligible for listing on the National Register. Unfortunately, CSX can do whatever they want since it is private property, however, no federal money can be spent on a project that has an adverse affect on a National Register property (in the US). So if they destroy the building, they cant get any federal money for anything related to that project. Rather than create revenue, they may bite at a plan that simply doesn’t cost them a tremendous amount of money.

Where I don’t agree with Patrick is he general approach to the comment. Heritage is worthy of preservation, it enriches the sense of community and stewardship over the land, it provides a teaching opportunity, the restoration project will employ local workers, and money can be earned from tourism. Considering the heritage at Carrizal goes way beyond this train depot, preserving this building is just one aspect of what could attract potential tourists to the area.

Regarding the “worthy of cause” comment, there is a govt entity in Mexico whose job is to act as steward to the Mexico’s cultural heritage (INAH). It is not like this is just something that people and local governments may or may not take an interest in. INAH is a powerful ally that should be consulted here. INAH is the equivalent of the ACHP in the US.

In short, if the laws are similar to the US, KCSM can do whatever they want if they own it, but they might also jump at the opportunity to enact a plan that is not costly but that engenders confidence and support from the local people, government, and INAH.

By: Patrick Bishop

Patrick Bishop — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 05:17:53 +0000

I come from a long line of railroad men, though not one myself. So, I’m in favor of preserving such a picturesque piece of railway memorabilia, but a minor reality check is probably called for.

PRESSURING KCSM isn’t going to get results, except by some miracle. Local governments probably have their hands full with more pressing problems such as crime and unemployment, and such a project is unlikely even to show up on the federal government’s “worthy cause radar.” What’s a crumbling railroad station compared to the illiteracy problem, or the hunger problem? In the absence of a wealthy patron willing to make the gesture, you’re facing a very uphill battle.

If you are serious about preserving the structure, may I suggest a more pragmatic approach? Develop a plan to re-purpose the station in some commercially viable way. It could be a store, a restaurant, clinic, a school for teaching English…almost anything. You’ll get somewhere with KCSM when you show how they could turn the building (no doubt a liability in their thinking) into a revenue-generating asset.

I’m an instructor of business at several colleges in Manhattan, and am happy to help.

By: Jill

Jill — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:31:38 +0000

I agree, shame on KCSM for not responding, especially given the immediacy of the need for preservation. I hope you will find a solution to the situation that will allow the property to be managed by INAH and the municipal government sooner rather than later.

By: Wesley D. Stoner

Wesley D. Stoner — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:25:22 +0000

There is no question that this site is worthy of preservation. The local municipal government should be the owner in charge of preservation with guidance from INAH. It there a way to put a preservation easement on the property?

By: Wendy Daniels

Wendy Daniels — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:17:45 +0000

It is a sad situation in deed yet typical of many government organizations. We need to make the government understand just how important sites like this are to understanding our past and building our future. As Julian Huffer said, “shame on Kansas city Southern of Mexico and the Government of Mexico.” Follow through on your contract because every day you don’t only increases public distaste for your organizations and discredits all your other efforts.

By: Julian Huffer

Julian Huffer — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 01:45:40 +0000

It is disgraceful that the American company Kansas City Southern of Mexico has not responded, though somewhat typical of American companies which care only about what they can gain versus their concern for preserving things that make up the cultural history and life of a community. It proves, once again and sadly, the ‘gringos’ really canbe trusted to fulfill their obligations to native people and communities. SHAME ON KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN OF MEXICO!!!! and shame on the Government of Mexico for signing the contract and not enforcing it.

By: Francis Jeffers

Francis Jeffers — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:29:17 +0000

“water for ‘vapor machines’ meant replacement water for the steam engine locomotives that pulled the trains and exhausted spent steam to the air rather than condensing and recovering it. Was there originally a water tower there for that purpose? In the American great plains stations were spaced at regular intervals to replenish the water in the boilers of the steam locomotives. They didn’t boil away all the water in their boilers, this enabled them to make clean steam for their engines from water with a good bit of contamination, dissolved minerals, etc. After a while they would have to pause at a station where they could dump boiler water in which minerals had accumulated. They would leave enough steam pressure in the boiler to get back under the water tower, when the boiler would be refilled. Then they would have to heat that to boiling before they could ‘make steam’ again and be on their way pulling a train. There would also be a place where they could dump their fire and all the coal clinkers- then they would rebuild a new fire before ‘making steam’. All crude, but the engines worked reliably under primitive circumstances.

By: DC Tkaczuk

DC Tkaczuk — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:38:22 +0000

Please transfer the train station to the Municipal Government immediately. Time is of the essence and our history defines us in often unseen ways.