Wouldnn't it be great if there was a preservation law that designated transportation equipment as historic, and prevented it from scrapping and/or demolition? For example, it could designate ALL transportation equipment built prior to 1963 as historic, and that equipment couldn't be scrapped. This law really wouldn't impact anyone but the scrapman, and it would go far toward keeping our transportation heritage intact.<p>Tell me what you think.<p>Phil<br>ELRRco@AOL.com<br>



ELRRco@AOL.com

Phil,<p><p> I couldn't agree more, if you had been president in the 1970's the SV would have four more coaches, but thats another story. Sometimes people don't understand that what we have is it, and there will never be any more. <p><p>Thanks Again, Taylor<br>



thrush@smt-net.com

I don't care much for laws, especially over regulatory laws. However, I would love to see more preservation conscious people in general and scrappers in particular. I though, would have to say that it is saddening to see historic equipment meet the blue wrench. Here in South Omaha, there was an Alco (S2?). It sat here for a while and supposedly there were attempts to sell it off. Unfortunately, I wasn't made aware that it was being cut up in time. What is even more sad is that nothing at all was saved--prime mover and all went to scrap.<p>Gerry<p><br>



hottshot65@aol.com

There are laws on the books that deal with designation not only of historic buildings and historic districts, but also historic artifacts. Recently in Philadelphia we have been the designation of a very famous Maxwell Parrish mural as well as the last US Atlantic Speed Queen, the USS United States. If there were sufficient tax advantages available to fund preservation than more people with the time interest and MONEY would step forward to insure that capital was available to preserve and restore.<p>Regretablly more laws are not the answer as they create monofocused "taste police" of people with solely very narrow interests. In Philadelphia, the Historic Commission is comprised of people with cometeting interests suchs as not only historical advocates, but also development types in or der to keep a balance.<p>In most cases, just follow the money! If money was available, then most park engines would be in better condition, museums and operating goups would thrive. Historic tax "credits" ,not deductions,would insure value rather than the scrappers torch!<p>The Brits apparently have a national preservation lottery. Now that would be a worthwhile ticket to buy rather than the lotteries in this country which only fund failed social programs that if they are to exist at all, are the responsibility of the goverment!<br>



blevin@engr.psu.edu

I've been lurking in the background of this board for quite some time and have never posted. <p>The problem with laws on "preservation" is who is going to do the preservation - and where are the funds going to come from. It does absolutely no good to place ferrous metal items in the great outdoors unless someone, somewhere is going to take care of them. Regretably, there are few of us who can contribute the large sums of money it would take to preserve/restore - and that hasn't solved one of the major problems - where. Land isn't inexpensive.<p>While I'm a railfan, and contribute what I can to organizations in preservation/restoration, I don't think that its the purpose of the government to order that a hulk be saved, or that money be spent on a rusting hulk. If you want it saved - save it. Even a preservation lottery has its difficulties. What should be saved? Do we save old cars? old washing machines? old hair dryers? old locomotives? Who makes the decision, what funds are allocated? where do the artifacts reside? Do we provide for the "social welfare" or preserve locomotives?<p>I think preservation should/is in the private sector. Form an organization to save that GP-9 or F-40 or park engine or the like. Government shouldn't be involved except perhaps for particularly significant items - with a real historical value - not a value that it once hauled a freight train on a particular line. We've let many buildings/artifacts of historical consequence slip by because of funding. In reality, much of the "stuff" that is preserved has historical significance only to the generation that saw the equipment in operation. It's a nostalgia machine for the most part, not preservation we're arguing for. One hundred years from now it won't be important from a historical perspective whether we have a GP-7 or a GP-9 preserved.. All the same -- early diesel locomotive.. And, it won't be necessary to have 20 of them saved around the country either. For the most part they won't run, the railroad musuems will be using the successors of the F-59 to pull excursions.. and where the heck are we going to put the track to save all these things? We dont have the money or space to save them all.<p>Preservation is great.. but.. what are you going to preserve? and WHY?<br>



ram255@aol.comnospam - remove nospam to reply

Mr. Miller makes a very significant point. The current historical preservation laws have saved many buildings of liitle or no significance due to the knee-jerk "taste police".In "the "so-called saving of these properties" many have been denied the true value of their property. Would it not be great to see the spended interiors of a Lowey of Dryfuss designed CONSIST? But who would pay? Thankfully the PRR had the vision to start to save parts of its steam locomotive heritage. We lost the T-1 and NYC folks lost the Hudson. The corporations had the money, the railfan community is threadbare by comparison.I think the efforts undertaken in the recent past by private groups such as IRM, Portolla, are to be commended. Financial strength can be enhanced by tax incentives. The use of Federal ISETEA money, while plugging the hole in the dike, is really a questionable use of taxpayers $$$$$$. I guess that when you are a desperate as we are to save what we can, political money is as green as any other.But as Mr. Miller said would I be in favor of spending tax dollars to fund the restoration of "washing machines. I think not. But since the pork barrel runnith over I cannot complain if my hog gets fed.<p>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and as someone once said, "Take the money and run"<br>



blevin@engr.psu.edu

This is one of those subjects upon which universal agreement will never be found. I agree with Bennett, and will add the following inflammatory comments.<p>A lot of stuff (a generic term to cover buildings, trains, planes, boats, etc) gets saved in the name of history that has little or no historical value. It gets saved because of nostalgia on the part of a few folks, who justify the indulgence of their nostalgia by cloaking it in the mantle of history and historic preservation. And by Bennett's PC police! <p>This usually starts out with the infamous..."I'd sure like to see....." with heavy emphasis on the "I'd" part. Eventually, others come to see the same historic value and the thing takes on a life of it's own. Still, after the money and effort are expended, the emporer has no clothes. The piece is saved but it doesn't mean much except the nostalgiacs, real and manufactured.<p>The claim that everything built before a certain year is historic and must be saved simply isn't credible. We already have museums (not just railroad museums, either) and parks full of stuff that doesn't belong there; much of it exists today not because it's significant or has nay historical value but because it's old, it's odd, it was available, or because it gave one or two people fond memories. The result is that some truly significant stuff becomes extinct in the rush to save the ordinary. And once the ordinary is saved, it competes with the significant stuff for the small pool of dollars, labor, protection and other assets available to do the immense job. Too often that results in the ordinary getting the bucks and the really valuable piece rotting to dust.<p>Another poster said it best, but it bears repeating: If you are truly passionate about saving something and you think it isn't getting the attention it deserves, buy it and save it yourself. You'd be amazed at how much of the stuff left today was saved in just this way. <p>Neither the taxpayers, railroad stockholders, or scrap yard owners owe you anything, and none are obligated legally or morally to indulge your fantasies or your fond memories, no matter how legitimate or passionate they may be.<p>JMO, of course. And probably worth less than 2 cents. <br><br>

Blanket laws labelling anything old "historic" are clearly not the way to go. Along with their fatal effect on property rights, they would get in the way of some preservation efforts. Often the only way to preserve a site or structure is to find a new use for it. Do you really want a "taste police" board telling you you can't put a Diesel-powered generator under your business car, or replacing your firebox?<p>Of course in practice, such taste police seldom pay attention to railroad equipment or sites, being motivated by quaintness. Many "historic districts" are really quaintness preserves, with no room for foundries or roundhouses. Certainly no one complained on historic grounds when the 1887 backshop that housed Pere Marquette 1225 was flattened last week. Which suited us just fine, as we are eager to replace that horrorshow of a building with an engine shop that works. (We did save even the reciprocating air compressors from scrap, although we're not sure why. Turntable lengthening under way now, to 100 feet or more, to accommodate any odd Northerns that might show up. Send money.)<p>Quaintness is usually the enemy of good museum content.<p>I would make a correction to the phrasing in the post above. While age or quaintness seldom equal historic significance, "ordinary" things can often be highly significant. For example, the Dan Patch Diesel-electric engine preserved at MTM is a milestone, and a record-holder as the oldest internal-combustion locomotive, but the Ingersoll-Rand switchers at various places are more significant as representative of the first effective use of that technology. I think that what the author meant was that museums should not be clogged with commonplace objects that aren't used to make an educational point, such as the Toronto PCC cars, extended-vision cabooses, Hygrade reefers, firelesses, Milwaukee Road coaches and F-units, M-of-W heavyweights, and other chestnuts of the railway museum world.<p>Aarne H. Frobom<br>Michigan State Trust for Railway Preservation, Inc.<br>P. O. Box 665<br>Owosso, MI 48867-0665<br>



froboma@mdot.state.mi.us

That is what I meant, Aarne, and as you coined the term "McMuseums," you know what I meant. BTW, you left GG!'s, handcars and E-L MU commuter cars off your list.<p>Another thing that puts sand in the gears is faddism. One piece or structure has to be preserved because the museum down the road preserved one and so "we need one too." I see that happening right now with roundhouses, turntables, depots and wheel lathes, and well as with F units, nondescript switchers, cabooses, and all variety of decrepit passenger cars. <p>Then too, some piece of hardware gets coverage in the magazines, a few people become emotionally attached to those pieces, that emotional attachment morphs into an inflated sense of the importance of the piece, and an all-out effort begins to preserve it. Maybe that's occasionally justified if the piece in question is the last one of it's type.....such as is the case with the PA's. But most often, it isn't. <p>Romanticism, quaintness, political correctness, jealously, personal preference, emotional attachment and an inability to grasp the larger context too often raise their heads. I will admit that these factors have occasionally caused something significant to be saved. Maybe saved for all the wrong reason, but saved nonetheless. <br>

I'd like to explain things a bit more. I've been a railfan for years, but I hadn't (until recently) gotten a true grasp of the type of transportation system we had when the rails ruled (not only the heavy rail, but light rail as well). I believe that everything we can save from the streamline era, and before, is significant, as well as others. People might hear about Acela Express on the news, but it might have more of an impact if it were possible to see the Train X and its ilk. Further, life was totally different when America had to depend on the likes of the Chicago & Alton and the Southern Railway (to name a couple) for short, medium, and long-distance transportation. While some may say that by 2050, it won't matter if you have a GP7 or GP9, such is not the case. I think that with a preservation mindset, we can hand our descendants a good picture of how a major part of our society was, before it got like it is, and a preservation law that would preserve historic transportation equipment could go far to help make that happen.<p>Addressing the issue of property rights, I feel that the impact would be negligible, since the fact that it couldn't be destroyed would help those who own the equipment to realize its value, and how it can continue to profit the owners, even if it isn't rushing up and down the tracks (RRs could make much $ from having their own RR museums, since the property most likely wouldn't need to be purchased, and I'm sure that some railfans would be willing to volunteer to see that their favorite equipment could hang around in a safe setting).<p>Finally, I admit, I am a rail romantic, who loves streamliners, and the E & F units that pull/pulled them.<p>Phil <br>



ELRRco@AOL.com

I'm not against preservation. However, I don't think its even reasonable to think that a "law" will be passed supporting preservation - at least beyond what's already in place. Everyone will want to feed their pig first, and the trend is for government downsizing. Government money isn't coming to fund new passenger train service, it's sure not going to come for the preservation of old passenger trains. As railfans we must get realistic. I too would like to see a lot of things saved, but, I can't personally afford it, and the government, beyond the grants currently made, isn't going to do it either.<p>One of the problems of the railfan community is that everyone wants everything to be saved, but there isn't enough money. Equipment, outside of state funded museums, sits and rusts while a small but very dedicated group tries to restore and maintain existing "historical" equipment. What we're going to have to come to grips with, since "historical equipment" is being created as I write, is that we can't hope to save an example of everything, we can't hope to same every "F" or "E" unit, or ALCO, or FM, or whatever because:<br>1. there isn't enough room to store the equipment; 2. there isn't enough money to fund the restoration and/or storage; and 3. there aren't enough people capable of restoring the equipment. So, lets save what are truly representative pieces of an era, not units with just nostalgia attached. Lets save things with real historical merit. Tax laws may change, but, the RR's are not going to operate musuems. It's not their business. I applaud those who want to save everything - or almost everything - but - please explain - over the long term - over the next 100 years with more and more equipment how are you going to do it?<p>Thanks for letting me vent.<br>Bob<br>



ram255@aol.com