It is currently Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:21 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:44 am 

Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:18 am
Posts: 414
Location: San Francisco
Randy Hees wrote:
There are also standards for care and preservation used in museums... Art museums etc... and their standards don't address deteriorated artifacts like a PA shell with no trucks or mechanical equipment... or the changes that occur when a complex mechanical device is used in commercial service... a Ming vase is a Ming Vase unless dropped and destroyed... there is no first livery, second livery and they are rarely reboilered or remotered...

One note, and maybe even a challenge... can anyone find a museum, preservation or "restoration" standard that included original material as a percentage as a test? It is a concept brought up on these pages that doesn't seem to be discussed in other, more "professional" preservation circles...

Randy

It goes without saying that what follows amounts to my opinions and interpretations, but I think this debate is more about terminology and results rather than a moral position on the treatment of the derelict remains of a locomotive.

I feel this business of comparing railroad equipment to fine art and talking about percentage of original material is a paper tiger that is often used to justify the position that "all is fair" as long as it runs and only the experts can tell it is not per original spec. Honestly, it is "difficult to take railroad historic preservation seriously" when the best of our field can't agree on what "preservation" means.

The things* on the National Register are not artworks subject to the conservation practices of a fine arts museum. Most of them require regular repair, maintenance, and even partial replacement to continue to exist. I think the key thing is the degree to which these efforts "replace in-kind," replicate, and/or relate to what is original to the thing's Period of Significance. A few expedient changes here and there may pass muster, but eventually you are going to cross a line, and the thing's Integrity, and therefore it's value as a preserved, historic thing will be lost.

ATSF 59's Integrity is long been shot. It is no longer a PA. It is a surviving collection of components from a PA, but not nearly enough to be a historic locomotive, and it could never honestly be placed on the National Register. If you carefully replicated the missing components to match what it had from a conjectural Period of Significance (as it was while pulling the "Super Chief," perhaps?), you would still would not have a "Preserved" PA, but you would have a Reconstructed PA, and while reconstructions (by definition) can not be considered "Historic," they could still be worthy of being placed in a museum for interpretive purposes.

If however, you were adding components from different types of locomotives to make an operational locomotive, then you might have something that looked and behaved somewhat like a PA, but I agree with Dave (NH0401), it would not be one, it would not be a reconstruction of one, and it would be dishonest to call it such. Would it be cool? Definitely. Would I want to see it? Yes. Is it "Preservation?" Not really. Does it have value? Sure.

Finally, has any harm been done? Nope. All of the "harm" occurred years ago when it was stripped of its components.

I wish them luck, but I also I hope the museum's curators take care in choosing how to present and describe this thing.

- Another Randy


*I am not saying "objects," because this word has a specific meaning in the Sec. Int. Standards, and I am trying to speak generally.

_________________
Randolph Ruiz
Architect


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 5:16 am 

Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:18 am
Posts: 414
Location: San Francisco
David Dewey wrote:
To that end, many time original fabric is sacrificed. SP4449 has had much replaced, both during its historic operating period and even during its current operational period. Has this diminished the historical experience? I rather think not.

While I basically agree with your conclusion, the concerns about "fabric" are misplaced. Historic buildings are re-roofed, windows are replaced with double-glazed and thermally insulated units, wiring is stripped out and replaced, etc., and if done properly, none of this work will diminish a historic building's significance or integrity.

Any and all of the work done to SP 4449 during its Period of Significance (while used to pull SP passenger trains?) during this "historic operating period" counts as part of the locomotive's history. The SP could have done NOTHING during this period that could sacrifice the engine's integrity. After this Period of Significance, new work consistent with work done while under SP's care would just be a continuation of the practices of maintenance and repair that were already a part of the engine's history.

I believe that a number of reasonable "improvements" for the sake of safety and efficiency could be allowed without threatening the locomotive's integrity (circulator tubes?). However, you can not make the argument that if it was STILL owned by the SP, "they would have kept improving it" as an argument for transforming the engine into something different. Eventually, a GS4 with a new welded boiler, Lemphor system, all roller bearings, lighter alloy rods, and newly fabricated re-balanced drivers is no longer a GS4, or even "SP 4449." Alternately, if all of these components were carefully replaced in-kind over a period of time, I think you could argue that it still was SP 4449 as long as the integrity of its design was maintained from its original period of significance - A 788,730-pound George Washington's Axe

_________________
Randolph Ruiz
Architect


Last edited by Randolph R. Ruiz on Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 5:59 am 

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:33 pm
Posts: 298
Location: Oroville, CA
Ha, ROFL--although I wonder how many understand your "George Washington's Axe" reference!
Well, although I did post it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as you pointed out, a "Modernized 4449 would no longer be a GS4, so whatever becomes of #59, it won't be a PA-1--and, actually, when it was last intact it wasn't a PA-1, it was a PA-4, and when reconstructed, it would be a PA-5, if one were to continue the class designation. I was thinking of comparing it with my 1916 Dodge Brothers Touring car, which came out of field, image below, and I am bringing it back together--however, the running machinery was still with the chassis, so it is not a fair comparison, and the missing body pieces have, so far, been fairly easy to find, as there were MANY more of these built than PAs and lots of parts are still 'out there'.
Speaking of "out there" it would be nice to find the stolen nose door (and it would be satisfying to thrash the scumbag who stole it, but I digress), and return it to the 59. It would also be nice to find the whistles sawn off the WP164 and SP1727, along with the other pieces taken at that time. And again I digress, sorry!!
One thing I think we all agree on is that this is a complex issue!
Speaking of building windows being replaced, a good example is the Detroit Station, receiving new windows after decades of no windows. While most everyone is happy to see the building once again weather-tight, there is consternation that the windows' designs do not match the originals, and somewhat clash with the architectural design.

_________________
Steamcerely,
David Dewey
Help save the last overnight steamboat, Delta Queen!
Write your congressman to support and co-sponsor House Resolution HR-619. This bill only grants her permission to run; there is no cost to us taxpayers.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 12:07 pm 

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:29 am
Posts: 226
Hmmm... well, as rebuilt it had a 12-251...with similar associated electricals as used by the donor loco.... So, how is it not a "restoration" or a "PA"?
I'll be happy with two things:
1: a running "PA"...
2: a loco that runs reliably more than once per year...
This isn't rocket surgery....
It also isn't an Apple's and oranges comparison...at best it's something like California oranges and Florida oranges... variations of the same flavour...

Btw... what's happening with the Brazilian PA?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:47 pm 

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:20 pm
Posts: 162
I like the external look of a PA. If it's restored to it's original look and is able to move under it's own power, I could care less what's inside the car body.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:53 pm 

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:33 pm
Posts: 298
Location: Oroville, CA
I forgot to put the image in my posting--that's what I get for staying up too late!
So, here's what I started with on my '16 DB, a bit more than the #59, but I still suspect most would consider it "too far gone."
Oh, and "eze"--California oranges are SOO much better! :)


Attachments:
my dodge front web.jpg
my dodge front web.jpg [ 43.7 KiB | Viewed 1972 times ]

_________________
Steamcerely,
David Dewey
Help save the last overnight steamboat, Delta Queen!
Write your congressman to support and co-sponsor House Resolution HR-619. This bill only grants her permission to run; there is no cost to us taxpayers.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:30 pm 

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 4:59 pm
Posts: 327
Location: western Maryland
I can remember when the 1st pictures of Nickel Plate 190 were circulated and the disdain expressed by some at the sacrilege of it having the appearance of an PA-2. The comments were directed at the number boxes Doyle built so it WOULD resemble a NKP PA-2 (most of you reading this probably won't know the difference).

So . . . a change to the shape of the number board made this PA-4 resemble a PA-2, to the chagrin of the folks who thought it should have been rebuilt in the likeness of a AT&SF PA-1.

And NOW there are people saying that the reincarnation of yet another PA-4 carcass repatriated by Doyle will HAVE to be called a PA-5?

There are locomotives without any internals at all in museums and they are called whatever they were built as. I recall an ex-CB&Q/MARC E unit which was at the Museum of Transportation being called an E-9 even though it had been rebuilt by M-K with 645s.

Why the different standard for Santa Fe 59?

_________________
Apparently Not A Serious Preservationist


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 5:27 pm 

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:34 pm
Posts: 217
Let me put a big plug in this argument before this thread hits the chain. It doesn't matter whether you put a 244 or a 251 inside the #59 its still an ALCO PA by default. The same can be said for the RS3m which by many consider to be a different "beast" solely for the basis that the engine type is swapped for a EMD 567B. Guys no matter the changes or modifications you make there's a 90% chance it's still going to be the same locomotive you knew before both operationally and cosmetically. It's going to run the same, act the same and virtually look the same aside from a few noticeable differences. Also ANY ENGINE can be made reliable whether its a 244,a 251, a FM O-P or a Baldwin given you are able to treat it with the right amount of maintenance, care and love. This single fact can be proven again and again by the sheer amount of Baldwin and Alco switchers still operating to this very day. Personally I'd love to see #59 with a 244 if possible even if it results in having to use a 12 cylinder design. Imagine it like taking care of another RS-3 absolutely little difference there should be,

Cameron


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 5:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:16 am
Posts: 1426
The D&H 17 was fitted with a 12 cylinder 244 following a major mechanical failure of its 16 cylinder engine, around the fall of 1973. The 12 cylinder engine was subsequently removed and installed in a D&H RS3 (4099?) prior to D&H 17 being shipped to MK Boise for the PA4 program.

PC

_________________
Advice from the multitude costs nothing and is often worth just that. (EMD-1945)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:01 pm 

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 150
Cameron Wolk wrote:
It doesn't matter whether you put a 244 or a 251 inside the #59 its still an ALCO PA by default. The same can be said for the RS3m which by many consider to be a different "beast" solely for the basis that the engine type is swapped for a EMD 567B. . . It's going to run the same, act the same and virtually look the same aside from a few noticeable differences.Cameron


No, an RS3m is not an RS3; certainly not the ones repowered with EMD engines or even the ones that were rebuilt with Alco 251's. Neither one of those "run the same, act the same, [or] . . . look the same."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:06 pm 

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:40 pm
Posts: 774
wm303 wrote:
I can remember when the 1st pictures of Nickel Plate 190 were circulated and the disdain expressed by some at the sacrilege of it having the appearance of an PA-2. The comments were directed at the number boxes Doyle built so it WOULD resemble a NKP PA-2 (most of you reading this probably won't know the difference).

So . . . a change to the shape of the number board made this PA-4 resemble a PA-2, to the chagrin of the folks who thought it should have been rebuilt in the likeness of a AT&SF PA-1.

And NOW there are people saying that the reincarnation of yet another PA-4 carcass repatriated by Doyle will HAVE to be called a PA-5?


And Doyle always had the perfect answer for those schmucks, just as he did when similar nit-picky things were said about 4449.

It was along the lines of "Get your own and restore it any way you want it."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:11 pm 

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:34 pm
Posts: 217
CPR4000 wrote:
Cameron Wolk wrote:
It doesn't matter whether you put a 244 or a 251 inside the #59 its still an ALCO PA by default. The same can be said for the RS3m which by many consider to be a different "beast" solely for the basis that the engine type is swapped for a EMD 567B. . . It's going to run the same, act the same and virtually look the same aside from a few noticeable differences.Cameron


No, an RS3m is not an RS3; certainly not the ones repowered with EMD engines or even the ones that were rebuilt with Alco 251's. Neither one of those "run the same, act the same, [or] . . . look the same."


CPR, if I take an RS-3 and swap the 244 for an EMD 567B spare everything else it will still remain an RS3 by default. Are you trying to tell me since the changes weren't made by Alco itself it can't be considered what it originally was mean't to be? What if for any whatever reason Alco decided to re-invent their units with EMD prime movers. Would you let them remain as their original designation simply because Alco said thats what it was or would you come up with your own? This is what I'm trying tell you. It shouldn't by no means matter what prime mover we put into the #59 simply for the fact that during its service life it used two no actually THREE different Alco prime movers. If I leave every part every component the same with the exception of one regardless of its function (PC Dewitt Geeps come to mind) it will still be the same may be similar engine I saw the other day. Let me ask you does a PA or an RS3 look like an E8 or NW5 to you? Is this what I'm getting out of you because if this is what you mean I think you're very mistaken,

Cameron


Last edited by Cameron Wolk on Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:12 pm 

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:55 pm
Posts: 499
[/quote]


ATSF 59's Integrity is long been shot. It is no longer a PA. It is a surviving collection of components from a PA, but not nearly enough to be a historic locomotive, and it could never honestly be placed on the National Register. If you carefully replicated the missing components to match what it had from a conjectural Period of Significance (as it was while pulling the "Super Chief," perhaps?), you would still would not have a "Preserved" PA, but you would have a Reconstructed PA, and while reconstructions (by definition) can not be considered "Historic," they could still be worthy of being placed in a museum for interpretive purposes.

If however, you were adding components from different types of locomotives to make an operational locomotive, then you might have something that looked and behaved somewhat like a PA, but I agree with Dave (NH0401), it would not be one, it would not be a reconstruction of one, and it would be dishonest to call it such. Would it be cool? Definitely. Would I want to see it? Yes. Is it "Preservation?" Not really. Does it have value? Sure.
[/quote]

I must respectfully disagree with this entire line of argument, that #59 essentially is no longer a PA, and so the best thing is to preserve what is left as a static display. I have, for example, visited the space center and touched various spacecraft, including the Gemini craft that sank and wasn't recovered for several decades. They are now stuffed and mounted, which is fine. But those craft were MEANT to only be launched once, that is their nature, and to try to launch one now just to see what it looked like would go against its nature. Not so with the PA, it was intended to be used multiple times, and modified in use. It is not going against its essence to use an Alco 251 instead of an Alco 244 or GSC AIA trucks from a FM unit instead of GSC trucks from a PA. Anymore than it is to use rivets from a different factory than Alco used, seat upholstery, light bulbs etc. It DOES go against its essence for it to be sitting unmovable. If I walk up and touch #59 and then watch it accelerate with a train I am observing its essence when it left the factory almost 70 years ago. If I observe a rusting frame in a yard I am not observing its essence. And this is coming from someone who is very much against, say, painting a unit in the scheme of a railroad that never owned it (if you want to be a museum of say, Oklahoma, don't acquire a Milwaukee Road locomotive and paint it for the MKT, go find an MKT unit, they are around)

I am in academics, and the main general issue I work with is called "forms of explanation', and we use a term "inessentially different" to assess explanations. To use an extreme example, it is inesentially different that you were wearing a white shirt rather than a blue one in trying to explain a car crash you were in, but is essentially different that you were going 100 miles an hour rather than the speed limit. In the same way I believe that #59, rebuilt with a 251, capable of moving and pulling a train as it did when delivered, painted as it was new or in service on the Santa Fe, and sounding like an ALco PA is less essentially different from a PA than is an unmovable frame and carbody. Go for it.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:35 pm 

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:33 pm
Posts: 298
Location: Oroville, CA
Interesting, I am disappointed in the paint scheme on Doyle's engine (I would rather it be Daylight!), but it's just paint. What upsets me are those god-awful number boards plastered on that beautiful nose! (Funny, they don't look god-awful on an F unit!) I know, to be historically correct as an NKP loco, they're needed, but gee. . . ..
However, it IS his locomotive, AND it will actually RUN very soon! So, I'm just happy that a PA still exists!
When does a group go after the one in Argentina?
:)

_________________
Steamcerely,
David Dewey
Help save the last overnight steamboat, Delta Queen!
Write your congressman to support and co-sponsor House Resolution HR-619. This bill only grants her permission to run; there is no cost to us taxpayers.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Santa Fe Alco PA #59 possible return to being operable
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:40 pm 
Site Admin

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:15 pm
Posts: 1285
Location: Henderson Nevada
Assuming this locomotive gets “restored” with whatever Alco prime mover, and electrical system, it will be a PA… it won’t have a great deal of integrity, but it will look like a PA, sound like a PA, and will pull railroad cars like a PA… It will have a diesel engine driving a generator which will generate electricity to be used to power axle hung traction motors… It might be eligible for the National register or even be a National Landmark, if we look at the precedent of the V&T McKeen Car an NSRM…

The McKeen too was a body, without trucks or mechanical systems… now restored with some truck parts salvaged from another car, the other truck fabricated for the project. In place of its gas engine and mechanical transmission it now has a diesel with a hydrostatic drive… Like the PA it too was the remains of a well known identifiable design…

From Wikipidia (in this case more or less accurate…)
“Virginia and Truckee Railway Motor Car 22, also called McKeen Motor Car 70, is a gasoline-powered railcar at the Nevada State Railroad Museum in Carson City in the U.S. state of Nevada. It was built for the Virginia and Truckee Railroad in 1910 by the McKeen Motor Car Company. Motor Car 22 was operated by the Virginia and Truckee until 1945, when it was sold off and became a diner until 1955. It eventually became the office and storage space for a plumbing business before it was donated to the Nevada State Railroad Museum in 1995. After a thorough study, [2] the Museum undertook a restoration of the McKeen car in 1997. The restored motor car was unveiled in 2010, a century after it was originally delivered to the Virginia and Truckee. Motor Car 22 was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2005, and designated a National Historic Landmark in 2012. It is one of a few surviving McKeen railcars, and the only one that is operational.”

The McKeen project was very well researched… and the result looks and feels like a McKeen…

The streetcar folks have many examples of “Chicken Coop” restorations… cars, effectively scrapped, the bodies sold for use as sheds, cabins or even chicken coops, which are recovered, restored using mechanical parts (trucks, controllers, air compressors and such) salvaged from other cars… Bringing back from the “dead” significant street cars… Sometimes the trucks are correct for the project, sometimes they are very close… sometimes they are “will work”… There are at least three single truck Birney safety cars so restored, without the definitive “safety” brake valve that includes door controls, so the doors must be closed for the brakes to release…. But all are acknowledged as Birney cars…

I am not sure I understand the apparent anger over this project (and sister locomotive under restoration in Portland) and some of the compromises being made… these two were generally acknowledged as lost, gone, scrapped… yet we may see them complete and even running in the future…

Randy

_________________
Randy Hees
Director, Nevada State Railroad Museum, Boulder City, Nevada
http://museums.nevadaculture.org/nsrmbc
http://www.nevadasouthern.com/
https://www.facebook.com/FriendsOfNevadaSouthernRailway


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GaryDrag, Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 44 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: