It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:33 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:42 pm 

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:16 am
Posts: 572
Hi All

consider the following video from the Colorado RR Museum, Between the 6th and 7th minute they discuss that the 491 represents Rio Grande craftsmanship . Earlier in the video (4 to 5 minute range)they discuss the uniqueness of the 491 to even the rest of the Rio Grande 491 class locomotives, Basically stating that it is a Colorado built locomotive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibXBqm9qzjg

The first question that comes to me is operating for fundraising events like polar expresses justify the wear and eventual replacement of an artifact? Given the work that the Santa Fe did on 3751 at Albuquerque does it make 3751 a New Mexico built locomotive. I want to see the justification for a Redding T-1.

A person in the Southwest Chapter of the R&LHS recently said that they should paint the Pullman car James Watt, which started on the California Limited Red and Silver to attract people to the group. When I asked if we were attempting railroad preservation or just playing with trains there was no answer. So I ask again what is preservation?

Robby Peartree


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:31 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:15 am
Posts: 459
Reminds me about the discussion about `George Washington's Axe'. Handle was replaced twice, bit (cutting edge) replaced 3 times, and head replaced once, and there was never a cherry tree..., but it is still `Washington's Axe'...


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:25 am 

Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:20 pm
Posts: 448
Robby Peartree wrote:
...

A person in the Southwest Chapter of the R&LHS recently said that they should paint the Pullman car James Watt, which started on the California Limited Red and Silver to attract people to the group. When I asked if we were attempting railroad preservation or just playing with trains there was no answer. So I ask again what is preservation?

Robby Peartree


I'm interested in El Paso history and may join the R&LHS, SW Chapter. Is membership info corrects on the RLHS website?

http://www.rlhs.org/Chapters/southwest.shtml

The group's webpage (HERE) could use a face-lift to show people it is an active group. When I clicked on "Railroad Museum", it turned out to be broken link. Maybe an updated webpage would be the best way to attract some new folks?

Thanks for posting.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:49 am 

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:52 pm
Posts: 909
Hi,

491 is a K37 steam locomotive. Many report it as a Baldwin product.

In 1928 after the success of the K36 class Baldwin built narrow gauge 2-8-2, the D&RGW decided it wanted another six locomotives.

After looking at options, the D&RGW made patterns and drawings based on the K36 running gear. Everything for the running gear was made at the D&RGW's Burnham Shops in Denver.

The main difference between the K36 and K37 running gear is the slight differences needed to use old Standard gauge C-41 2-8-0 boilers and tenders. The boilers are Baldwin built and the tenders are also. The tender trucks were remachined so that the wheels would be pushed to 36" gauge instead of standard gauge.

The running gear is 100% D&RGW made. The boiler is Baldwin. The cab is D&RGW. So it is a Colorado designed/built/modified locomotive.

It was so successful, that the manufacture of the K37 was repeated in 1930 for four (4) more of the class - the last steam locos built for the D&RGW narrow gauge.

The 491 was last rebuilt by Alamosa and never run prior to the cessation of operations in 1968. It was donated by the D&RGW to run on the Georgetown Loop (rebuilt). As it turned out, the GTL was too narrow for the 491 and it ended up being displayed at the CRRM. The rebuild of the loco did not take too much effort since it had been rebuilt and never run before the D&RGW donated it.

The remaining K37s (492, 493, 494, 495, 497,498, and 499) are not operating at the current time. 497 was in operation on the C&TS in the 1990s after being rebuilt and operating for a year by the Durango & Silverton. Only 491 has joined 497 as having operated since the D&RGW closed freight operations in 1968.

FWIW

Doug vV


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:50 pm 

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:16 am
Posts: 572
Dougvv

The running gear and Tenders for the K-37 came from Baldwin. The K-36 and k-37 match each other until the trailing truck which is a match to the k-28


Robby


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:06 pm 

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:16 am
Posts: 572
Dear Rock island lines

The southwest chapter is going thru survival pains. A friend and former member surprised me by rejoining in June. Unfortunately he still has not received his first news letter. Apparently the new editor is sick.. The contact info for the chapter includes someone who has not been in El Paso in years and dead for at least 5 years.

It may be easier to join thru the national web site and hope for the best.

Robby


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:51 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:25 pm
Posts: 1806
Quote:
The first question that comes to me is operating for fundraising events like polar expresses justify the wear and eventual replacement of an artifact?


Recommended Practices states:

5(3). Artifact and equipment categories by use may also be developed to reflect the
museum's operational needs and the responsibility to preserve the collections for the
public and for future generations. For example, as operation of historic rail vehicles
is a primary interpretive experience at many railway museums, vehicles
are often
categorized in terms of their intended use, such as:
a. Accepted for display in the permanent collection
b. Accepted for operation/use in the permanent collection
c. Accepted for trade
d. Kept for consumption/disposal
e. On short- or long-term loan or lease
f. Kept in storage and/or for study


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:32 pm 

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:12 am
Posts: 654
Location: cheyenne
'Destruction' is a very strong word to use, no artifact is destroyed through operation except maybe an aircraft or a ship lost at sea, so lets not get too dramatic in our wording. Operating a locomotive will certainly alter it in time but then its likely to have been added to and rebuilt many times over anyway. In some cases its better to operate to illustrate to the public the story than to sit in a museum so that anoraks and rivet counters can be excited over it.

Mike Pannell


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:49 pm 

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:27 pm
Posts: 40
Why doesn't the D&S use their K37s? Is it because they're too rough on the track?

_________________
John Meixel


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:59 pm 

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:16 am
Posts: 572
Mike

By the following definitions do you base destruction too strong a term Look at the definition of the following terms. To preserve something is to keep it from being damaged or destroyed. The act of operating 491 causes wear and tear at a faster rate that will damage the Rio Grande workmanship that they phrase in the video. The then act of renewing tubes or other components to keep it operating will eventually destroy much of the Rio Grande Workmanship that they brag so much about in the video.

Robby

wear verb (WEAKEN)

[ I/T ] to make something become weaker, damaged, or thinner because of continuous use:

damage
noun [ U ] us ​ /ˈdæm·ɪdʒ/



harm or injury:

destruction
noun [ U ] us ​ /dɪˈstrʌk·ʃən/



the action of destroying something, or the state of being destroyed:
Unusually high winds left widespread destruction over the area.


preservation
noun [ U ] us ​ /ˌprez·ərˈveɪ·ʃən/




the act of keeping something as it is, esp. in order to prevent it from decaying or to protect it from being damaged or destroyed:
Janet is very interested in historic preservation (= protecting places of historic importance).


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:23 pm 

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:12 am
Posts: 654
Location: cheyenne
Hardly being destroyed then is it, replacing tubes is a replicating of craftmanship used to replace tubes which likely have been replaced several times. Destroyed in the sense you are quoting means destruction as in the artifact being lost entirely which it clearly wont be.

Pointless argument as it isn't your property anyway i would address your concerns to them directly, the museum needs to continue to generate income to survive which is why they need operating locomotives.

Mike


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:26 pm 

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:16 am
Posts: 572
Mike

Do you know if I am a member or not. Do you know if I have donated to the museum or not? I do not think so by your comments Telling someone to stay out of something because it is not your property when they take federal funds and donations is poor behavior and it mimics the poor behavior of the Director to lifetime members of the Museum.

Robby Peartree


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:31 pm 

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:52 pm
Posts: 909
Hi,

Quote:
Dougvv

The running gear and Tenders for the K-37 came from Baldwin. The K-36 and k-37 match each other until the trailing truck which is a match to the k-28

Robby


We discussed this over on the NGDF. We found evidence of the castings having D&RGW Burnham in the running gear which put the Baldwin myth to rest for us. You may believe otherwise.

If you want to be picky, it is a more of a modeling "kitbash" than anything else.

Doug vV


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:37 pm 

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:52 pm
Posts: 909
Hi,

Quote:
Why doesn't the D&S use their K37s? Is it because they're too rough on the track?


When the D&S restored 497, it was operated for a year or so before the D&SNG offered to trade it to the C&TS for 482.

Over at the NGDF, we learned that apparently the pilot truck of the 497 kept derailing on the D&SNG. As it turned out, the problem was something to due with the front truck not working quite right. Eventually, the C&TS crews were able to staighten out the problem and 497 had excellent tracking record on the C&TS afterwards.

I believe that the tracking problem with the front truck was the reason that soured the D&S to the K37 class.

Doug vV


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:16 pm 

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:27 pm
Posts: 40
Thanks.

_________________
John Meixel


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 70000, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 47 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: