Seriously? You've been around long enough, haven't you? You know #%@&*# well what would happen then.

They would b*tch that it's not on actual C&O rails, and that the hoppers behind it aren't actual two-bay C&O hoppers.

You can't win with these types. Just ignore them.

Alexander, you are demonstrating the attitude that the OP was making his point about. Do you not want people to care about history? Don't you want people to spend the money to go to remote places like Cumbres and Toltec and Ely NV because they are able to do it almost 100% accurate?

Yes, I agree that that would become an issue too. You can’t please everybody. But my point was that it is a false choice to offer having the engine run down the high iron in WM paint versus leaving the engine languish in the weather in C&O paint. Obviously that choice in intended to get people to agree that the best choice includes WM paint.

But there are many more than just the two choices, and many of those options are likely to be preferred over options that include WM paint.

This goes along with any group out there. There are those that want to preserve things just as they were when they were taken out of service.

I had a conversation with a friend who runs a museum about this exact issue. I brought up the concept of a flying B-17 vs static B-17. It costs many times over to fly the B-17 and to make it air worthy, it will most likely be modified from it's original fabric. That makes is less of a preservation and more of an interpretation. I love seeing both flying and sitting examples. Sadly, I assume the number of people going to museums that just have display pieces would be less than places where history comes alive.

The 1309 should spend time in both WM and C&O. It's their engine. It also gives more opportunity for them to advertise and bring different groups in and hence, brings in more revenue.

I for one can't wait to see the 1309 running.

Joe

Any of us who has seen 1309 in the parking lot at the B&O Museum can attest that it in no way looked anything like it did when in service, and was not a realistic interpretation of what a steam locomotive on the C&O looked like in service. Even if it has 26 air, an MU box and LED lights it still will look more historically accurate than it did when it had no cab appliances, rotted out cab, rusty drivers and no jacket.

When we leave locomotives sitting out in the weather, it ceases to be an accurate historical artifact just from the changes brought about due to weathering. It is specifically those changes: rusty wheel treads, lack of smell of valve oil, corrosion everywhere, missing gauges and appliances that do the most to destroy a locomotive's value as an educational piece.

"For those reading between the lines, this thread was never really about paint. It's about respect... respect for history and respect for others in our community."

True. But beyond respecting those that get out and do/contribute, I think much of this whole argument is that what you paint it touches people's conscious. People have said on here (I'm paraphrasing) "I don't care if they paint it pink - I'll like it if it steams and runs." And there's the problem - disrespecting history, at least in the extreme (say, painting a teakettle pink) seems, well, disrespectful or at least a bit too silly.

Lionel found that out back in the 70s or 80s when they put out - guess what - pink trainsets. And guess what... Big fail for Lionel. They ended up taking many back and repainting them 'more correctly' because it turns out that girls were interested in trains, not pink. If even children get that, what does that say? We're still in the business of representing history. Why does Strasburg sometimes use historical paint schemes? Because it touches people through historical accuracy (ask them why they did it last time - I'm reasonably sure they'll tell you it was because there was an actual demand for it - and not just from railfans). You could probably even make a case that Polar Express is successful in part because 1225's representation kept it's big black dark appearance, and that's what people mentally connect with. It's a cartoon/CGI thing, but it's not some gaudy misrepresentation that people can't reasonably associate with.

Interesting discussion. It brings to mind when the Southern put C&O 2-8-4 #2716 into their steam passenger train operations years ago. There was a cry at that time about 2716 not being a genuine Southern engine. A fictitious (but plausible) scenario came out explaining the purchase of 2-8-4's for the Southern. Maybe some one can come up with the exact wording. I can see the same for number 1309; the Western Maryland purchasing 10 2-6-6-2's numbered 1301-1310 to replace older, worn out steam, of which 1309 is the last survivor. I can live with it. Hope others can too.

Les

No.

Neither 2716 on the Southern nor 1309 on the WMSR (or, for that matter, 4960 on the Grand Canyon, "734" on the WMSR, 7470 on the Conway Scenic, 90/475 on the Strasburg, etc.) were/are being presented as "historic preservation of original artifacts on original track."

That level is preposterously difficult to achieve. You can get that at the Cumbres & Toltec (and even they paint C&T on the tenders, or have), EBT (not now), and a scant few other places--I considered myself blessed in 1985 when I rode the Green Mountain RR's Bellows Falls-Chester line behind an actual Rutland RS1 and two actual Rutland cars!

No. This is promoting the BRAND and the business first. At its heart, the SR/NS steam programs, WMSR, Strasburg, etc. are tourist attractions and businesses first, historic preservation second. We are lucky that there are operations out there that can afford, or feel compelled, to throw a few more dollars towards painting up that loco that will never run again, go to the extra expense to at least try to restore the car the old-fashioned way, etc.

These are businesses first. 1309 will be in MUCH better shape than it was in the parking lot of the B&O Museum. I have yet to see LS&I 34 repainted as an LS&I loco for a charter, as good an idea as that would be, and I'm not hearing any Upper Midwest fans grousing about the "fake WM 734." I've ridden some high-priced photo charters behind the fake "734," and I consider my railfan life far richer for it. Ditto the ride behind Milwaukee 261 on the wrong RR on a bitterly cold 1996 weekend in northeast Pennsylvania.

I have yet to see anyone suggest that the #1309 would be better off not being restored. I wish people would stop saying that as if anyone who suggests the #1309 should be painted as a C&O engine would rather see it rusting.

Bingo. That kind of hyperbole (in many forms) impedes conversation and IMHO progress.

Well at the end of the day, there are hard decisions that have to be made because funds are not unlimited. Someone complaining about a slightly altered appearance is assumed not to have had to face a board or owner and justify all expenses. "Well we're painting the bloomin thing, why aren't we at least putting our name on it?" "Can we afford to lose that advertising?" "Well if we have to make all those parts we can't really afford to do this." There is a tremendous gap between the do-ers and the lookers. Hours of hard work put the distance between the two. The common assumption is that nit-pickers don't understand the work that goes into preservation projects that run, otherwise they would be more complimentary.

There is a difference between suggesting and complaining. People who have been doing this long enough are familiar with good-natured suggestions vs. whining and complaining about imperfections.

I'd like to point out that if you know that it isn't painted right or the headlight is in the wrong spot, Etc. etc. Then there must be reference material, if you know it then other people already know it, the information isn't "lost forever." People that are interested in the history will look it up and learn. Most people that ride the train don't know, don't care, and will forget most of what they "learned" before the get out of the parking lot.

If it needs to exact or original then it really shouldn't run. Running damages everything and it alters the appearance. Original parts wear out or break. Changes are made to operational pieces for a multitude of reasons including cost or ease of maintenance, availability of parts, and new regulations. If you want it to look like it does in the picture paint it up nice put all the stuff where it belongs and then put it inside and keep it there.

Other side of the Atlantic and not a rail museum, but we have a Collection policy statement on our Museum website.........

http://www.ipswichtransportmuseum.co.uk ... DevPol.htm

The Purposes/Policies/Facilities section on the website is also relevant.

These (I'm guessing, as I haven't been on the Management Board for about 7 years) are a condensed "public" version of the lengthy statements and endless form filling that needs to be done to be awarded the status of a "Registered Museum" here in the UK!

This is really a discussion of the very different reasons these artifacts exist at all, and the motives of their custodians. A historical Museum (theoretically, at least) is concerned with historical accuracy. An excursion/tourist operation is concerned with fostering whatever vision they have and whatever their customers want. The current owner/operator of an item is free to apply any livery he wishes.

Personally, I almost always come down on the side of well documented historical accuracy. But the owner/operator is the final arbiter. The Shay at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania is one of the few engines in that collection without a Pennsylvania history. She was built in Ohio and operated in West Virginia, but she is of a type that was used extensively in Pennsylvania. The Leetonia Railway livery is not accurate for that engine, but it does convey the Museum's message about the use of that type in the State. It's not a crime to do that. When Alan Maples restored Bath & Hammondsport 2-6-0 no. 11 for operation on his Everett Railroad, he retained the original historic look of the engine, including the number, but lettered the tender for the Everett. His cars are tastefully painted and lettered as Everett cars in a traditional scheme common to American railroads. If number 11 were in a Museum, there would be a good argument for restoring B&H lettering to the tender. But she's not in a museum, and she looks just fine as she is.

I do have a bit of a problem with garish paint schemes, preferring something that follows traditionally conservative typical railroad practice. I also do not generally favor arbitrary cosmetic alterations, but maybe that's just me. I can usually be fairly forgiving, even when I would have done things differently, had it been up to me.

Tom

Well, actually it was because we had a flurry of photo freights several years back that in each case paid us to repaint the locomotives used for their charter. The engines were left that way due to our having other things to do (like maintain our entire roster), until the directors raised a question about why none of our locomotives were lettered Strasburg, and ordered them repainted for the sake of our corporate identity, and for free advertising from tourist's photos. Sorry to burst your bubbles.

I fully agree with those that argue that the metal behind the paint is magnitudes more important than the paint itself, especially when the owner of the equipment is in the "trying to survive hauling tourists" business, and not in the "all historic fabric is sacred" business, though that can be taken too far as seen in the various "circus" paint schemes that were popular with operators in the 70's.

So, my opinion is, and you all should know what that is worth, that I will be thrilled to see #1309 run again, regardless of what lettering is applied, and those of you who don't like it, cough up the dough to pay the owner to change it, or mind your own business.

I like this idea, it's been done successfully before!

On the other hand, I can understand the logic: