Chris' explanation is excellent.

A crucial distinction that some seem to breeze past, is that the work done on the USS Constitution is Replacement-In-Kind. While a tree cut down in 2020 will be different from one cut down in 1794, it is still wood, probably of the same species. They are not replacing the wood with a resin-based product, they aren't adding steel channels to the keel, and they certainly aren't adding maneuvering thrusters to make it easier to dock. I am sure that some modern safety appliances have been added to the ship, but they are not changing the design and construction of the vessel. That is why we can still say it's the same ship.

I have watched this tread with great interest over the last several days and I finally have to speak up.
For a little background, I was with the Strasburg Rail Road Company for 33 years, retiring as the Assistant Chief Mechanical Officer in March 2019. I was involved with the #20 project and have been around the block many times with both our own equipment and many contract jobs. The vitriol thrown at Jeff is inexcusable. He is simply doing his job to the best of his ability and is very dedicated to the cause. He didn’t make the decision to start the project, he is simply seeing it to completion. I certainly appreciate the updates and am pleased to see this project coming to a successful conclusion. The negativity in this thread is why people don’t want to get involved in the historical/preservation field. It is many times not just a thankless job, but one of slings and arrows.
With all that being said, I will now cut to the chase. For all those who complain about “destroying the original fabric”, I say you need to do some research. The only time a locomotive or other piece of equipment is 100% original fabric is when it is leaves the original manufacture’s doors. The first time the equipment comes into the owner’s shop for repairs, the item/s being replaced are no longer original. That means every changed out/renewed staybolt, side sheet, boiler course, wheelset, brake valve, paint job, etc. means the unit is no longer 100% original. After many shoppings, many locomotives had up to 75% (or more) of the “original fabric” replaced. Therefore, many pieces of equipment that escaped the scrapper have relatively little original fabric left. The only way to have an original fabric piece of equipment is to get it directly from the manufacturer and put it on display. If you use the don’t mess with the original fabric argument, the Strasburg Rail Road (along with many other organizations) should be put out of business for all their sins. Instead of questioning an organization’s historical morals, we should be applauding them for the good work they do to pass on to the younger generation what a steam locomotive was all about. You’re not going to get that when it is stuffed and mounted.

R L Musser

Herr Musser hat recht (to use a phrase you might actually hear in Lancaster County.)

PRR E6s 4-4-2 460 was restored across the street from his shop. The engine was built in 1914 and operated through 1955, mostly in passenger service. In the late 1940's, 460 was selected by PRR to be one of three E6s engines to be overhauled for continued service on PRSL in South Jersey.

When RRPMA dismantled 460 for its restoration overhaul, they were surprised to find it had many parts from other E6s engines.

So.... Original fabric? The 460 has original E6s parts; they just weren't all built for 460.

You tell me.

Phil Mulligan

Jeff,

It was great to meet you last August when I had a few days in Colorado. You were marking out the striping on one of the GE NG diesels and getting 491 steamed up for that weekend's runs at the CRRM. Keep up the excellent work. I am among the many who are drooling over every update posted on RYPN or FB or wherever. RGS #20 is one of the most iconic Colorado narrow gauge locomotives to have survived and am glad to see her so close to coming back to life. Probably one of the more difficult NG restorations seeing as how thoroughly worn out she was when Linn started work on her many years ago.

It's great that we can all share our opinions on any given subject but the vitriol is not needed and doesn't help anyone or benefit any project. We can do better hear. Let's keep it civil and respectful. Lord knows we have much bigger actual problems facing our country today than "Original Fabric!" lol.

Sincerely,


Rob Gardner
ASR VP and 2100 Project Manager

You got me thinking of some other locomotives.

Let's consider ATSF 3751, which went through more than one rebuilding and no longer looks at all like it did in 1927?

Santa Fe 3751 Facebook page:

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5F1B5DF3



https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5F19DA0A





How about the Reading T1--which started out as a 2-8-0, and ended up as a 4-8-4? (Both photos from NortheastRailfan.net)

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_pr2010.jpg



http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_rdg2102c.jpg



And C&O's L1 4-6-4, which started out as an F19 4-6-2?

By the way, she doesn't quite look like her real as-built appearance in the "before" photo. Compared with builder's photos, she has piping changes, lettering changes, and a different tender.

Initial image via Pinterest,

http://www.nkyviews.com/mason/mason466.jpg



https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/11203



The same engine, same number, as she has looked since a rebuilding around 1946, and a change in painting (from orange to yellow) around 1950.



How much original fabric is left in any of these locomotives, or for that matter, was left in their scrapped sisters?

.

If you're part of an organization who's mission is to preserve history, you need to be doing that. That means that you stabilize and store your artifacts. The reason you exist is to make sure that those artifacts exist for future observation and study. You let the story be the story and don't insert yourself into it. Now, that's not always strictly possible but you should strive to get as close to it as possible. Note, this mission is NOT the only mission of most museums or groups.

If your mission is to preserve and educate on history, THEN it might make sense to start messing with artifacts. Obviously you have to have your own internal debate about the fate of any given artifact: is this more valuable to the cause as something used to demonstrate how it was used than as something to simply be observed. This is the place most railroad history groups find themselves in. For example, with the CRHS, we decided that the value of having a good looking Conrail caboose that people could interact with was far better than being able to show it in its current state (which resulted not only of its time on the railroad but ALSO its time in someone's back yard). Meanwhile, we're also not fixing any typos we find in our document collection with white out or "fixing" any incorrect forward looking statements in things we find.

If your mission is to run a railroad that sustains itself with old equipment, then the only reason you have to preserve original fabric is to ensure the continued consistency in the aesthetics and branding of your operation. Everything else you do toward historical accuracy is because you're "a good guy" doing future historians favors. It also means that if you need to modify equipment to make improvements (like adding continuous blowdowns), you should do it.

Most of the debate here is centered around the decisions for the second case above and people sure seem to get very attached to the decisions they've made in that case.

From Heritage Rail Alliance Recommended Practices:

Since nobody has offered an opinion on this thread (I'm JOKING!!) I'll put my two cents in. History Museums, and especially Railroad Museums, are struggling to survive in today's world. There is a lot of competition for folks' time and money, and the old iron just ain't at the top of the list, no matter if it's trains, planes, or automobiles. If any of this old iron has a chance to survive with any percent of it's old or new fabric, the institution that owns and displays it must survive financially. If that doesn't happen, this whole discussion is a moot point. The old iron will head to the scrapper, and we have already seen this happen.......Indiana RR Museum??

Therefore, the old iron must be sexy enough to draw the public's attention, and the best way to do that is to make it live. Live by running, smoking, tooting, and clanking. There is much more sensory experience for the public, and more for the kids to see and learn from, and more to entice the wallets to open up.

I can suggest another maritime example. The whaling bark Charles W. Morgan of Mystic Seaport in Connecticut. I’ve worked there for 13 years. She is the only remaining sail driven wooden whaling ship. She’s seen several restorations over the years. In 2008, she was hauled for a necessary major restoration of areas below the waterline that hadn’t been touched since her building in 1841. She spent 5 years in restoration and ultimately resulted in her sailing for the first time since 1921. Components were replaced with correct materials and period methods using period tools wherever possible. The Navy shared a cache of timber recently discovered in a bog during a construction project. They retained the rest for Constituton. Oak knees were harvested from hurricane felled trees on the gulf coast. New metal fittings were hand forged in our shipsmith shop as well. A new suit of sails were made, some entirely by hand. We sailed her clear up to Boston and back. In Boston, we tied up aft of USS Constitution. I had the privilege of working on her rigging and sailing her as a crew member. All of the modern equipment required for the voyage was installed in a manner that would allow its removal without significant impact or alteration. The trip gave us a valuable information and experience that helps us to better interpret the ship to visitors.

Star of India and Elissa are also worthy of mention.

.

If that isn't an official "flip of the bird" at everyone complaining about the restoration/rebuilding in eight pages of blather here, I don't know what would be.