I think I've asked this before, but can't remember. Do any 16 cylinder Alco 244 engines (prime movers) still exist? I seem to recall us talking about one in some kind of secondhand industrial application, that was due for scrap, with people trying to save it. What became of that?

Did the 16 cylinder 244 ever see new installations at auxilliary power plants or other industrial uses, or was it exclusively a locomotive powerplant. I believe it was used only on the PAs and one of the earliest 6-axle DL series hood units, correct?

In teh National Air/Space Museum, a B17 has been displayed as a transversection, but the rear half remains in preservation. It is to be (or has been) reunited. Anything permanenetly sectioned is meant to be used for that purpose. The Smithsonian's policy, as I understand it, is to rebuild as it was in it's lifetime of service, and with the highest possible level of fidelity.
That policy would apply to a PA with rebuilt engine.

Doyle's putting a 251 in his, along with electrical cabinet and other running gear from a wrecked BCR M420 "B" unit. The trucks actually came from ex-PRR FM C-Liner "B" unit hulks that were being used or stored at a cement plant somewhere until the late '90s- or am I mixing up my story? I know they were originally installed on Fairbanks-Morse locomotives anyway.

Erik,

Are you sure that the Chicago El car is complete? In the PBS documentary about constructing the exhibit they showed the stripped down body on tiny dollies being maneuvered into the space, and at that, there was little clearance. Essentially nothing of the trucks, couplers, control boxes or anything protruding below floor level remained.

I had heard one story that this equipment had been scrapped and not offered to any any Museum, even for use a parts. Of course it could be stashed somewhere for possible use in the future.

And if you are talking about displaying in context, the 6000 series cars from Chicago never operated except in drawbar coupled pairs. I believe the exhibit is of a single car body, or am I wrong on this one too?

Bob Kutella

Bob, upon further research you are absolutely right; the car is stripped below the floor.

I was relying on my memory of what I understood Bill W. to have told me when we were looking at the exhibit together. I should not have relied on memory--the AOTM Web site makes it very clear that the car is stripped below the floor.

My sincere apologies for the false assertion.

I guess the point has been lost to some degree, but with or without trucks, cut up or not, the EL car makes for a very good exhibit would you agree? The general public vistor seems to like it, perhaps learns from it.....the point of any exhibit right? If it were in a coupled pair with trucks, I doubt this would make the exhibit itself better. But, this is not the same thing as artifact preservation is it?

Because these buses are cut up as they are, and apparently you have to personally know Bill Withun to know the full story, it appears to the public that this is the way artifacts are, or can be treated, by the Smithsonian. I think this idea alone is important as it reminds us that the public isn't connected to insiders and sees things as they are. The way something is displayed does send a larger message. I think all of us know of cars that are in "scrap yards" or stored with little hope of full restoration. Does that in and of itself justify displaying half a car or a quarter, because no one else has restored it yet?

Again, I am not on a Smithsonian witch hunt, because this kind of exhibit is becoming a fairly common practice in many museums. The National New York Central Museum in Elkhart, Indiana has cut up several passenger cars for displays for example, but justify it by saying they weren't real New York Central cars! Others have done this kind of thing based on the concept that the full item takes too much display room or that the original was in such poor condition that only the "key" elements have been preserved. It is a very slippery slope I think.

The bigger question might be whether or not railroad museums should follow this model for artifact display or not? It may be that to keep the public "entertained" some of these features should be copied. The EL car exhibit video for example would do loads of good if simply copied and installed at IRM. The car used would not have to be altered to the same degree to do this, obviously. The public seems to be expecting more entertainment from what were formerly educational institutions. Witness the Indianapolis Zoo for example it has dolphin shows and displays we would associate with theme parks, like its new roller coaster. This is all justified by saying it is the only way to keep the zoo going and that this is what the "customer" wants.

James Kissinger

I don't wish to take up James' larger point myself, though I hope someone else will.

I do want to clarify one issue. James's remark suggests to me that I may have inadvertently left the impression that this was "inside info" from Bill I was passing on. It's not--the only thing that came from Bill was the part I misremembered and got wrong.

Accurate info on all the artifacts we are discussing is publically avialable on the Smithsonian Web site at:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/collection/object_200.html

http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/collection/object_45.html

and

http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/collection/object_837.html

Well, at least there are enough complete 6000's at Union to preserve the breed. Seriously, if there are complete examples of an artifact available for serious study, I see no problem in using parts of duplicate items for interpretive displays. We are dealing with practically identical fleets of equipment here, not hand crafted unique artifacts. For example, the Pennsylvania Trolley Museum has 2 carbodies of West Penn 700 series center door interurbans, out of 53 that were built. We plan to restore one as an authentic complete car and ues the other to supply certain interior parts. I am personally in favor of using one end of this second car for an interpretive display, as it otherwise would be scrapped.

By the way, Bob Yarger, you are correct about the 16-244 engine. It was used in 294 PA's and PB's, and 17 RSD-7's. (the DL-600 with a 251 engine was a RSD-15).

I think you are very close to an important concept and difference.

Most of us are very much 'distracted' by the goal of PRESERVATION and that word alone implies a goal of completeness.

I think the museum exhibits we are discussing are much closer to entertainment or the newly coined word EDU-TAINMENT. Entertainment probably does a better job of bringing people ($$) in the door.

If you want to be more crass, the preservation movement needs to provide the entertainment factor in some way in order to fund the restoration process. But it is probably merely wishful thinking (that so many of us indulge in) to think that a newly restored railcar will fill the till.

Operating steam certainly has more of a WOW factor than a caboose trailing a rusty (perhaps) diesel. But there should be some meeting ground for co-existence and a mutually symbiotic relationship. Perhaps the solution to this is (and should be) different for each operation.

Bob Kutella

I am always amused when the subject of the postwar 2000 hp Alco passenger units comes up in a railfan discussion. To wit, I am curious how an item that was almost insignificant 'in life' can loom so large 'in death.'

Fact is-that design was a dead issue by time the first ABA set traveled from Chicago to LA. Does anyone remember that the B unit blew the turbosupercharger somewhere west of Chicago ? Can anyone begin to imagine the conversations that ensued between the interested, involved or agrieved parties ? Does anyone recall that sales figures for this design were almost trivial compared to that of the competition?

So, my question to you folks is-why is this locomotive design deemed to be so important by those within your community. It certainly wasn't an success from a sales standpoint-or any engineering standpoint, either. ATSF spent a boatload of money on 10 year old locomotives-stripping down to the chassis and -remanufacturing them-long before other suppliers ever used the term.

But a few years ago, former ATSF President John S. Reed (who was well along in years by that time) spoke in less than flattering terms of those locomotives at a gathering of former and current railway managment folks. Doesn't it seem odd that those locomotives have stuck in his mind all those years. What does that tell you ?

Come on--we're not talking saving the Ingalls Shipbuilding 4-S or the FM Talgo P-12-42 here.

Rough in-the-head math come up with about 1200 E6-through-E9's built, including B units. For the PA's 295 total--and the EMDs were in production over twice as long. So that's a 4-to-1 ratio.

Americans have a LONG history of supporting the "underdog", especially when it is of a superlative nature. The UP Big boys had their flaws, but I think almost one-third of the fleet was preserved. There are way too many E8's and E9's out there, to be honest.

The Alco PA is in the same league as the Frank Lloyd Wright "Fallingwater", the Andy Warhol paintings, and the 1950s Lincoln Continental: They're certainly not representative compared to a 1950s Levittown house, a black velvet painting, or a 1957 Chevy, but they stand on their own merits, with a healthy dose of those being sheer esthetics. The Alco PA was not as successful as the EMD offerings, but they still outlasted, say, the Baldwin Centipedes and the Amtrak SDP40F.

If these PA's hadn't been saved, it would have been the same travesty, in U.S. rail preservation, as the lack of a NYC Hudson or a PRR T1.

The bigger question here is will the Kansas City Union Station museum survive? It has been in financial trouble since it has opened. The purchase of these passenger cars doesn't seem to fit any grand policy or theme. If (and yes it is a big if) the second PA goes there, will the museum survive to display it?

The point I was trying to make is this: the essense of the Alco 2000 hp
passenger locomotives is not the carbody. The carbody is just a contrivance to both locate the machinery and transmit the mechanical energy of the traction motors to the drawhead and coupler in order to create tractive effort.

The carbody of said locomotive was not much different than that created by the competition. The railroad clearance diagrams dictated that. Now I know that someone is going to make reference to the styling of the nose vs. the nose of EMD passenger units.

Well-guess what ? In addition to the fact that the inside of the nose was a convenient place to place equipment such as the TM blower, air brake equipment, 400 cycle set and other stuff-the nose was the visual signature of the locomotive. The builder was well aware of that-and that is why is looked the way it did. Furthermore, it was much simpler (and less) expensive to fabricate than some of the competitors' products.

Although not even considered at the time-it turned out to be (in todays' jargon), a pretty good 'crush zone.'

However, in the minds (and hands) of those who had to deal with the locomotives on a daily basis-the visual signature was not-and still is not-the essense of the thing. Locomotives-like other man-made objects do not exist in a vacuum. People create them, operate them,
maintain them...and so on.

So, it is my view that the essence of the thing is the engine, electrical equipment and so on. In this case, the 16-244 engine, the amplidyne controls, 752 motors, and... It is the interaction of these items with all the involved personages that created the story of these beasts. It is the reason that so few exist today-and the reason that the competitors products are more commonplace in 2004.