Preservation Today

Ron Travis · **Joined:** Sun May 15, 2005 2:22 pm **Posts:** 1543

I doubt that this fake stack and cowcatcher was a matter of not knowing any better. Obviously, they had to know that they were changing the original appearance of the locomotive. But they wanted a locomotive that looked like it was from that older era where such stacks were a signature feature.

If you tied to talk them out of that by saying that it was inauthentic, they would say that is being picky and the public won’t know the difference. I have often heard preservationists say that the public could not care less about what is pulling their train.

stephenpiwowarski · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:19 am

Ron Travis wrote:

If you tied to talk them out of that by saying that it was inauthentic, they would say that is being picky and the public won’t know the difference. I have often heard preservationists say that the public could not care less about what is pulling their train.

That may be true. However any organization chartered as a museum has a responsibility to educate the public that they serve and fulfill their mission. These sort of things undermine the authority of a museum to be purveyors the area the purport to be knowledgeable. In addition, having "museums" like this undermines the authority of all railway museums being held in serious regard by the public.

If a "preservationist" made the claim above I would find it hard to take them seriously! The preservationist mentioned in your passage above is wrong because it isn't about the public not knowing the difference, its about educating them in an entertaining way.

At best, a museum with that attitude would likely find it difficult to pursue funding from any number of sources. At worst, they would (and maybe should) loose their museum charter.

There are other issues at play here for certain, but these are the few we have touched upon.

Steve

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:12 am

I concur, this sort of nonsense was seen often enough in low-budget Westerns that we can laugh at it, and is even understandable (sort of, a little bit) at, say a "Charlie's Chew Chew Restaurant," but this seems not quite right for a museum. Has anyone actually brought this up to the people there?

Against that, the equipment is preserved, and could be "rescued" at some point.

From not undoable:

http://washoevalley.org/archives/tag/vi ... nd-truckee

http://www.virginiaandtruckee.com/?Locomotive=No27

To done (and does she look sharp!):

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=408994

Hmm--a thought--show the museum these photos of V&T No. 27, and somehow get the idea that they can have a machine looking that good, even if only cosmetically. . .then figure out how to pay for that.

Better than the fate that befell the 2nd No. 5 on the V&T, in my opinion a good looker from the Silver Short Line:

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ ... df5bb0.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3328/3612 ... 8564_z.jpg

ChicagoGreatWestern · **Joined:** Wed May 11, 2011 4:34 pm **Posts:** 19

As Jeff Terry mentioned, the modifications to the locomotive were done by the Depot House Restaurant in Rochester, MN. The restaurant occupied the former CNW depot in town until the 1990s. The depot was torn down for the building of Civic Center Drive.

The locomotive was bought by the Wheels Across the Prairie folks. It was moved out to Tracy. If it hadn't been, I imagine it would have been scrapped.

The point it, the locomotive was modified by a commercial enterprise that was not interested in preservation. Today, the people at the museum may not know better--but what you see is what they saw when they bought her. Even if they did know the difference, they may well not have the time or money or expertise to reverse the modifications.

Here is a link to an image while she was in Rochester: https://www.cardcow.com/images/set192/card00075_fr.jpg

Neither my image nor my postcard, so I didn't copy and post it in the message.

An aside: there was at least one passenger car at the restaurant, an ex-NP heavyweight coach. It came to Rochester on the CGW. I do not know the disposition of the car.

Ryan Heath
Rochester, MN

Rainier Rails · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:26 pm

Found a thread concerning the former restaurant in Rochester: http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11661

Looking at the Cardcow photo, I'm curious about the history of the ex-NP passenger car seen behind the #346. To me, it appears to be a Pullman heavyweight. Does anybody know the identity or have any photos of the passenger car? I did some searching, but so far have not turned up any photos of the car. However, the Park Engines website did provide some additional info:

Quote:

Soo Line B-4 class 0-6-0 no. 346 was one of the last steam locomotives in regular service in Minnesota. This engine and sister no. 353 were sold to Koppers Coal & Coke in St. Paul, where they operated until 1965. After that, no. 346 was taken to Rochester, Minnesota to become part of a railroad-themed restaurant. The engine's cab and tender, and a pair of old Northern Pacific passenger cars, were partially enclosed within the building, and tables were installed inside the cars. The fake balloon stack and cowcatcher were added at this time, and the engine was given a rather gaudy paint scheme, lettered as "C&NW no. 9". After the restaurant closed down, the building was used for several years by the Salvation Army, with the train still embedded in the wall. In the early 1990's however, the building was demolished and the train removed. The engine was taken to Tracy, Minnesota for display at the Wheels Across the Prairie Museum. She has been painted black and lettered "DME" (presumably Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern), but she still retains the big stack and cowcatcher and fake number 9 from her restaurant days in Rochester. Sister engine no. 353 also survives, offering train rides to visitors at the annual Western Minnesota Steam Threshers Reunion in Rollag, Minnesota.

So, seeing as how there were 2 passenger cars at the restaurant, does anyone have info on either car? Thanks in advance!

Again, here's that Cardcow photo, showing the vestibule end of said car:

CO 2666 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 11, 2014 7:23 pm

1915 Porter 0-6-0 locomotive #102 in Palmer Massachusetts has also fallen victim to a very similar "treatment" as SOO Line #346. It seems to be well taken care of, however with addition of a 10 foot tall balloon stack and a cow catcher. In my opinion, the resemblance between the two locomotives (with modifications) is really, quite remarkable.

I wonder if there are others out there that have been drastically modified like these?

-Andrew

o484 · **Posted:** Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:07 am

The 102 at the restaurant in Palmer had its fake stack removed last year and looks a little more respectable now.

Dennis Storzek · **Posted:** Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:21 am

CO 2666 wrote:

1915 Porter 0-6-0 locomotive #102 in Palmer Massachusetts has also fallen victim to a very similar "treatment" as SOO Line #346. It seems to be well taken care of, however with addition of a 10 foot tall balloon stack and a cow catcher. In my opinion, the resemblance between the two locomotives (with modifications) is really, quite remarkable.

That's because to the great unwashed, that is the image the words "steam train" conjures up. Too much exposure to Currier & Ives prints, and pictures of the General.

Quote:

I wonder if there are others out there that have been drastically modified like these?

The entire roster at Durango sported fake balloon stacks at one time, just not quite as grossly oversize in deference to the fact the engines still had to run.

Ron Travis · **Joined:** Sun May 15, 2005 2:22 pm **Posts:** 1543

I have no problem with diamond stacks per se as long as they are part of original equipment. In the context of originally built 1880s era locomotives, all of the diamond and funnel stacks are beautiful.

The problem with backdating by adding a diamond stack is that the revisionists carelessly believe that the only difference between a modern locomotive and an 1880 era locomotive is the stack. Oh and sometimes they believe that an older locomotive needs an outlandishly gaudy paint scheme too. Again, this results from a lazy misperception of how the early locomotives actually were painted.

Perhaps even more homely than a fake diamond stack on modern locomotive is a shotgun stack and lengthened smokebox on a locomotive that was rebuilt from a locomotive originally built with a diamond stack and a short smokebox.

Jeff Terry · **Joined:** Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:18 am **Posts:** 281

At least 346 looks better today (even with the smokestack) than when Richard Thompson photographed her in June 1973. Looking at the domes, you can see how they incorporated the 346 into the building.

Preservation Today

Who is online