> Basically, the only difference would be the
> engine/builder numbers. Other than the
> numbering, visitors would not be able to
> tell the difference between the two.

At NCTM we crossed this line when we repainted TARS 678 for the Bicentennial. In hindsight I'm not sure what we were thinking, but I recall the justification was based on the practice of painting cars for War Bond Drives and things like that. Spurred on by hosting the 1992 ARM Convention, Museum volunteers repainted the car back in WStW (Vienna) livery pending full restoration as TARS 678.

Based on experience in the above case, modification or creative interpretation of an existing artifact does not seem consistent with good Museum practice. I am sure one could make the case at National Capital for re-painting our Toronto PCC in a Washington, DC paint scheme by sayong, "Well, IF Washington had bought all-electric PCCs and IF the company had modified clearances on transfer tables, etc. THEN this is what it would look like." Sure the casual visitor would not know the difference, and some advocates of said scheme might get satisfaction. But I believe such creativity is merely taking license with history and is not good museum practice.

Wesley

Devils advocate here Wesley - if you needed a single truck Birney in DC livery to fill up a hole in a representative series of DC cars, and no native examples were available, but you had a chance to get a chicken coop from a Baltimore backyard from an identical car, wouldn't you? Of course, in the interpretation you would call it a single truck Birney from Baltimore replicating its similar missing brother from DC. Might even talk about why many systems used identical cars as further interpretation springing from that one display.

Identical mass produced items are identical mass produced items. If proper documentation is done, no irreversable changes are made, and interpretation is honest and complete, visitors benefit from seeing a complete rather than a partial story. I don't see how anybody loses in a case like this.

Dave



irondave@bellsouth.net

Interestingly enough, an excellent example of what Dave is talking about is actually happening right now just down the road from NCTM at the Baltimore Streetcar Museum. Last year BSM acquired a 1936 PCC car built for San Diego and later sold to El Paso, Texas. This car is very similar to cars built for Baltimore at the same time, of which none were saved. BSM is rebuilding the car as Baltimore Transit #7303, a car which never actually existed, to represent the 1936 St. Louis-built Baltimore PCC's.

Of course, this isn't just a coat of paint. Besides the obvious truck regauging, BSM is relocating the car's anticlimbers, changing some of the interior appointments to reflect changes between the San Diego and Baltimore orders, and making some other alterations. None of it is irreversible, of course - all you need is some steel, paint and a few thousand man-hours to change it all back. It's just intriguing that they're doing it.

Frank Hicks

F-Hicks@wiu.edu

I don't wish to either advocate or naysay the porcess of renumbering or relettering locomotives after their service life, but I can say that the railroads themselves did this. An interesting example that comes to mind is SLSF 1621. 1621 was one of a series of decapods that American builders couldn't or wouldn't deliver to the Russians due to the interference of a revolution. They were reguaged and distributed (by the U.S.R.A?) to American roads. Frisco got a goodly number of them. Alas 1621 was lost I believe to a boiler explosion. Oops. Not to worry, lots more identical decs were available. They bought one from another road (I can't immediately recall who) and numbered it 1621, thereby filling the hole in the number scheme made by the unfortunate demise of 1621 Sr. Sounds familiar huh? This is neither here nor there, and some of you undoubtedly know this story, but it is nonetheless interesting.

Sincerely,
David Ackerman

david_ackerman@yahoo.com

Dave, are you, hypothetically, exhibiting a machine or a paint scheme? If the latter, make a mural.

Some replicas finished for different owners can reasonably be constructed on the bare and broken bones of a largely dismantled object. I think, at present, the cost is too great considering the proper restorations that need to be done.

johncb@u.washington.edu

Having read all the arguments, I would say I am definitely on the purist side; but a lot of circumstances come into play. What about the case where you manage to have an intact, well restored car or piece of equipment but there is no provenance to identify the exact history and car number? Is is okay to finish it off by lettering it and decorating it for a "member of the class"? Assuming you research the roster data and assure the number in question was in existence for the date and scheme to be portrayed - if even that is possible?

And of course the members, volunteers, workers, and funders have some input. If the culture of the group is ok with what is being done I would lean toward the go ahead signal as the item would probably not get attention or be saved in any form without that support. But yes, it should be identified as a stand in, modification, or replica.

Finally, as to the railroads filling in a number series or placing a second "1621" into service - the railroads were writing the history; we are merely trying to preserve it. So that does not give us a right to alter past events or otherwise portray or modify something to the current whims of a few.

Is there any one answer to these questions, or it it better to have saved only one holy grail than never to have saved at all?

Bob Kutella


68trolley@comcast.net

> Dave, are you, hypothetically, exhibiting a
> machine or a paint scheme? If the latter,
> make a mural.

Well, it came to mind after surveying a pair of fishbelly carbodies near a lakeside resort. No identification remains with these cars insofar as road name, number, etc. Cars like these were built for several roads in the region. West Point Route was one of them, and they are potential acquisitions for a museum wishing to interpret that line with them.

They probably are A&WP, and it is possible that when undergoing initial surgery to remove the nonrailroad stuff some information may be found to support that view, but meanwhile the decision needs to be made as to whether or not to pursue them.

While the bodies are strong and restorable, the underframe hardware is mostly gone, and they are not in an easily accessable location. Their preservation may hinge on either actual or replicable A&WP heritage, and the resources to move and preserve them in any case will be considerable.

Bit of a conundrum.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

Track 16 at Wash Union Station sounds like a good spot for 4876.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

It is a frequent occurrence in aviation and automotive "restoration" to paint and/or modify a contemporary artifact to represent a more famous sister.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

> It is a frequent occurrence in aviation and
> automotive "restoration" to paint
> and/or modify a contemporary artifact to
> represent a more famous sister.

I just read a fascinating article about the Cradle of Aviation Museum's restoration of a Waco CG4 WWII troop glider. This is an actual SUB-chicken coop restoration--the basic airframe came from a farmer who had bought it surplus from the GOv't for the sake of the crates it came in, converted the crates to chicken coops, and tossed the glider itself into his open field: the airframe wasn't good enough to be the chicken coop!

The final product is beautiful, but it's a composite of parts from a dozen different sources and a lot of new fabric (literal fabric in this case) to boot. Obviously, it does not represent any single historical glider. They have painted it in the a generic Overlord/D-Day scheme, even though the frame which lies at the heart of the new creature never left the US.

eledbetter@rypn.org

> Both would be flatly dishonest. Museums are
> educational institutions, not purveyors of
> information that is convenient.

Yes, but for the most part, these kinds of "restorations" are done by railfan groups, not museums. They form an interesting gray area.

Rob

> Track 16 at Wash Union Station sounds like a
> good spot for 4876.

As I understand it, this was indeed the plan for 4876 when the loco was rescued from the NJ Transit hoard in the early 1990s. Unfortunately, as many here can imagine, putting the actual locomotive that crashed through that very station in a train accident (amazingly non-fatal) right where passengers are still boarding trains, buying tickets for said trains, etc. is NOT exactly a sound marketing idea. I understand the loco's saviors proposed the idea to Amtrak, and were flatly turned down.

> Track 16 at Wash Union Station sounds like a
> good spot for 4876.

NOT!

From an operating viewpoint, it is the longest track on the upper level of Union Station, and thus the loading track for the Capitol.

And from a maintenance viewpoint, it is the only track in Union Station with a between the rails pit; and it is where, from 8 am to 12:30 each day, the MARC fleet gets rotated to gets the disc brake pads maintained!

Steve


ICC Report on Federal Wreck (need Adobe)

SZuidervee@aol.com

W.T. Track 16 is the track that was used by the Federal on the day of the accident (PRR 173 of 1-15-1953).

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

This thread caused me to read the 1953 ICC report.

A friend had told me 16 track is a straight shot from PRR #3 main but the report shows in 1953 PRR 3 led to 40 track and train 173 had to cross over to 41 to get to station track 16.

A review shows today AMTK 3 main does go straight to 41 and 16. Probably changed when B&O went to a single track.

So in the intervening 50 years ongoing work has changed the layout of WAS Union which effects us interpreting the Federal crash.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association