Well, fellers...........

I didn't mean to start the whole "run 'em or conserve 'em'debate all over again, although it is always lurking.

I just wanted to raise the point that the Smithsonian, the purported standard bearer of professional preservation (for Gawd's sake, don't dust as you will remove history) has seen fit to entrust a VERY rare artifact to be used by what most academics would view as "unprofessional"to say the least.

As for me, any of this stuff is much more valuable doing what it was meant to do, with all of its visual, auditory and olfactory impact.

> OK. What should replace it to represent
> steam engines in the Smithsonian?

The B&0 USRA prototype 2-8-2. Much more "typical", about the same size, it's under the Smithsonians banner already, and deserves better care that where she's at. She also has a "special" history.

Smokebox

> The current preservation process appears to be
> random and without logic and therefore itÂ’s
> a hard to sell to those with deep pockets.

> Ed

Ed, I have never been involved in preserving something that has value on a National Scale, only things that have value at a local level. Our main "selling" points are contributions to local industrial and transportation facets of the area. In lieu of a board of community leaders it becomes necessary to recruit local folks with connections to the deep pockets. What may seem random and without logic to folks in the other 49 states seems focused at a local level. I cannot see any of my projects making a big hit to any foundation handling preservation on a national level.


lamontdc@adelphia.net

> OK. What should replace it to represent
> steam engines in the Smithsonian?

>>>>> That's very hard to answer. Do to the hodpodge of steam designs there is hardly an "All American" engine that could be a national representation of American steam. You do with diesels like with GP38 or a SD40-2.

But maybe we could try and narrow it down:

1. The wheel arrangement should represent work-a-day locomotive that almost every railroad had. I'm thinking a Consolidation, Mikado, Northern or a Pacifc here. So no 2-6-6-4s or Big Boys here or experimental designs either ;)

2. That the design of the locomotive be representative or close to representative to a design that worked on a many railroads as possible. So you must know what I have in mind: a USRA or USRA-based design. Based on this, for wheel arrangements, that leaves out the Northerns.

So by wheel arrangement we could go:

Mikado: IIRC, the only "pure" USRA designed Mikado left is the B&0 4500 in Balitmore. There are other USRA-based locomitives out there. Soo Line 1011 in Ladysmith is USRA based, so are Frisco Mikados 4018, 4003

Consolidation: There was not an USRA design for Consols.

Pacifics: 1401 is a USRA design. Let's there is also ACL 1504 and the famous A&WP 290.Are any of the remaining FEC Pacifics USRA based?

terry_dempsey@hotmail.com

> The B&0 USRA prototype 2-8-2. Much more
> "typical", about the same size,
> it's under the Smithsonians banner already,
> and deserves better care that where she's
> at. She also has a "special"
> history.

Actually the "Smithsonian Affiliate" label means very little. The recipent pays the Smithsonian a licensing fee to use the Smithsonian Affiliate label, and in return gets most-favored-borrower status for borrowing Smithsonian artifacts. In the specific case of the B&O Museum, the Smithsonian has no special access to, responsibility for, or investment in the B&O Museum's collection, including 4500.

But to turn the quesiton back to Bob's point: OK, we have two votes for 4500 (and actually I certainly agree that it's a better representative of the "typical" 20C steam locomotive.) But won't we be taking her out of context by removing her from the B&O shops at Mt. Clare? Back to Square 1...

eledbetter@rypn.org

> As for me, any of this stuff is much more
> valuable doing what it was meant to do, with
> all of its visual, auditory and olfactory
> impact.

I don't know what it is, but I manage to mess up everytime I post to this board!! Here is the first part of my post that the "computer ate."

>>>You clever readers will see through the above comment to realize that is almost exactly what many of us preservationists are doing with our rail equipment. In our hearts, I think we would all like to see pieces restored to operating condition and to see those wheels roll. But I think there is a case to be made not to use such valuable relics to haul 100,000 visitors around each year. >>If unlimited funds were available, yes repairs could be made ad infintum to keep such equipment 'whole'. But wouldn't we end up with something akin to the 'original' hatchet used by George Washington? 100% authentic and original, but three new heads and six new handles over the years. <<<

I guess it’s how you define the difference between historic archeology and preservation. Is the object of the museum effort to preserve the object or the historical context of the object? The HMS Victory is preserved in Portsmouth England in a pumped out graving dock. They never intend to float the ship ever again, in fact curators have cut the keel and the three masts are actually stepped on the floor of the dry dock to avoid the weight from crushing the keel over time. So while it is preserved, it’s not really a ship any longer but a wooden building that was once a ship. On the other hand the USS Constitution is still afloat and even sailed under it’s own sails recently though only a very short distance though. When you tour it, you are walking on a preserved ship that is “alive” to the wind and tide. Yes, only about 15% of the wood remains from the original construction, but the fabric as a whole remains intact. The Victory has more of the wood that Adm. Nelson walked, but every year, repairs reduce the remaining amount though more slowly than on the Constitution. So the end result is about the same, just the time line is longer. IMHO, the Constitution preserves the context of a wood sailing Man O’ War better than the Victory and has the potential to actually be used to test the writings of the those whom used them as weapons of war. The Victory remains only an artifact.

So I guess I'm on your side.

Besides, this is all good fun. Get to demostrate one's poor spelling and spending too much time at the keyboard, how could things get better.

Ed


ff1044@aol.com

> OK. What should replace it to represent
> steam engines in the Smithsonian?

More importantly, who replaces the curators whose dead bodies you'd have to take 1401 over to get it out? (^_^) I know I have heard Jack White years ago answer the umpteenth kazillionth query about removing the 1401 with a headshake and "over my dead body!", explaining that the very purpose of enshrining the 1401 was to preserve it in immaculate, no-longer-used condition. "When every other steamer in America is worn out or exploded, the 1401 will still be intact and original!"

Interesting consideration for a "replacement" locomotive: 1401 works where it does in part because of its shiny and gaudy paint job, Southern decorative touches, etc. I doubt any other surviving locomotive in authentic paint, with the exception of SP 4449 or Canadian Royal Hudsons, would attract as much interest without, say, Hollywood-style theatrics such as fog machines. Look at the larger, more spectacular Baldwin 60000 in the Franklin Institute--it even moves, yet it's mostly ignored by comparison.


LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

> IMO it's this idea that most of the
> artifacts are fresh from use and could be
> taken out and used again at any time (with
> the exception of Julia Child's kitchen). It
> makes their collection an exciting one to
> say the least. They paid a price for this
> last year when they attempted to fly the
> freshly restored Boeing Stratoliner from
> Seattle to Washington, DC. It had to make an
> emergency landing in Elliot Bay, you may
> recall. Why didn't they just truck it coast
> to coast? While that may have been a more
> expensive option, having a real-life flying
> Stratoliner is much more in keeping with the
> spirit of the Smithsonian.

I'm sorry to quibble, but for the record, Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum actually has a firm, iron-clad policy that its artifacts do not fly, ever. The 307 Stratoliner was still owned by Boeing Corporation when it took the dunk; Smithsonian didn't take legal title to the Strato until it was on the ramp at Dulles after being re-restroed following the dunk.

I have no doubt that the Air and Space curators and conservators enjoyed seeing the 307 and others like the Concorde and SR-71 arrive at Dulles under their own power--it is very cool--but it was not done under Smithsonian ownership. Once Air and Space owns the artifact, it's grounded as a matter of policy.

eledbetter@rypn.org

Thanks for the correction, Erik.

I still think it's "cool" that they restored the aircraft to service, then flew it cross-country into permanent static display. It's pretty awesome that most of these artifacts are ready to roll, or fly, or steam -even though they probably never will.


SJHussar@aol.com

Graha, Claytor offered the 4501 to the Smithsonian in place of the 1401, and even offered to pony up the money to move the engine out. No takers.

Where will Smithsonian display the cosmetically rebuilt and inoperable Santa Fe Alco PA? Certainly it belongs beside the 1401.
Another minor correction to those following this thread; the steam loco room is no where near the National Air Space Museum, but it is adjacent to the hall of automobiles. There are several other small locomotives near the 1401, but all are ancient steam, and none represent the 20th Century in the manner of the PS-4.
And as I ponder it a little further, MEC 470 is remarkably similar to the PS-4 in size, shape, and design....and I'd give anything to have a strong advocate for that locomotive. So perhaps that's where the effort should go, and not to a properly ensconced piece of motive power.


glueck@maine.edu

> OK. What should replace it to represent
> steam engines in the Smithsonian?

Eric:

First of all, my reply is NOT about what should replace the 1401. If she would ever move to Spencer (or some other historic place)...fine! But if she remains at the Smithsonian (which I am sure she will do)...that is also fine. My argument has always been that the 1401 is atypical. Yes she is beautiful but she did not look like the 99.9999% of steam locomotives that operated during the steam era. What WAS typical was a freight hog; gritty, hard riding and most importantly...black! While a number of different types could fit this bill, the most common was the 2-8-0 Consolidation. Typical all over the country and for most railroads. Since the 1401 is a USRA engine, this freight engine need not be and the Consol fills the bill. So I would propose that the Smithsonian ADD a 2-8-0 to its collection, preferably in the company of a 40' box car (steel or wood) and perhaps even a caboose if there's enough room. Surely with all of the forementioned aircraft, the Smithsonian could find a way to squeeze such am exhibit into their collection.

DO IT!

Les Beckman (Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum/North Judson, Indiana)

midlandblb@cs.com

The Smithsonian is so big that they may well have a second similar traction engine stached away some where.

Preservation oftem means using the artifact. At Maritime Park where I work we have decided to operate, with limitations, one wood schooner and ine steel tug boat. We generate good will, skills preservation, volunteerism and just plain fun.

Seems to me that steam engines are self consuming as they were operated, so there must be any number that can be displayed bt the Smithsonian.

Maybe the best solution would be to build some tracts onto the Mall and sisplay lots of engines in sequence.

I am going there the end of the month and you can be sure that I will comment on what I find there. A new transportation exhibit and a lot new in the other museums as well.

Ted Miles


ted_miles@nps.gov

for a useful reminder. Your comments below on the Victory miss your own point, I think.

At the world's first national railway preservation symposium in 1989 a national railway preservation foundation was proposed by Mark Smith. At a session where the purpose the foundation was discussed, I suggested that a good first purpose would be to inventory the artifacts that were truly valuable. I argued that some form or scope of the effort would help interest and funding. This was pooh-poohed by all in hearing. The leader of a well-known California railroad museum asked if I should tell foundations like the National Trust for Historic Preservation what they should be doing. I answered, with considerable confidence, "You bet."

In the ensuing 14 years nothing, absolutely nothing, has been done to define what railway artifacts are worth strict preservation. No foundation or proposed foundation. Perhaps it is still premature. The result -- as evidenced by this Interchange -- is that the let's-operate-it-can't-hurt-they-may-even look-better crowd has completely dominated the discussion of railway preservation.

Even this thread is not reasurring. To annoy the majority of you I will repeat two of my basic rules of preservation: "Original" means what rolls through the museum door (not some fanciful idea of what the factory produced). Operation always, without exception, uses up the original fabric.

Therefore the Smithsonian's operation of the John Bull and loaning of the steam tractor (if it is really as rare as described) were destructive and flatly unethical.

johncb@u.washington.edu

> Even this thread is not reasurring. To annoy
> the majority of you I will repeat two of my
> basic rules of preservation:
> "Original" means what rolls
> through the museum door (not some fanciful
> idea of what the factory produced).
> Operation always, without exception, uses up
> the original fabric.

Thanks for re-stating what is obvious (or should be). One of the posts above suggests that interurbans cars, for one, will run darn near forever. They are a unique case where a running car MAY remain closer to continuing in running condition through regular operation. Under load the electrical components warm up (even if only minutely) which helps keep insulation and windings dried out. But commutators wear, slots fill, brushes wear down, bearings continue to wear, wheels, pins and bushings, brake shoes and on and on. The issue is not to try to argue that there are days, months or years left in it - but that sooner or later the hourglass WILL run empty. We are used to calling ourselves preservationists but perhaps we are only 'preserving' things for our own short term enjoyment or gratification. Lots of ways to slice that apple and rationalize.

I think in some ways survival is the art of compromise. Thus my earlier suggestion to use replicas to give rides, raise money, generate publicity or maintain interest. And to use genuine historical items only sparingly.

Bob Kutella



68trolley@comcast.net

> Therefore the Smithsonian's operation of the
> John Bull and loaning of the steam tractor
> (if it is really as rare as described) were
> destructive and flatly unethical.

Philosophically I generally agree with you, but it takes a braver man than I to call Jack White of all people "flatly unethical."


eledbetter@rypn.org