Who would the PRR locomotive be a draw for? The foamers who already don't like to pay to ride. That doesn't seem like a good enough reason to destroy any historic fabric on the engines in the collection. Reading what Kelly said about the condition of "7002" when they signed the lease, it amazes me that a collections manager would ever let her leave the museum.



The RRMPA is a professionally run, state owned museum that is governed by the Pa Historical and Museum Commission. Regardless of what changes may occur in who is in charge of the museum site, it is highly unlikely that they would change their collections policy which might allow one of their prized artifacts to leave the museum in order to have its historic fabric destroyed. Even if somehow the new management at the museum became all railfan, it would still be their responsibility as custodians and museum professionals to do what is right for the collection and follow common practice for the state museum system. They cannot just do what would be "cool" or "neat to see". So I can confidently say that we will NEVER see another steam locomotive leave the collection on loan for operation.

Sorry if I just burst a bunch of bubbles but this is the reality of dealing with a professional museum.

Kevin O

While I agree with your larger point, might you thus say, by extension, that a certain big-city railroad museum that restored to operation a prized 19th-century exhibit and let Hollywood transport it across the country for a movie was, therefore, acting "unprofessionally"?

Or, for that matter, ditto the Smithsonian in 1981 with the John Bull?

Quite honestly you could say that but it really depends on the individual museum and their collections policy. It also depends on the mission of the museum. Is it a static display or do they demonstrate operations? We know that RRMPA has a no operation policy. But the B&O museum gives rides and does operating demonstrations. Was it right to restore the Wm. Mason to operation? No and yes. While the circumstances were somewhat unique, and in the end they recieved a 4-4-0 in operating condition, all museums must be careful before leasing out artifacts to anyone coming around waving cash. Every museum should stop and think, "what is best for the artifact?" before entering into any sort of agreement.

Kevin O

I'll take a crack at this one too, as it has now crossed over into Mike's historic fabric thread.

I argue in that thread that the concept of original fabric is not a formula into which you can input data and get out only one right answer. It's a framework to guide decision making.

So let's examine the decision making in these three cases.

1. William Mason - an object whose default condition is a pastiche of fabric with the last likely heavy modifications dating to 1927, with another likely round at the none too gentle hands of Major Pangborn ca. 1900 or so. The most conservative course would be straight conservation, and interpreting it as a 1927 example of a curio from the great age of railroad fairs. Option 2 is restoration and backdating. If you go with option 2, its likely that the additional changes you need to make to operate it under controlled conditions are not much more dramatic than those needed just to do a static restoration. So you arguably don't lose much by backdating, and you gain whatever you learn by tearing it down and documenting what you find, as well as whatever you learn by running it. You already didn't have an 1855 engine; what you gave up was a 1927 pastiche in favor of a 1995 pastiche. I'm OK with it.

2. The John Bull--I speculate in the other thread (SPECULATE--I don't know) that White and Withhun altered almost no fabric on the Bull. And to the extent they did, I trust them to know what was worth documenting and preserving and what wasn't and proceed with minimal intrusion. I'm a little uneasy but OK with it if Jack White says it was OK. People matter.

3. The 7002. According to Kelly you had a 20C object handed over in pristine condition from a railroad shopping, by the railroad that built it, using tools and techniques pretty much consistent with the as-built technology. It had a lot of information in it about 20C Pennsy steam practice that would have taught future Jack White-level scholars a great deal. Me--I would not have altered that object, I would have conserved it. That's how I would make that call.

Which doesn't stop me from also enjoying the picture I took of 7002 running that has sat on me desk for 20 years now. :-)

Aren't we getting way off topic here? What does any of this have to do with the actual restoration of 460? Are any of these comments an update on the engine? Where are you Tom?

Later!
Mr. Ed

Ed: We are and we aren't. The subject was the restoration of E6s, 460, and the money being put into conserving her, as she is today. Today, she is a mixed bag of E6s parts, which is a significant historical and archaeological find. Is she an as built E6s? No. Should the occasion come to operate her, as in the Centennial of Lindbergh, should she be rebuilt again for operation? Many opinions have been voiced, and none of them are the absolute authority on that subject. The only other PRR Atlantic was received in Altoona Shop condition and was utilized for a very short period. Did that destroy her condition? Again, many opinions. She's somewhat used, but hardly worn out, which is interesting in that she's essentially a gussied up E7, and not an E3.

Very well put. I was personally unaware of the situation with 7002 and, frankly, learning that information about her is quite interesting. I would concur that in a rare case like 7002, conservation as is would be the appropriate thing to do. 1223 is obviously a different matter altogether. I could also be persuaded that The Henry Ford's Allegheny and the DMIR Yellowstone and certainly Franklin Institute's 60000 are similar, though they are fresh out of service and not freshly shopped. I suppose BLE 643 and the Santa Fe collection at one time met this criteria as well.

As for John Bull, I recall reading something written at the time regarding the operation and I seem to remember that only minimal work was done with regard to the "historic fabric" to allow a one time operation for the sesquicentennial of the allegedly operable locomotive.

Kelly's opinions regarding the 1800 or so remaining locos with various degrees of deterioration is spot on and, again, I am in complete agreement with regards to 7002. I'm not sure I'd be so hard on myself, though.

.

Well, especially since all that stuff you guys run really does look butchered and hacked up, I suppose that fits... :-)

Your frustration is understandable, but how you react to it is the problem.

Your sentiments are not unique. There are many others on this board who probably don't care to see those topics either, but I have yet to see anyone, besides you two, who's reacted in such a rude manner. The reality of the situation is that regardless of your disdain for those kinds of questions, they are still not absolutely forbidden from being asked. When they are, then most times if a healthy debate ensues among members of this board who have experience in steam restoration, then the poster learns a good deal of information from it.

So all in all.....put your nose down, unbunch your panties, and just get over it. When you're rude to others just because you don't like what's being asked, the only person that comes out looking bad...is YOU. :-)

Healthy debate is always worthwhile.

However, the debate engendered above, while worthwhile, is all about various merits or lack thereof of collections policy, restoration-versus-preserve, etc.

It is NOT about whether 460 can run again.

I would make the case that discussion about "can we get PRR 460/a UP Big Boy/N&W 611/etc. running again?" never falls under the category "healthy debate;" instead, it eventually degenerates into the "kids" screaming "But WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY???" and the "grown-ups" sputtering in frustration "Because I said so!" It's like arguing over the design of perpetual-motion machines while concurrently ignoring the laws of thermodynamics and physics that make perpetual motion impossible on this planet.

It also doesn't help that the arguments for change (i.e. preservation, operation, acquisition, etc.) are usually based on emotion ("I want to see it run!"), whereas the refutations are usually based on reason and/or nasty bits of reality that interfere ("Got money/a new boiler/a place to run?").

I'm certainly aware that every year brings about a bunch of fresh faces that need to have the proper context and environment explained to them (i.e. "perpetual motion is physically impossible on a planet"). But, normally, that rebuke has to be delivered to someone asking:

I might point out that the B&O Museum, on its operations, currently uses almost exclusively NON-B&O equipment that has not officially been added to its permanent collection, but rather "expendable" ex-PRR/MARC coaches, flat cars converted to open cars, and a non-B&O/Chessie switcher acquired expressly to run the out-and-back train. The one exception is occasionally assigning operable EMD road switchers to the west ends of some of these trains.

The B&O Museum supposedly is in line to acquire a specific rebuilt ex-B&O GP40 from MARC (73 or 74, now classified GP39H-2) when it is retired, presumably as a HEP-equipped loco; whether they want it as an expendable locomotive or as part of the collection, I don't know (I assume the latter).

We've had a lot of really interesting stuff in the digressions. I suggest that when you feel yourself taking a side track consider opening another thread. There has been enough juicy stuff through the wringer in this thread to run out the half-life of a K-4 thread. Additionally, more people might chime and share even more great stuff.

Thanks,

Tom Gears
Moderator