Right now it is a major achievement for a group to raise enough money to do a decent surface preparation, replace some deteriorated sheet metal, and get a good coat of paint on any piece of railroad equipment.

A few years back the local hobby shop owner commented that interest in steam prototype models was less than 20% of his business and declining. Now he tells me it is less than 10% of his business and still declining.

The younger railfans still at trackside are largely uninterested in the long established historical groups that they view as generally making little effort to represent their interests.

Unless there is a major change in direction for support of preservation, both steam and diesel, the outcome for many collections can now be seen. It looks a lot like the units being cut up for scrap at RMDI.

PC

Yes, this is truly one of the "topics that will not die."

The "larger picture" part of this problem is that it is a "solution in search of a problem."

It would certainly be nice to go up to a railroad that has formerly spurned the proposed operation of the likes of 3751, 2102, 4449, 1522, et al and be able to say "Okay, here's a steam locomotive built with 21st-century metallurgy, equipped with modern brake stand, diesel MU controls, and positive train control! NOW whadaya say?"

The answer? "Sorry, there's STILL too much traffic on Horse Shoe Curve/Tehachapi/Cajon Pass/Heartland Corridor.... but we'll let you ship it to Steamtown/Raton Pass....."

Or: "Fine. Now did you find a $250 million liability insurance policy yet?" Or: "Sorry, we're STILL short on water at the Grand Canyon" or "we don't NEED a Hudson on the Strasburg/Western Md. Scenic; a 2-6-2 or 2-8-0 is more our size......"

There just aren't many places in North America where operation of a NYC Hudson would make rational or practical sense--among the few in the United States would be Steamtown and the Grand Canyon, or a Class One steam program with NYC ties. If some wealthy person wants to commission one from scratch and let them use it for the pleasure of seeing it run and satisfying his lifelong dream, we sure can't stop them. But as far as fundraising to see such a project happen, there are better projects for our money--like helping to keep Steamtown, EBT, C&TS, etc. alive.

As much as I would like to see a brand-new steam replica able to freely ply the rails, barn-storming like the mainline excursion programs of the '80's, I know that is probably not going to happen again. To say that there are plenty of worthy existing candidates for conservation/preservation/restoration to operating condition restates the obvious many times over, and has been discussed here ad nauseam.

I have previously called for a coming together of the various preservation groups/museums, etc. in the U. S. with a coalition that will rationally (I know the difficulty of that part) determine the best use of the scarce preservation dollars available.

We've got dozens of display engines rotting in parks, museums, and tourist roads, previously operating stalwarts sidelined by the need for expensive but not necessarily fatal repairs, not to mention the threatened structures, RoW's, and rolling stock of various kinds that you can read about in the many urgent calls-for-action here and elsewhere. If that wasn't bad enough, we have a new generation of fans that does not relate to our interests and concerns. As was said about and by the founding fathers of this nation, we can either hang together or we will hang separately.

There is going to have to be a gut-wrenching session of triage within the preservation community. We need a national strategy on how to best preserve and tell the story of railroad development and history in the U. S. That does not mean we need one national museum. It means we need one united front for the solicitation, receipt, and distribution of said preservation bucks. It means having a BOD heavy with serious people, with serious titles before and after their names. It means developing a consensus that the member organizations will not drop out in a snit if their pet project is not found worthy of being funded (like how many ATSF Prairies and C&O Kanawhas do we really need preserved?). It means developing the credibility to be taken seriously by politicians and community leaders at every level, and not blown off as a bunch of overly romantic/dramatic "buffs".

This is probably the only way that worthy long-term projects, like preserving MEC #470 are going to happen. Local activist Joe Smith can be ignored, but if a committee of people like Jack White, Bill Withun, foundation money people, etc., comes calling, the city fathers are more likely to take them seriously.

I tend to be in favor of the survival of the groups that do a good job and have a realistic business plan, and let the folks who got stuck in a rut forty years ago stay stuck in their rut until somebody shows up with cutting torches.

I don't see any value in pulling the outstanding outfits down to a uniform "national" standard that might turn out to just be an acceptable level of mediocrity.

PC

Preston;

I'm hoping that a nationally recognized coalition can elevate preservation efforts generally. I realize that there are pockets of groups that have done things better than others. However, even some of those - like the Railroad Museum of Pa. - are having tough times. I believe a concerted and concentrated national effort is needed to maximize the potential fundraising capabilities of the entire category. Don't think of the money available as a fixed pot. With the right people and credibility we can expand the number of donor possibilities to those who might be willing to give, but want assurances that their money will go towards competently completed projects.

I realize that there are groups that just aren't measuring up to the tasks they have given themselves. Nevertheless, many of them possess valuable and significant artifacts that shouldn't be left to the torch. I believe that if there were a nationally accredited organization that had the clout to guarantee that their long-held items were finally going to get a good home, they would then be willing to part with them, rather than take them down with the rest of their sinking ship. Most here know who the hard-heads are. My hope is that a fresh organization can succeed in prying loose the treasures they seem bent on taking with them out of little more than spite.

I certainly appreciate what you are saying Paul.

Unfortunately every time the word "national" comes up in discussion it tends to invoke negative images of the past misadventures of a particular organization in the railroad history field. If there ever is a coordinated "national" organization actually representing the railroad museums one can only hope that it is led by people chosen for an established record of success in business, rather than for being "politically connected" in the hobby.

PC

We seem to have diverged from the original subject of replicating historic locomotives and rolled into a discussion of improving the "business" side of railway preservation. Perhaps it's time to start a new thread focusing on this aspect of our interest.

Could the British build one? (Or are the clearances too restrictive?)

That would be your best chance at building a new Hudson.

The A-1 Tornado is 13 feet tall so I would say clearance would be an issue......

Years ago, Mark Smith had an editorial in L&RP Magazine asking if we really do have a national rail preservation movement. Over the years, I've raised the topic with a few "big thinkers" and names in the rail preservation field, and the consensus seems to be no--we simply do not.

From there, the discussion becomes CAN we have same? I'm becoming thoroughly convinced that it's not in the cards for several reasons, primarily the large land area of this nation and the individualistic, non-socialistic nature of the personal culture of Americans in general and the so-called "American spirit" (at least relative to other cultures like Europe, Japan, etc.--Australia has a similar culture and a similar rail preservation problem.) Even the wildly varying characteristics of NRHS chapters illustrates this--one chapter runs a museum, one is effectively a private car club, one operates a couple private two-foot-gauge lines, another is largely traction buffs, etc.

Ultimately, the question has to be asked whether a "nationalized" scope to railroad history/preservation is truly a necessity or desirable objective. It certainly is for the sake of the ARM/TRAIN as a lobbying/trade group. Certainly there can be at least a role for the national presence of the NRHS and R&LHS, if only to unify railfans in far-flung places (although that's a role where the Internet is increasingly the centerpiece, not a group with a set of by-laws).

There's a saying that "all politics is local." I've seen people extend that to religion. The problem with a "national" organization--any such one--is that ultimately it attempts to coalesce power or authority away from some and towards others. That tends to rub those who are usurped the wrong way. (That very fight is going on now with a proposed reorganization of the NRHS awaiting a vote.) Who's going to get the power or authority to say, for example, that the replica loco of the future should be a NYC Hudson and not a Southern Ps-4 or PRR T1 or a NP 4-8-4? Who decides that Museum X gets a grant and Museum Y eventually withers away and dies? Is it the guy with the collection of letters behind his name, or the guy itching to spend ten million of his own dollars, or the group with the most names on a petition?

How the [bleep] is this even supposed to be an issue?

The British built many export steam locomotives too big to operate on their own tracks--and eventually repatriated one from China for the National Railway Museum.

And haven't we just had several threads about the fact that Tornado's boiler was built (maybe mis-built?) in Germany????

And remember that it took them eighteen years to assemble the A1................

Regarding the National Railway Preservation movement, I don't think thats necessary. local groups tend to support local projects. While I think the four locos that were mentioned by Mr.Mitchell above are ALL worthy of reincarnation, I'm partial to the 4-6-4 NYC Hudson, even though I'd rather see a Boston and Albany Berkshire replica first. The reason is simple. A huge amount of people want to see a NYC Hudson roll again. I'll admit, at this time, this is foaming at its finest, but with the right attitude and perseverance this really could happen. I'll even go out on a limb here and say that I'll wager that a good number of us think the same way including the realists.
So far I've heard from several folks that todays American manufacturing industry can't fabricate something this complex anymore. That the physical infrastructure isn't available to support a project like this. I say bulls***! America CAN produce a 100% american made steam locomotive such as a NYC 4-6-4 or any other for that matter! What it takes is people who will not stop trying untill the mission is a success no matter how long it takes, or how much money it costs. Never give up. Look at me, I joined the Air National Guard at age 38. I'm wrapping up tech training in a few weeks with Airmen that are 20 years younger than me. I'm out performing just about all of them in every way because i'm determined to win. I'm kicking butt and taking names.
Thats what a project like this needs...people who are determined to not give up no matter how many people say that it can't be done. Even from people within the railroad preservation community.

And if it does fail? Then I believe that it's better to have tried and failed then to not have tried at all.

Brian

If anyone wants to talk about creating a meeting to discuss the Hudson Replica Project, please contact me at btamper@hotmail.com and write Hudson Replica Project in the subject line.

I can understand Brian's enthusiasm for this idea, there are a few ideas in railroad history and railway preservation that I would like to see get done too.

That being said, we unfortunately also have seen some very sad examples of the outcome when projects got pursued by their advocates no matter how many people with credible technical knowledge said they should not have been done. In fact I have seen quite a few of them in forty years, including an attempt to resurrect an unsupportable diesel engine that cost enough money to construct a museum to house the equipment, a very expensive restoration project riding on wheel sets that the owners knew would be at condemning limit after just one more turning, locomotive restoration projects that were totally dependent on the continued service of obsolete traction motors that would be unrepairable if they had a failure, and a small coastal steamship that went through what some have estimated as $8 million in donations and public grants before being turned into scrap metal. That last one probably would have paid for the replica NYC Hudson.

Those projects all help give preservation a bad name and hurt the fundraising efforts of groups that have practical and reasonable objectives in mind. And there have simply been too many of them over the years, and in this economy they don't help the other outfits that are struggling to maintain their equipment and their facilities, and rely on continued public support to do so.

PC

I think the difference is that Brian is starting from a set of concepts about renewing old blueprints and adapting them to today's industrial environment rather than making plans for an existing set of worn out rusty parts. He is acting not by starting to build something, but by testing the depth of the well of support on his own time, which costs us all nothing, and will provide him with an answer as to how likely his concept is to succeed - granted expressions of interest are cheap, but he will certainly know more when he returns those expressions of interest and asks for funds from the interested parties. Either way, he will find out what he needs to know, and hopefully share the results with us all.

I can't help but commend him for stepping up to the plate and putting his effort where his keyboard is. It may seem a Quixotic quest to me, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

dave