My question posted below about modifying passenger cars brought up a good number of responses. My question was answered, but brought out a statement from Dave that I haden't counted on,nor do I agree with. He said "Tourist railroads are not interested in preservation." I disagree. Perhaps there are companies out there that are interested in the almighty dollar, but from what I have seen,most all tourist museums display and operate a large number of various railroad artifacts that would surely have met a scrappers torch many years ago.
I say give tourist railroads a break.I work with the Conway Scenic Railroad here in New Hampshire,and we always have the deepest respect for the equipment when it comes to keeping things as they were. However, lets face facts. Our FP9s are painted in our own design. Canadian colors will not fit here. The units are ours. Perhaps many years down the road, a Canadian group will buy the locos from us because they are some of the very few left. Now who is preserving history? Give tourist railroads their due. We ARE preserving history,and running trains to boot. Can a museum say the same?

Brian


btamper@hotmail.com

Brian,

It may not be true for all tourist roads, but not only are you operating equipment that probably would have otherwise been scrapped, but you have restored it to an Canadian National inspired livery. That you letter it for your own road is your right and privilege so to do. You have painted it in a historically correct scheme which you were under no obligation to do.

Well done.

kevingillespie@usa.net

> My question posted below about modifying
> passenger cars brought up a good number of
> responses. My question was answered, but
> brought out a statement from Dave that I
> haden't counted on,nor do I agree with. He
> said "Tourist railroads are not
> interested in preservation." I
> disagree. Perhaps there are companies out
> there that are interested in the almighty
> dollar, but from what I have seen,most all
> tourist museums display and operate a large
> number of various railroad artifacts that
> would surely have met a scrappers torch many
> years ago.
> I say give tourist railroads a break.I work
> with the Conway Scenic Railroad here in New
> Hampshire,and we always have the deepest
> respect for the equipment when it comes to
> keeping things as they were. However, lets
> face facts. Our FP9s are painted in our own
> design. Canadian colors will not fit here.
> The units are ours. Perhaps many years down
> the road, a Canadian group will buy the
> locos from us because they are some of the
> very few left. Now who is preserving
> history? Give tourist railroads their due.
> We ARE preserving history,and running trains
> to boot. Can a museum say the same?
I agree completly, I have no problem seeing engines or cars in "unofficial" colors, we get to see them RUN instead of scrapped or collecting dust. Having seen and ridden on the Conway fleet, I would just like to say that you guys run a first class operation, and preservation is clearly important at Conway. Would you happen to know the status of #501? I would love to see her pulling the Notch train (is that possible?).

What I said was "tourist railroads are not in the preservation business."

I didn't say some were not interested in preservation. Significant difference there.

SOME tourist railroads find a sense of history a valid part of their marketing mission, some prefer to offer something that exists only in its own time and place. Some try to create a nostalgic but not historic reality that never was - remember the "diamond stack" retrofits at Durango?

There is no lack of integrity in being a good tourist railroad and offering an entertaining and safe experience to your audience. Many railroad historians were probably captivated by such experiences when children in the first place.

There is no integrity in being a tourist railroad and claiming to be a museum just to get the tax breaks. The acid test is whether you act like a museum or a tourist railroad. Train rides can be an important interpretive tool of genuine museum programming, fake diamond stacks aren't. Fake indian raids aren't.

IMHO the above of course, and also that we are at a crossroads where railroad museums and tourist railroads both must recognize that our competition isn't with each other but with other seekers of the entertainment dollar. Also at a crossroads insofar as attracting a new generation to a less than open industry with a great and colorful history. The most successful attraction we have right now to do that is a televison character with a blue body and a big smiley face who comes from England by way of Strasburg and can bring in not only new young railfans but enough revenue to restore a couple cars if marketed properly.

Beat me up if you want to, but please do it accurately. I love good tourist railroads and have ben proud to work for some. I love good museums and have been proud to work for some. I do work for both now, and both have a vital role.

Dave

lathro19@idt.net

> What I said was "tourist railroads are
> not in the preservation business."

> I didn't say some were not interested in
> preservation. Significant difference there.

I agree with you Dave on the points you mentioned such as fake stacks,indian raids and the like. They are not accurate representations of the former chores the equipment was used for. I doubt any ex-Erie Lakawanna MU cars were ever really raided by Sitting Bull and his tribe!
My key point here is only that tourist trains are doing their part in preserving railroad history. The general public may never see the behind the sceans daily work that it takes to keep those old coaches rolling. What they will see though is an old train. Thats what they want to ride on. Hopefully their car will be as close to its original condition as possible. I'd like to think that the people would ride the trains because of what good shape the old cars are in. The scean outside the windows is the icing on the cake.
Please allow me to extend the peace pipe to you Dave.



btamper@hotmail.com

Dave,

I did not mean anything personal, and if I offended you, I would like to publicly apologize. I agree with your statement that tourist roads are not necessarily in the preservation business. Some may actually maintain historical accuracy, others like the fake diamond stacks on D&RGW, and Indian raids are definitely not in the historic preservation vein. I was simploy commending the Conway Scenic for the historically accurate if slightly altered paint scheme on their ex-VIA, nee CN FP-9's. I've never deliberately flamed anybody on a railfan bulletin board, and I have no reason to break that rule in this case.

Best regards,
Kevin

kevingillespie@usa.net

No offense taken from anybody. I believe we all agree in general but may differ about the definition of "tourist railroad".

For the record, I like a good, entertaining tourist railroad if the quality of the equipment, scenery, and ride is good. I was very pleased when I saw the "new" Stone Mountain LIRR trainset since I remembered the junky old cars from way back.

Indian raids may be what the kids needed years ago but may not sell now. They did put a lot of ASU drama students through school, though.

What none of us, tourist or museum need to see, is a badly operated and nasty, unpleasant experience sold to the general public. Somebody did a study some time back that said that people told 3 friends about a pleasant experience and a dozen about a bad experience. One bad RR museum / tourist RR ride reported to a dozen people can color the recipients view against the whole railroad experience in general and drive away some potential supporters.

My Savannah client is doing some serious soul searching now about working on making the visitors experience less junkyard and more informative. It looks like some serious heavy preservation work will have to wait while we do some site and equipment dressing. Both are needed, and if the result is a better and more supportive audience I can't argue with the priorities. Lots of museums probably have this kind of decision to make in developmental years.

OK, Enough digression, what I really want to know is: Did or Did Not Tennessee Valley RR Museum drop the word "museum" from their official name a few years ago and become Tennessee Valley Railroad? Not that I don't have greatest faith in Mark Ray, but I could swear I read about it before alzheimers set in.

Dave

lathro19@idt.net

Dave,

Two things my friend. TVRM is still struggling with an identity crisis. The word museum was dropped from the "advertised name" a couple of decades ago at the suggestion of a marketing firm hired to promote TVRM. They felt a "railroad" was more dynamic than a "museum". However, the official name has not changed and I must say that it depends who produces the piece of advertising that determines if the word "museum" is included. I have even seen stuff that said "Railroad & Museum"!

Second, I think there is a difference between restoration and preservation. I may have interpreted your statement wrong. To me, restoration means to take something old and worn out and bring it back to a like new condition but not necessarily to its original state. Preservation is keeping something and not using it, thus "preserving" it for future generations. Restoration often destroys the original fabric of an object and may not "preserve" it as many museum curators would like.

Thus, a tourist railroad may restore a piece of equipment but the act of using it does not allow it to be preserved in the literal sense of the term.

G. Mark Ray - TVRM

aw90h@cs.com

This explains my confusion, thanks.

The age old compromise between conservation, restoration, repair and replication. Too academic and phliosophical to ever reach definitive conclusions among those of us charged with care of large mechanical things which can only be truly interpreted in the context of their use.

Are we saving the steak or the sizzle?

Dave

lathro19@idt.net

> Are we saving the steak or the sizzle?

> Dave

That's a good question. I would venture to guess that we are ultimately saving the sizzle. For example let's look at a locomotive being restored to operation. The cab is rotted so a new one is fabricated. Looks original, yet it is a different and new piece of the "steak." At some point in time, the boiler is replaced--yet another different and new piece of the "steak." Theoretically, the whole locomotive or steak will not be original. What we have is a look alike of the original locomotive or "steak" that exhibits the same sizzle. Therefore, I am led to believe that the sizzle is the answer to Dave's question. Is it right or wrong? Well, I would venture to deem this issue more of a cost rather than a right or wrong. Does having an operational piece of equipment justify this? By looking at what is operational right now, the answer appears to be a resounding yes. I merely consider the after revenue service lives of equipment merely an extension to their careers. But for those who do cherish originality in that way, perhaps the lines of stagnant rusting equipment isn't so bad after all. It's all about tradeoffs...

Sincerely,
Gerald Kopiasz, President
Heartland Railroad Historical Society

PS The same can be applied to our structures as well.


Heartland Railroad Historical Society
hrrhs@aol.com

But, but.... I would submit that when we replace a cab, or flues, or lagging, or brasses, or whatever, we are simply continuing the process begun when the locomotive or car or building or whatever was used to the point that parts had to be replaced. Sort of like that ax that belonged to my great-grandaddy. It's had two new heads and three new handles, but it's still his ax. Railroad equipment was designed to be used, and used up, so in preserving and restoring, we simply continue the process. Just because a piece of equipment has been preserved is no reason to not renew the parts that must be renewed. As long as we don't appreciably alter the piece, we are doing right.


K4s1361@hotmail.com

When talking about restoration and preservation, one has to look at how the equipment is going to be used and how does it fit the musuems focus. Soemtimes I get confused by this as museums acquire equipment from railroads that have nothing to do with their geographical area or their purpose. If you look at any piece of equipment in the railroad industry, many have been updated, rebuilt or otherwise modified in its service life. Look at ICRR steam. Paducah rebuilds all had the square sand dome. Some 2-10-2's were converted to 4-8-2's during the war years. The 2-8-0 at Steamtown was built for a Chicago railroad, but if you look at it now it has the signature of a Paducah rebuild. So it can't not be called an IC locomotive. Autos can't be made as they were when they rolled off the assembly line, as the origianl parts were replaced when they wore out. but they can be returned to factory new condition. A locomotive can be rebuilt as many times as need be and all worn parts can be replaced, but it is still a locomotive. I won't be able to return the Frisco car that I'm looking for information on to the way it was built, but I can return it to a state like it was when it was in service (with some money and hard work). That's my opinion.

Stuart

Frisco 1506
gnufe@apex.net

Whatever you do or don't do, make sure that you document what you find and what you do. If you cannot preserve an item as you receive it then photograph it, measure it, save samples and do a report.

Have your action report tell:
1) what you find
2) your research on the item or in photos or documents
3) your reasons for change, or replacment
4) your techniques and procedures,
5) the changes in material, etc. that you make
6) your final results.

Brian Norden


bnorden@gateway.net

I'm involved in the C&TS preservation effort and this is a very real issue for us. It is also an issue that has gotten a lot of intellectual attention over the years, especially in the U.K.

So at the risk of reinventing a (square) wheel, I would suggest that stricly speaking, preservation means you preserve something in as close to the exact condition as it was in when it was used way back when, and you don't operate it because by definition you will be "consuming" it. The rationale here is that you can study the old technology exactly as it existed way back when.

But as Wayne Laepple points out, railway equipment has a limited number of consumable parts that can be replaced in kind. To the extent that you use the equipment, consume the consumables, and replace them in kind....that is a form of "authentic" restoration. You use it, you replace it, but it remains the same as before you started.

Somewhere south of the above is the operation of old equipment, but with some modifications to make it more efficient, and more importantly, safer. In a very strict sense, the C&TS locos fall into that category. But that's picking nits.

Then there's the whole routine about building replicas, etc.

The C&TS is faced with an interesting balancing act. We're a tourist railroad that needs to operate our historic railroad to make a living, and to met our political mandate to be an engine for economic development in our communities. We are also a museum that needs to preserve some (or all) the old stuff in as authentic condition as we can. Now that the Friends control the operation, we are just beginning an interesting decussion of how to balance these arguably conflicting imperatives.

I'm not smart enough to have any answers, but I can figure out a few questions. One of them involves the difference between a railroad and a museum. I find "museums" sterile and boring (that's a bit of an oversimplification, but useful here). I really like railroads. To me the C&TS is fascinating because it is a dirty, struggling, hard working, very real operating steam railroad. To me, that "environment" is as important as the hard assets.

The challenge in my mind is how do you retain that historic environment, while preserving the irreplaceable assets.

> The challenge in my mind is how do you
> retain that historic environment, while
> preserving the irreplaceable assets.

How about defining what assets are really irreplaceable and segregating them from the stuff you actually use?

Nothing used for generating power in your economic engine can by definition be included in that list.

For practical consideration, you might also limit the list to things which can be preserved in controlled environments and not subject to the effects of weather as well. Then you need to provide secure controlled environments for that small collection.

One other thought is that the experience and real operation of CATS is an intangible asset which is only preservable by willingness to continue to use other physical assets to make it happen.

Dave



lathro19@idt.net