Gentlemen:

I have seen the recent posting of a New modern steam locomotive and whether it could compete with todays diesels. Believe me, I have my own opinions on this subject including some thoughts on the stupidity of management in the late steam/early diesel era when the question was still "up in the air." BUT (and this is a BIG BUT)....I do not believe this is something that should be discussed here at RyPN. This is a railroad PRESERVATION website. And should be kept as such. Better to discuss "New Steam" on one of the other discussion sites. This is one of the things that soured me on L&RP when it was being published. Articles that had no relevance to rail preservation (including one that ran over a number of issues on just such a subject.) So let's keep RyPN pointed to its objective; rail preservation. There sure are enough different things on that subject that have been, and continue to be, discussed rightfully here!

Thanks!

midlandblb@cs.com

Learned sir,
If this NEW, MODERN steam engine serves to:
1. Help bring railways back to the forefront of the public's attention.
2. Replace historic pieces that are being "used up", before they are worn out.
and
3.Makes steam excursions revenue generators, creating a positive cash flow for preservation groups.

Then it has EVERYTHING to do with rail preservation.

Besides a little harmless speculation wont hurt the hobby, BUT the impression we sometimes give that that rail preservation groups are a bunch of crotchety auld pharts (with no sense of humor), often does...

Mr. Beckman,

In my honest opinion, having a field full of rusting hulks does not constitute keeping railroad traditions alive. If building a new steam loco helps keep those traditions alive and saves historic equipment from being used up, then I'm all for it. Being young, I try not to close my mind off to new possibilites when it comes to museums and preservation. Many museums miss out on the fact that most kids nowa days are used to video games and such. They like to be able to interact with the exihbits, not walk through a field looking at rusting hulks that have no context as to what they were origianlly used for or what line they origianlly ran on. Here's a little background on me: I'm 26 now and I'm an engineering student at a local university. I'm not rich otherwise I would have graduated a long time ago, but I'm working my way through school and hope to grad. in another year. I love railroading, old cars, wooden boats, old planes, old phonographs, antique telephones, guns and a lot of other antique mechanical things. When I say I like cars, I'm not talking about muscle cars, I mean pre-Model T's. I would like to show people how things work, but more importantly show them why people used then and how it improved their life. When you show a kid a cylinder phonograph, like an Edison, they are amazed, because they can't imagine not having cd's and tv and radio, etc.. Now if it takes building a working replica with a little modern technology added to improve it, then I'm all for it and you should be too. I try to be open minded about many things and I wish more railfans and preservationists were. I'm not offically involved with any group at the moment. There is a local group and my goals and their's don't seem to be the same. They are more into the tourist railroad side of things and would like to make an open air car (butcher) out of Frisco 1506 and I don't like that. When I see it I see a car that has potential to be restored to it's former railroad glory. All it takes is a little time and money, look at this months article if you don't believe me. We are all intitled to our opinions and this is just mine, but I think we are missing out on preserving and promoting the railroads as a viable means of transportation to the public and sparking interest in future preservation. We're not just losing the battle, we're losing the war.

Stuart

Frisco 1506
gnufe@apex.net

The various projects and proposals to construct new steam locomotives have a great deal to do with historic preservation. Railway preservation is more than patching up and preserving old relics. In the course of working with Pere Marquette 1225, we have gradually realized that what we are doing is preserving old KNOWLEDGE, and that the old hardware is only incidental to this task. As we teach ourselves to solve the various problems of keeping a steam locomotive running, we inevitably rediscover the knowledge that was developed by the engine's designers, builders, and maintainers. I believe that this is what justifies actually using these artifacts, at the risk of consuming them.

In cases where no artifact exists, the only way to accomplish this is by constructing a new one. If it's done accurately, lost knowledge can actually be recreated. Archeologists, including industrial archeologists, do this when they try to replicate old construction or industrial processes. They force themselves to go through the same development process as the historic engineers, often clearing up gaps and mysteries in the historic record, and lending meaning to surviving artifacts.

One of the best examples is the Duke of Gloucester, which pretty much qualifies as a reconstruction. The historic record never explained why this engine failed. But when it was reconstructed, and its owners continued the development process begun by its builders, they discovered errors in its ashpan construction that prevented it from ever drafting well. Now we know why an engine that should have been a high performer never measured up in its original service, and we have a clearer understanding of the place of the poppet valve in the developmnt of steam power.

I've always been intrigued by the PRR turbine experiment, but little information is readily available. But if the Brits are successful in promoting the construction of a new Turbomotive, more of that is likely to come to light. Even if it never happens, the research will dredge up a lot of information that might never have seen light again otherwise. Already, the web site referenced below lists a lot of sources of information on its design that we wouldn't easily know about. And wouldn't it be something to hear go by!

Aarne Frobom
The Steam Railroading Institute
Michigan State Trust for Railway Preservation, Inc.
P. O. Box 665
Owosso, Michigan 48840-0665

froboma@mdot.state.mi.us

One of the things that made L&RP great, and one of the major reasons it such an influnce on me, was the Mark refused to let the magazine's content be pigeon-holed.

I disagree that new steam, or any advances of similar ilk, are out of place here.

In close focus, we have engines to retube and COTS to do, but if increase our depth of field we recognize that we have to do is concern ourselves with railroading as a whole... past, present and future... if we are to maintain the level of education and understanding required to accomplish our tasks in a manner that has interpretive meaning.

Unless all we want to do is stuff and mount like #1401 (not that there is anything wrong with that), we have to broaden our scope.

I'm passionate about wood burining Climax's and other old ladies, but I always keep an eye on the stack train down the road because when I am 65, having one of the first Gunderson double stack well cars in a museum will be a top priority.

Preservation is a living art. We cannot ignore that.

Bob

> Gentlemen:

> I have seen the recent posting of a New
> modern steam locomotive and whether it could
> compete with todays diesels. Believe me, I
> have my own opinions on this subject
> including some thoughts on the stupidity of
> management in the late steam/early diesel
> era when the question was still "up in
> the air." BUT (and this is a BIG
> BUT)....I do not believe this is something
> that should be discussed here at RyPN. This
> is a railroad PRESERVATION website. And
> should be kept as such. Better to discuss
> "New Steam" on one of the other
> discussion sites. This is one of the things
> that soured me on L&RP when it was being
> published. Articles that had no relevance to
> rail preservation (including one that ran
> over a number of issues on just such a
> subject.) So let's keep RyPN pointed to its
> objective; rail preservation. There sure are
> enough different things on that subject that
> have been, and continue to be, discussed
> rightfully here!

> Thanks!

Hmmm, I'm on the fence here. I am all for keeping the craft alive of boilermaking and steam propulsion, and am not against any kind of developments and advancements in this regard. To me, what I find a little discontinuous with the thread on new steam, is that it looks at the future of railroading. Railway preservation, on the other hand, looks to the past. Because this thread was truly speculative in nature, it offers little but a place to vent interesting ideas. Sofar it is pretty short-lived, and I see no harm in it, but it does match the content of the Railfan board much better. Now, if the ACE 2000, or whatever Ross Rowland was working on, was ever built and tested - then that belonged in a museum and carries with it the whole discussion relating to Stuart's wondering.

We must preserve not only artifacts, but the technology. Would any one argue that construction of a new sailing ship wouldn't and shouldn't be discussed on a Maritime Preservation board? Nope. And in the event new steam should come to be, I, for one want it shouted from the house tops.

lorija799@aol.com