In conjunction with the discussion about existing equipment, I though you guys would like to know about another interesting piece of rolling stock that is on the same siding in East Freedom as the REX car that the Horseshoecurve Chapter NRHS owns. The "Robert Hannigan" sits on the same siding. The "Robert Hannigan" was the only named RPO that the Pennsy ever had. It is currently in MOW yellow. It is currently owned by Keystone Restoration and Preservation. It is slated for restoration as well. The Railroaders Memorial Museum has a PRR RPO with an intact interior but a very deteriorated exterior. In cooperation with Keystone Restoration and Preservation, we plan to gut our RPO and place its interior into the Hannigan. The Hannigan currently does not have a complete RPO interior. The Hannigan is a specific subclass of RPO that has shorter side windows. Perhaps Scott Cessna can fill in the exact class of our RPO as well as the Hannigan.Robert Hannigan was Postmaster General in the 1940's I believe.

Robert E. Hannegan was appointed by Harry Truman as Postmaster General in 1945 and his grandson Tim is still a very prominent aviation lobbyist in Washington DC.The RPO named after Mr. Hannegan I believe is a BM70nb characterized by the "short" side windows. The interior pieces we plan to retrofit into the car to make it complete is that of a BM70M. It should be a relatively easy match although I have not yet seen the interior of the Hannegan in person. We look forward to displaying yet another one-of-a-kind in the Museum yard - the only named RPO in the Pennsy inventory.

I find this rather troubling, as by swapping the interiors you are destroying the historic fabric of a car that is intact. While the pieces may seem to be identical - the fact remains that the resulting car will not be original. What I would suggest instead is repairing the body of the intact BM70M and restoring and interpreting it as a complete PRR RPO (And if you are interested, I could suggest some strategies to obtain funding for this) Additionally the Robert E. Hannegan has some significance - but the fact that it was the only named RPO does not have any significance beyond the railfan community. To preserve it, I suggest restoring it externally to its revenue service appearance while using the interior to house interpretive exhibits (on railroad mail service or whatever). Moreover, displaying both cars together would illustrate the differences between PRR passenger car classes and represent how many trains operated with multiple RPO cars. This strategy would utilize the best features of both cars to create a unique exhibit experience for the museum. Tom Cornillie

Tom,I understand your point, however, this does bring us back to defining what is "original". There is no way of knowing that the car we have is "original". In fact, my guess, since we know it was wrecked rather severely at one time, is that it already isn't original.To me, the installation of "original equipment" in the Hannegan is no more different a process than the car shops here did everyday when they repaired or updated a car. The RPO we have is way beyond repair no matter how much funding we could throw at it.We had much the same discussion with some folks when we decided to replace much of the "original" fabric of the K4. You must remember, these pieces of rolling stock, including 1361, had much of their "original" fabric removed the first time they went into the shop for an overhaul or upgrade.Thanks

You are correct - I should be more precise in my definition. By original I refer to the same configuration that it last operated in PRR service. The fact that it was wrecked severely is important to the car's story and makes this car especially valuable as its current configuration shows how PRR shop forces rebuilt the car to continue service and wheither or not they made any upgrades to the car. In short, the physical record of the car is evidence of the railroads decision making process as it evolved over a period of time. You are correct in that the installation of equipment in the Hannegan is similar to what the PRR shops would have done. However, there will be differences in the methods and decision making process. Think of it this way - If you were studying the PRR 20, 50, 100 years from now, would it be more valuable to examine a car that was actually used and rebuilt by the PRR or a car that was rebuilt by a museum according to how they thought the car would have been rebuilt? Also, what is the nature of the car's problems that make it un-repairable?Many thanks,Tom Cornillie

Tom,The RPO we have is "so far gone" that 50 years from now you would not be examining a car as the Pennsy rebuilt or upgraded it. You would be examining a car that was half refabricated by the Museum. It was the victim of another accident that went unrepaired prior to being donated to the Museum by Conrail.The same differing methodology that would render the Hannegan "non-original" would apply to the methods that would be employed in the restoration of the other RPO. This being the case and considering our understanding that the interior configuration of both cars was basically the same, (the major difference was the height of the side windows), we are going to proceed with the refitting of a much more uncommon piece of Pennsy rolling stock. Rare in the sense of being the only named RPO and rare as a class of RPO of which very few were made compared to the rest of the fleet.I have no doubt this subject has been discussed here before and I'm a bit afraid of opening an inappropriate debate but I guess as a point of discussion for the group here, it comes down to a question such as if the original equipment was riveted and the restoration uses a bolt, does that render the end product something other than a "restoration"?Thanks

This is where the importance of documentation restoration comes into play, as it shows what was there, what was done - with photographs, notes and drawings. From what you are describing, it sounds like you are stuck both ways - either you will end up with an intact interior in a substantially reconstructed car or an intact car with a substantially reconstructed interior. In regards to your rivet vs. bolt example - using a bolt does not make it not a restoration - but it does lower the quality of the restoration. Such details may seem insignificant, but it is part of the record of how things were done -- which is why the car is being preserved in the first place.Tom Cornillie

Scott,This argument seems to reprise itself over and over-as to the efficacy of changing over a brake system to a later design on a diesel locomotive when the original system was all but destroyed.I wonder if one of the problems isn't with the terminology, i.e., the word 'restore.' What exactly does that word mean within the context of railroad preservation ? I wonder if 'replica' isn't more of an accurate appellation. Or,-how about the word 'conservation'-if the object in question is all' rotten and decrepit.' Conserve what ? Lastly, the concept of 'restoring' equipment for historians to study years from now is really beginning to get my goat. I was always led to believe that we do this this stuff to entertain and educate those here in the present-including ourselves.end of rantDave

I agree that we need to work on defining what these terms mean for railroad preservation - certainly a task that cannot be accomplished in a single thread.In terms of the purpose of preservation - it boils down to why is this important. If we are doing this simply to entertain those who are here today - wouldn't it be better to do so with models instead? Imagine how much could be recreated for the cost of a single restoration project - and it would be fun and could also educate the public as well? The importance of preservation is preserving something that is real - preserving something that shows evidence of past work and past decisions? And if we document our restorations, and use the proper methods we all win - in the fun of work, watching it run - and having others learn from it both now and in the future.The point about education is important. There is a small but growing number of historians right now (including myself) who use surviving equipment as a source for information. This makes restoration and long term care part of an educational activity - and is eligible for a wide range of funding that provides the necessary resources for long term care.After all, think about the equipment that were restored in the 70's and 80's that is now in danger of being scrapped again. The best examples I can think of are the PRR E-8's that were restored by the Blue Mountain & Reading, one of which is in fair condition (at best) on a Missouri tourist railroad and the other is part of a wedding chapel in Alabama. Sure they provided hours of enjoyment to those who experienced their restoration in the 80's - but without a greater purpose they were left to the winds -- not unlike a Model railroad that belonging to a deceased family member that goes from being a personal empire to a whole lot of junk in the basement.Tom Cornillie