I learned on Saturday that the B&O Railroad Museum will move #2101 into the paint shop next month. She will emerge as AFT#1. While I would have preferred authentic RDG livery, I'm glad she is getting long needed attention.

Agreed on all points. I really dislike the non-authentic paint schemes. At least she is getting much needed attention. Thank you, B&O Museum!

A technical point, but the AFT paint scheme is "authentic" for a specified use/period of time. Some paint is better than no paint at least.

In terms of interpretation, it would be interesting to see one side of the locomotive restored as RDG 2101 and the other as AFT 1. This would allow the locomotive to tell the story of steam locomotive development on the Reading Railroad, which has many paraells to B&O locomotive development - not to mention the close relationship that the B&O had to the Reading. The AFT side would interpret the story of the AFT and steam locomotive excursions.

On a more practical note, this would also mean that the relatively complicated AFT scheme would only have to be applied to one side of the locomotive - saving time and money.

As I recall, there were no physical modifications made to the locomotive when it appeared as AFT 1.

Tom Cornillie

You recall incorrectly. There were several modifications to the 2101's original front made at least later on in AFT service, including NKP-style numberboards, a visored and centered headlight, and angled air pump shields/covers. (She may have departed for her original assignments with a minimum of these; many were added when the loco was overhauled further during the fall/winter of 1975, when 4449 had her turn.)

If one were to pursue a "split" repainting of 2101 now, they probably would have to retain the AFT front (including the signboard) and try to get away with the Reading look on the other side--there couldn't be a "halfway" on the front.

Right you are BR 60102. I have located two photos (below) that show the locomotive in its current and revenue service configuration. I think that keeping the current configuration can be an asset to the split restoration - as it contrasts how many think of steam locomotives vs. how they actually looked. The same would hold true if the original RDG appearance were to be restored.

Tom Cornillie

How about Chessie instead? Oh well. Will this the be the first time 2101 has been full painted since coming to the museum?

Wish the museum's website had more information on it. Rosters, etc.

Joshua

Joshua said "How about Chessie"

Now I'm sure some would really not like this, but when I saw the topic I actually thought the something. It's would work well with the B&O Museum concept and it's would look pretty cool.

-Justin Franz

I like this idea! I’m a huge AFT fan, and keep in mind that were it not for the AFT, this engine probably never would have run in my lifetime. Now that it’s been enough years, the AFT is itself history, but I suspect that once folks like me who recall the AFT are gone, 2101 will probably go back to RDG colors.
Remember, Doyle McCormack caught a lot of flak over painting 4449 back in her AFT scheme a few years ago, but as someone who saw the AFT as a kid, I consider myself fortunate to have been able to see both 4449 and 1 in their AFT schemes in person in recent years. I only wish that the museum would be able to place 2101 somewhere that you can get a decent photo of her.

Not that it really matters, as I am not the one picking up the sprayer/ paint brush, but many of us who do not remember her (in person at least) in the AFT scheme do remember her in the "Chessie Safety Express" scheme. Lord knows I built at least five or six of those easy to put together models of her that Revell put out in the early 1980's.

In short, I'd vote Chessie --- and yes, I would be more than willing to pick up a paint brush, and help with the cost of the paint.

TJ

Of course the plan to re-paint the locomotive is a good one. Paint is the cheapest form of preservation.

For me however I do not agree with the half and half idea of two paint schemes. It is creating something that never existed historically. My choice would be Reading or second choice would be American Freedom Train, but not both at the same time.

i have seen this two side approach several times recently and it looks wrong to me. Most noteably at Travel Town Park one of the Interurbans is now pink (faded red) and green. Looks terrible!

Ted Miles

It may not be correct historically, but having two paint schemes allows one to tell two stories simultaneously. This approach can't work in all places - but for an object as large as the 2101 - where only one side can be viewed at a time - I think it would work well.

Much of it depends on how the locomotive is displayed. As it is shown above, sandwiched between two other locomotives - the locomotive could be painted but not lettered, and most people wouldn't know the difference.

Here are a few other instances where the half-half concept has been used -

The Missouri Pacific did it with some of their Pullman Standard passenger cars in the 1960's, where one side was rebuilt with smooth sides whilst the other retained its as built fluting. Likewise, the Canadian Museum of Rail Travel has a CPR Pullman with one side preserved in its post-1948 rebuilt configuration and the other restored to its 1929 Trans-Canada Limited scheme.

Tom Cornillie

I just don't seem the "Museum-ness" of two schemes on a single object. The engine didn't run that way in service so why would you interpret it that way now, when a photo would offer the same reference point? Maybe Erik can weigh in with some insights from AAM on this issue.

Wesley

Why can't "two stories be told simultaneously" using appropiate photographs, or a model to illustrate a different configuration the artifact may have had at some time in its life ? Such a model could be of only fairly basic detail and minimal expense, if the only real difference it is illustrating is a paint job, and would insure that the integrity of the actifact is not (further) compromised.

Personally, I think that when a museum defines (limits) the "story to be told," it treads close to devaluing the individual experiences and imaginations of the visitor. Accompanying interpretive displays and devices should contain sufficient data for the artifact to be appreciated at whatever level of response it generates in particular individuals. The purpose of presenting an artifact in one context or another should be more than to simply perpetuate a certain set of memories, which seems to me about the most that can be said for repainting a historic locomotive in some bizarre, latter-day "Chessie" or "Freedom Train" guise.

Why not go one further, and clear-coat the engine in its present, run-down condition? Or at least do one side that way? Ordinary people might well appreciate the 'before and after' effect, and the museum could thus simulataneously tell the story of restoration success, and having more stuff than dollars, two common themes in railroad preservation.

Jon C.

Travel Town has done this with their PE "blimp" - one end and one side are in PE red and the other half of the car is in LAMTA green and white. I suppose it's a matter of opinion whether this makes the car a more effective representative of its own varied history or just makes it look ridiculous.