We are looking for a correct governor for the MILW 760, nee 1802, the first FM built. The governor was changed in the early 60's when the MILW set this unit up with mu capability. Does anyone know where one of these can be found?

Danke,
Todd Jones


milw104c@charter.net

Why not keep the unit in its post re-built configuration, as it spent most of its life on the CMStP&P operating this way? WouldnÂ’t the CMStP&P HH660 currently undergoing restoration be a more suitable example of pre-1945 switcher technology?

Tom



rrhistorian@hotmail.com

> Why not keep the unit in its post re-built
> configuration, as it spent most of its life
> on the CMStP&P operating this way?
> WouldnÂ’t the CMStP&P HH660 currently
> undergoing restoration be a more suitable
> example of pre-1945 switcher technology?

> Tom

The general consensus among us in the Diesel Department is that the historical significance of this unit is such that it would be nice to have it in original, as built configuration. Due to the modifications made by the Milwaukee, when the unit was about 18 years old I might add, it does not accurately represent FM Job #1 anymore. (It was rebuilt in 1962 and retired in 1980, so it was original for half of it career.) The lack of the proper throttle/reverser and the mu hoses and connections dictated it's painting into the later paint scheme and number I am told. (It was done long before my arrival at Union.)

We do have the proper throttle/ reverser assembly for the unit, and removing the multiple unit appliances will not be difficult. Finding the governor, however, is turning into a job. (Actually, I have located one. But due to being burned by museums in the past, nonpayment, etc, the owner has no interest in dealing with a museum. *sigh*)

Here is an as built photo of the unit. Note it also has a different paint scheme.




milw104c@charter.net

Backdating MILW 760 to 1962 would be WRONG. Don't falsify history!


johncb@u.washington.edu

> Backdating MILW 760 to 1962 would be WRONG.
> Don't falsify history!

This is an interesting position. Why, exactly, is restoring a piece of equipment to an earlier era "wrong"? Would the same hold true to cars acquired by museums as bodies or chicken coops? How about steam engines acquired with unsalvageable boilers or - ahem - theoretically toxic lagging?

Frank@gats.com

At our museum, and at most of the other museums I know the policies for, prior to restoration a restoration report is prepared, including restoration options, with information on whats and whys of each choice. In most cases these choices include not restoring the piece. In some cases the arguments will also include how the piece would fit into the collection, and how it might be interpreted. Many also review whether any changes are reversible.

Randy Hees

> This is an interesting position. Why,
> exactly, is restoring a piece of equipment
> to an earlier era "wrong"? Would
> the same hold true to cars acquired by
> museums as bodies or chicken coops? How
> about steam engines acquired with
> unsalvageable boilers or - ahem -
> theoretically toxic lagging?


http://spcrr.org

hees@ix.netcom.com

Backdating a particular piece of equipment to represent an earlier time period in which that piece served, isn't necessarily wrong. If indeed the MILW locomotive did look like the photo posted, and to return it to that condition wouldn't destroy it too much, than that type of restoration is justified. Moreover, it isn't falsifying history in any way. That only occurs when you misrepresent a piece of equipment. At the KRM we have an ex-L&N combine that was later modified as a dormitory car, then a mobile Red Cross Bloodmobile. We decided to return it to its combine configuration, which represents an earlier time period in the car's history. We had to acquire a set of walk over seats to finish the project. Are we falsifying history? No, and we even documented the work that we did, and the information sign in the car lets visitors know of all of the car's previous functions.

wilkidm@wku.edu

Here is a side question. When a piece of equipment worked for a pre-merger and post-merger company and no modifications were made, how should it be painted? We are planning on initially painting an ex-Erie diner in its Erie Lackawanna colors and at some time in the future painting it in the Erie scheme. This seems like a workable idea to us.

Erie Lackawanna Dining Car Preservation Society
tstuy@eldcps.org

Restoration is not right or wrong. It depends on how its is done.I think it has to be real history,
not wishful thinking. It has to be documented. And
the end product should all match the name the color scheme and physical structure.

A car that ran on railroad A with 6 wheel trucks and painted green should be restored that way, Not with blue paint and four wheel trucks.

Painting any model F7 Diesel for a line that had them may look alright to some, but there will always be some knowledgeable folks who will look and see something on that unit that is not as it should be.

Restoration is putting back elements that were there at a specific time in the life of an artifact. If a museum does not have that artifact a large model may tell that story just as well.
TM

ted_miles@NPS.gov

> Backdating MILW 760 to 1962 would be WRONG.
> Don't falsify history!

I have to say that I do not understand how restoring the 760 to it's original, as built, state is wrong. I wish you would expand on your statement and tell us why you feel the way you do.

My personal opinion is the 760 SHOULD be restored to it's as built state for the simple fact it is the first FM locomotive built. The historical significance of this unit demands it in my eyes.

On the flip side, we have an FM demonstrator H20-44 in our collection that was donated by SW Portland Cement. It was a UP engine before being purchased by SWP. Should it be restored as a SWP engine? I think not. When it's number comes up it will be restored into it's UP colors and number.

btw- The photo I posted IS the 760 in it's original number and paint scheme.

Best,
Todd Jones


milw104c@charter.net

> Backdating MILW 760 to 1962 would be WRONG.
> Don't falsify history!
The H20-44 at San Diego Railroad Museum has been restore to UPRR from the Southwest Railroad which had a group them. We restore the Loco to UPRR 1366
The point being is the user of the Loco that has the only true build of the unit (Build unit 2000 by F-M) should bring it to original.


owenpaulsen@att.net

> I have to say that I do not understand how
> restoring the 760 to it's original, as
> built, state is wrong. I wish you would
> expand on your statement and tell us why you
> feel the way you do.

> My personal opinion is the 760 SHOULD be
> restored to it's as built state for the
> simple fact it is the first FM locomotive
> built. The historical significance of this
> unit demands it in my eyes.

> On the flip side, we have an FM demonstrator
> H20-44 in our collection that was donated by
> SW Portland Cement. It was a UP engine
> before being purchased by SWP. Should it be
> restored as a SWP engine? I think not. When
> it's number comes up it will be restored
> into it's UP colors and number.

> btw- The photo I posted IS the 760 in it's
> original number and paint scheme.

> Best,
> Todd Jones

Todd: IMO, by all means restore the historic engine to its "as built" state if the museum can do it. BTW, I like the photo you furnished but do you (or someone else) have one in color? I assume that the body is orange but perhaps not. What about the stripes? Red or....?

Hopefully someone has a color photo of 760 (or one of the sister Milwaukee FM's) in this paint scheme. (I hope it is not as rare as color photos of the original paint scheme of the C&EI Alco RS-1's which were delivered in a blue and orange scheme but apparently were quickly repainted into the black and white scheme that they wore during the rest of the in-service life on the C&EI.)

Les Beckman (HVRM)

midlandblb@cs.com