Would like to know is CPR #2839 finally on display in the auto museum in Cailfornia, I have not seen anything on this site pertaining to her. Thank you Pat. cherif@mediaone.net

cherif@mediaone.net

Now that BC Rail has decided not to restore the 2860 and 3716, it makes me wonder why they never got the 2839. I heard many years ago there were talks between the BC folks and the owners of 2839, and the BC folks rejected the deal. Anyone know any details....just curious. Too bad it went to California....bad timing as usual!
Greg Scholl

Videos and such
sales@gregschollvideo.com

> Now that BC Rail has decided not to restore
> the 2860

BC Rail is owned by the BC government.
2860 is owned by BC government Parks Dept.
Similar to the retirement of PRR 7002 & 1223, the railroad chose not sink ITS OWN MONEY into something it did not own. BC Rail had agreed conduct all the repairs and continue operating the Royal Hudson Steam Train (at a loss) if the capital money came from another source. The previous BC government approved the project but did not dedicated funding. Then the election came and the new government pulled the plug.

> I heard many years
> ago there were talks between the BC folks
> and the owners of 2839, and the BC folks
> rejected the deal. Anyone know any
> details....just curious. Too bad it went to
> California....bad timing as usual!
> Greg Scholl

BC people felt the asking price of $100,000 US was far too high a price considering the poor condition of 2839. Worn, and deteriorated due to outdoor storage.

Wrong decision! Sellers market, not many Royal Hudson around.

Had they got it, it could have been overhauled at a slow pace and would have been ready to replace 2860 when it when B.O.

TOO BAD!!


http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains
oldtimetrains@rrmail.com

> Had they got it, it could have been
> overhauled at a slow pace and would have
> been ready to replace 2860 when it when B.O.

Not being a CPA, does this mean that $2 million spent at a slow pace, say over 5 years is cheaper than spending $2 million at normal speed, say 2-1/2 years?

> BC Rail is owned by the BC government.
> 2860 is owned by BC government Parks Dept.
> Similar to the retirement of PRR 7002 &
> 1223, the railroad chose not sink ITS OWN
> MONEY into something it did not own. BC Rail
> had agreed conduct all the repairs and
> continue operating the Royal Hudson Steam
> Train (at a loss) if the capital money came
> from another source. The previous BC
> government approved the project but did not
> dedicated funding. Then the election came
> and the new government pulled the plug.

To set the record straight, PRR 1223 and 7002 were retired to the RR Museum of PA not because the Strasburg didn't want to spend money on them but because their owner (the RR Museum) did not want modern repairs to further erode their value as historic artifacts of an earlier era.

The Electric City Trolley Museum Association

> Not being a CPA, does this mean that $2
> million spent at a slow pace, say over 5
> years is cheaper than spending $2 million at
> normal speed, say 2-1/2 years?
I am glad that everybody has of what should have done,, for #CPR 2839 but MY QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED,,,,,, IS SHE ON DISPLAY AT THE AUTO MUSEUM, in CAlfornia??? at this time,,, this was the reason she was moved out by current onwers.. Please give me answer,, and not the WHAT IF'S thank you Pat. cherif@mediaone.net

cherif@mediaone.net

> Not being a CPA, does this mean that $2
> million spent at a slow pace, say over 5
> years is cheaper than spending $2 million at
> normal speed, say 2-1/2 years?

Sure. The present value of the $2M spread over five years is less than that of $2M spread over 2 1/2 years, although with interest rates at their current low levels the difference is small.

Moral: Everybody should probably take at least an introductory course in accounting at some point in their lives.

Randall Hicks (son of CPA)

You know, that is the same logic that would rather have your grandfather embalmed in a coffin in the front room, rather than subject him to modern medical treatment that would allow him to remain a living, breathing and vital part of the family.

I do hope that the same people that decided to
deny a living existance to these two engines (that had been rebuilt and repaired countless times under the PRR) aren't in charge of any elderly members of THEIR family.


lorija799@aol.com

I'm not a 100% on this, (and maybe Kurt can verify) but I believe another big reason why the 1223 and 7002 were returned to the RMPA was that Strasburg was loathe to put big money into steam engines they did not own.

The locomotive is on display. When I was there last Feb. the cosmetic restoration was not complete. They were also restoring a private car owned by "Lucky" Baldwin's daughter. Hope this helps.

lstone45@aol.com

Mr. Mulligan: Although I was not associated with the RR Museum at the time, my understanding of the retirement of the 1223/7002 from active service (based on conversations with our previous director and staff, SRR staff and documentation that exists in our curatorial files) was based on two reasons: 1) The railroad understandably did not want to spend funds on engines they did not own (one SRR official commented to me that it was one of the hardest decisions they ever had to make); and from the RR Museum's point-of-view: 2) the nature of the boiler work that was required would have altered their historic structural integrity; taken into context, understand that they are accessioned historic vehicles from a state-owned museum collection and their preservation was always safely guarded. Any significant repair work that alters their composition as artifacts is an immediate red flag to a professional museum curator. Keep in mind that there are different preservation ethics governing an historic railway vehicle artifact that is part of a museum's permanent collections from that of a run-of-the-mill operating steam locomotive that runs on a privately run tourist line. The contexts are two very different organizations with their own sets of values and standards. From a museum's point of view, when a locomotive is made to operate, violence is wrought on the artifact and it is consumed every moment it is moved or run. Museums are in the business to preserve our heritage for future generations. If we were to restore and operate every one of our PRR locomotives we would be throwing away the priceless service-life fabric made possible by the PRR's Altoona Shops; once that fabric is removed and discarded it can never be replaced no matter how much one documents their efforts. It just isn't possible. As hard as it is for many to accept, what historic fabric survives inside a steam locomotive is just as important as what can be seen on the outside--it has everything to do the study of material culture. Operating examples are important educational tools so that visitors can understand how the technology functions, and should be limited to "for-use" consumable replicas and duplicates; but preserve and conserve the "last remaining" and culturally-significant examples. The compulsion of the railfan community that "everything must run" consists of a vocal minority who often lack an understanding of professional museum practices and do not fully grasp proper conservation methodology and preservation ethics. IMHO, the railway preservation field still has a long way to mature before it can seriously join the ranks of other public history museums who have adopted and applied such professional preservation ethics and standards to their artifact collections.

> I'm not a 100% on this, (and maybe Kurt can
> verify) but I believe another big reason why
> the 1223 and 7002 were returned to the RMPA
> was that Strasburg was loathe to put big
> money into steam engines they did not own.

We probably learned more about 7002's "Historic Fabric" by letting Linn take it apart and rebuild and run it than anyone EVER would have inspecting her on display.

And not to fault the RRMoP, but they pretty much let 1223 rot outside for YEARS after they took her back. At least Strasburg put her away at night.

*stirring pot*

I think that's what I wrote, other than the part thar Stras. was unwilling to spend the $$$. This makes good business sense absent a long-enough term lease to recover the investment. The main thrust was that the two engines are historic artifacts that need to be preserved as they are.

The situation at Strasburg seems to be the best around; the RR Museum can concentrate on museum activities preserving the stuff intact - or more or less intact since restoration inevitably alters the original artifact, while the for-profit Strasburg can operate their equipment as a business using whatever technology is appropriate with no qualms about using modern materials or complying with 21st Century regulations.

However, we need both the cold, dead, preserved engines (and cars) and the operating ones.

There's a thread elsewhere about a cartoon featuring a huge bull snorting at Bugs Bunny and sounding like a steam air pump. Picture a kid getting off the train and walking past the K4 that pulled him to Broad Street - this huge steaming monster hissing with the air pump snorting. A 1930's audience would recognise this in the cartoon. You can't replicate this experience with a displayed engine.

Many museums must make the choice among their artifacts - which do I conserve as is, which do I restore (and alter) but most RR museums have to make a third choice - which do we modify in order to operate it and provide the railroad (or trolley) experience to our visitors.

The Electric City Trolley Museum Association