Deep on the railfan myth doo-doo of the PRR #7002 thread below, Mr. Bell closed a response with a wonderful dose of reality which deserves to be read repeatedly:

"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. "

While we are fortunate on this board to have some wonderful, professional museum people who are abviously on the same page as Mr. Bell, we also have people in the category of "need to catch up."

It is those people that the challeneges of folks like Mark Smith, Mr. Bell, J. Hankey and others need to be heard.

This isn't meant to flame out anyone, and I am sure the vocal minority Mr. Bell mentioned will want to scream about why thier favorite engine needs to run, run, run and consume itself.

Running #7002 was a wonderful sight. But it also was a sin to alter the incredible state she was in pre-restoration. Even though I foamed all over at Paoli watching her, my minute of pleasure was, is, and never will be equal to what future generations could have had of here with her chalk marks and other PRR-era goodies lost in the restoration.

Food for thought,

Rob Davis

superc@monmouth.com

It boils down to "what's good for me" vs. "what's good for the artifact". This separates the true preservationist from the railfan, whose main goal is another smoking photograph.

Deep on the railfan myth doo-doo of the PRR
> #7002 thread below, Mr. Bell closed a
> response with a wonderful dose of reality
> which deserves to be read repeatedly:

> "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. "

> While we are fortunate on this board to have
> some wonderful, professional museum people
> who are abviously on the same page as Mr.
> Bell, we also have people in the category of
> "need to catch up."

> It is those people that the challeneges of
> folks like Mark Smith, Mr. Bell, J. Hankey
> and others need to be heard.

> This isn't meant to flame out anyone, and I
> am sure the vocal minority Mr. Bell
> mentioned will want to scream about why
> thier favorite engine needs to run, run, run
> and consume itself.

> Running #7002 was a wonderful sight. But it
> also was a sin to alter the incredible state
> she was in pre-restoration. Even though I
> foamed all over at Paoli watching her, my
> minute of pleasure was, is, and never will
> be equal to what future generations could
> have had of here with her chalk marks and
> other PRR-era goodies lost in the
> restoration.

> Food for thought,

> Rob Davis


bobyar2001@yahoo.com

IMHO, that sound very self righteous.
And pardon me if I am under the wrong impression tht machines were meant to serve the purpose of mankind and not vice versa.

And this whole discussion does center on what IS best for the artifact. Us "re-storeres" vs. them "just store it."

BTW, railfans have never been a serious consideration behind any restoration. You can't roll tubes with a camera in your hand, and Fuji film won't pay for coal.

It is good to have healthy debate.

HRMO'Biph

> It boils down to "what's good for
> me" vs. "what's good for the
> artifact". This separates the true
> preservationist from the railfan, whose main
> goal is another smoking photograph.

> Deep on the railfan myth doo-doo of the PRR


lorija799@aol.com

For what it's worth, in doing some research in museum publications on the problems of restoration documentation I found that the aviation and automotive folks have this same problem over what to do with their artifacts. Many auto museums pride themselves on the fact that all their cars and trucks are operable. Aircraft that look used are not often seen in museums, they all look fresh from assembly and awaiting the first flight. No oil streaks, leaks, stains or anything. And there are those who feel that if it isn't flyable it's wrong, to the point that the only surviving example of a few planes were flown until they crashed and were a total loss, not to mention the crew. Even the Science Museum in London used to run its 1888 Benz, the oldest automobile (I may have the date wrong from memory) until it had a bad accident. It's just a problem that large artifact people have to deal with as best they can.

Museum of Transportation
rdgoldfede@aol.com

First item is the railfans are not often the ones who put in the long hours doing the dirty jobs required to make a steamer run. I know many steam guys who don't ever carry a camera or "go railfanning".

The railfans are often the ones who show up right after the engine hits the road and shoot tons of slides and video. They come long ways and spend money on food, travel, hotels, and equipment but never buy a ticket.

Next just because a museum lets important equipment sit outside for decades rusting does not make them better than a place the operates a train. Some places have been given fully operational equipment and have let if go unkept so long it is not even restorable. Some have let stuff rot for decades and then stuff it into a tunnel out of public view and then go out and get more equipment. I would hardly consider this kind of place a museum.

Kurt makes some very good points but we should not stick all of our beloved trains in big cement buildings. A big cement building or in running condition is always better then rotting outside.

Tom Gears

Tom Gears

tgears1@home.com

> Deep on the railfan myth doo-doo of the PRR
> #7002 thread below, Mr. Bell closed a
> response with a wonderful dose of reality
> which deserves to be read repeatedly:

> "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. "

> While we are fortunate on this board to have
> some wonderful, professional museum people
> who are abviously on the same page as Mr.
> Bell, we also have people in the category of
> "need to catch up."

> It is those people that the challeneges of
> folks like Mark Smith, Mr. Bell, J. Hankey
> and others need to be heard.

> This isn't meant to flame out anyone, and I
> am sure the vocal minority Mr. Bell
> mentioned will want to scream about why
> thier favorite engine needs to run, run, run
> and consume itself.

> Running #7002 was a wonderful sight. But it
> also was a sin to alter the incredible state
> she was in pre-restoration. Even though I
> foamed all over at Paoli watching her, my
> minute of pleasure was, is, and never will
> be equal to what future generations could
> have had of here with her chalk marks and
> other PRR-era goodies lost in the
> restoration.

> Food for thought,

> Rob Davis

Guys, there are two sides to the question. Preservation has its place and I love to be around a locomotive under steam. But remember,
it was no accident that railroads built roundhouses. Sure, locomotives operated in all kinds of weather but when they are operating they are hot and any rain or snow is evaporated. When
an engine is on static display and not under
shelter it deteoriates rapidly.
We have the IC2500 on display and I have been
involved from the start. WE have always had a small dedicated group that tried to carefor the
engine. Then we had those who were generous with
their gifts that established the trust fund to
take care of the engine "In Perpetuity" as our
lawyer friend said.
It was among these generous people who were not actually working on the engine that we got most
of the resistance to putting the engine under
cover. They wanted it to look "natural" and felt
a shelter would detract from that look. They were
willing to donate money so it could be painted more often rather than cover it.
The problem is that the damage the engine was getting from exposure to the weather doesn't
show as you drive by on the street. But it was serious damage and not the kind that paint would prevent.
Some 30 years later a kind lady donated the money to build a shelter. The engine was in great shape when the RR gave it to us. Had we had the shelter from the start it would still be in great shape.
Our advice to anyone contemplating a display. Put
it under shelter.
Jim



rrfanjim@mvn.net