Hello All

Here is a question to ponder. In the recent past on the board we've often seen, or used the statement "Its his locomotive, he can do what he wants with it", or substituting, they for he etc...

My question is this: Even if an individual or organization hold clear title to a piece of equipment, (something significant, say a steam locomotive) do they have a responsibility to that object that goes beyond the realm of ownership as we usually define it. That is do this person/organization have a moral and ethical duty to conserve and/or maintain that object for future generations?

The question is easier to answer if the organization is a government body of some sort (say a state or federal museum), as they have a mandate to protect the object for future generations to enjoy (not that they always do it), but I'm asking this question in more of a gray area, in the terms of private ownership.

For example, should a museum or railroad group that has a history of aborted overhauls and therefore has a half dozen decaying half disassembled locomotives in their bone yard be taken to task in some manner for this?

Should an individual who owns/has owned various locomotives and has a history of abusing them in excursion service be penalized in some manner?

Does a museum or railroad have an ethical responsibility NOT to sell a locomotive to an individual who's actions have lead to the scrapping of locomotives previously in his charge?

Should historical sites band together with resolve not support an individual whose actions have brought disgrace upon the industry as a whole?

The scenarios can be expounded on, but the point is the same. While I'm sure that we won't see anyone hauled off to jail for scraping a steam locomotive in out lifetimes, perhaps some sort of condemnation is possible and warranted in extreme cases from the railroad museum community as a whole. Perhaps something like a "UN" of train museums might be prudent in the future.

The point is that the ranks of operational steam locomotives (even static ones) is still declining in the US, as are countless pieces of rolling stock, buildings etc... Should the mere fact that you own something of historic value entitle you to do whever you like with it? . Just a thought, any others?


bing@epix.net

> My question is this: Even if an individual
> or organization hold clear title to a piece
> of equipment, (something significant, say a
> steam locomotive) do they have a
> responsibility to that object that goes
> beyond the realm of ownership as we usually
> define it. That is do this
> person/organization have a moral and ethical
> duty to conserve and/or maintain that object
> for future generations?

> The question is easier to answer if the
> organization is a government body of some
> sort (say a state or federal museum), as
> they have a mandate to protect the object
> for future generations to enjoy (not that
> they always do it), but I'm asking this
> question in more of a gray area, in the
> terms of private ownership.

See my post below about UP E8A 928 and the Western Heritage Museum. A prime example of
neglect by people who should have known better.



kevingillespie@usa.net

Scrapping a historic steam locomotive may be an unethical activity, but in no way should it be a criminal activity. It is personal property, and an individual's right to do with his property as he pleases should be held as sacred in this country. Personal property rights have eroded too far already.

Tod Engine Foundation
todengine@woh.rr.com

Several things come to mind .. in my 40 years of attempted preservation:
1.The genre is full of: Persons unclear of the concept.
2.The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
3.Lets save it, now what do we do with it?
4.Preservation is a lonely business requiring big bucks, little return and a committment to the future.
5.Triage ..a realistic assessment of practicality.
6.Is a rusting hulk better than no hulk?
7.Should I spend 2 million dollars on something that a bunch of people will stand around and take pictures of and/or count the rivets?

On and On with no good answers!


lamontdc@adelphia.net

Philosophically in agreement with Rick and can't argue with GE either, but why would anybody today want to get a steam locomotive unless for preservation or operation? They don't fit on the mantle, they are worth more as locomotives than as scrap, and they are awfully hard to transport.

Yeah, I get red in the face when I visit a purported "museum" and discover a junkyard of half disassembled hulks which hasn't changed in decades. I would like to see a voluntary sensibility based ethic spontaneously generate within our culture which would result in a better distribution of stuff for many reasons including this one.

Lots of stuff which falls into this category in mature museums is actually owned by members rather than the museum which gets into greater layers of complication.

There seems to be a movement towards more professional management of volunteer organizations as well as among hired staff at other museums which has already led to some good beginnings at deaccessioning in places like Snoqualamie, as well as a much higher standard of care and interpretation. Maybe we are getting there slowly after all.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

Hello

Yes, this is exactly what I'm getting at. By no means would I ever attempt to reason leagal action for some above mentioned instances as legal and ethical are two very different entities. However, an accounting by the preservation community as a whole might not be that out of the question.

Dave Crosby

bing@epix.net

A few thoughts thoughts:
1. Keep the government out they screw up far more things than they fix. (So that leaves a private voluntary "blacklist", inefficient at best.)
2. In a perfect world unethical people would be punished for their deeds, in the real world, unfortunately, the "grey areas" are often faster and easier ways to get rich. (So the guy with fewer scruples is more likely to have the bucks to spend than a minister.)
3.If you were a seller would you really want to take significantly less for your artifact just because the high bidder MIGHT neglect it? ( The old saw "money talks, BS walks" comes to mind)

No, we don't have to like it, but I don't see any real workable answer.

> Philosophically in agreement with Rick and
> can't argue with GE either, but why would
> anybody today want to get a steam locomotive
> unless for preservation or operation?

...how about as a work art? For starters, try casinos. Five of the steam locomotives in North America are at casinos; when a fully operational locomotive came up for sale recently, a casino wanted to buy it and hang it from the lobby roof!

In those cases, they want them sort of as a work of art, to "set a mood". Ditto for the handful of steam locomotives and vehicles found on display at amusement parks around the country.

From the pictures I have seen to date, some are good about keeping them in good cosmetic condition; other appear no better than the museums mentioned elsewhere.

By far the most bizarre use of a steam locomotive as a work of art is at Konrad Adenauer Platz, Marl, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany; where "Kreigslok" (war locomotive) 52.2751 is on display UPSIDE DOWN! The exhibit is supposed to be an anti-war exhibit. Once again, I have recieved and passed on a picture of it in an update to "Surviving World Steam Locomotives"; it is not being maintained; perhaps to "further make a statement".

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

Surviving World Steam Locomotives
james1@pernet.net

> ...how about as a work art? For starters,
> try casinos. Five of the steam locomotives
> in North America are at casinos; when a
> fully operational locomotive came up for
> sale recently, a casino wanted to buy it and
> hang it from the lobby roof!

Mr. Hefner, are you talking about Rachel? The fmr. Opryland engine at the Doe River Gorge? Don't think she'll be going there anytime soon.....



cookiemonster@rrmail.com

Actually I think he was talking about Reading 2100 when she came up for sale a few years back and ended up north of the border. I'm sure there are those who would probably rather have seen her hanging in the casino, rather than converted to oil firing and covered in reflective tape and ditch lights, but that's another example of the guy who owns the thing doing what he damn well pleases. Of course, now that she's on the market again, none of those folks seem to be coming forward with the cash to bring her home.

> Mr. Hefner, are you talking about Rachel?
> The fmr. Opryland engine at the Doe River
> Gorge? Don't think she'll be going there
> anytime soon.....


rjenkins@railfan.net

What a can of worms this opens up. It is the question in our household that has been the topic of daily debates and it has come down to a matter of only three things, money, power, and ethics.Much of our history has been lost over people who wanted the money and didn't have the ethics to see beyond their own pocketbooks. Sadly, we all lose. I have said it before concerning relics of many kinds, when something is gone, it is gone forever.

I was in the aviation community for many years and worked around all kinds of vintage equipment. What took place at the behest of the federal government out at "the boneyard" in the desert of Arizona was enough to make you sick. The thousands of WWII bombers and fighters that were cut up would have populated a good many aviation museums with flight worthy aircraft and left parts to spare. There's enough politics involved here to drown a person.

We can often salvage an historic building by clawing it's way on to the register of historic places.But, unfortnately, we have no list like this except the National Engineering Landmarks and not every piece of rail equipment is as significant as FTA #103.

The other problem that seems to rear it's ugly head is power. Some people can't be appealed to with ethics or money. To be able to destroy a thing is to have power over that thing and anyone concerned with it. These people are just sick puppies, unfortunately, because of that mentality, they usually have the money to back up and satisfy their power addiction.I watched an airplane rot into the ground at her tie-downs. I'd offered at the time to buy it. Her owner wasn't interested, he, instead bought another one just like it. (Don't ask me where, they weren't a common type.) And he flew that one until it reached a similar fate.

At best, we can only police our own community and try to appeal to the better nature and ethics of those we must deal with. Don't ask me to understand the greedy. I have no interest in power and I can't be bought.The rest I leave to karma, sometimes I'm even lucky enough to see it work firsthand.

I now step down off my soapbox. Sorry if I vented my spleen a bit too long. It could have been worse, the rest would take an encyclopedia of ranting to contain. Just another historian in a long line of them.

Just train crazy,

-Angie

Ladypardus@cs.com

> Actually I think he was talking about
> Reading 2100 when she came up for sale a few
> years back and ended up north of the border. Of course, now that she's on the
> market again, none of those folks seem to be
> coming forward with the cash to bring her
> home.

Leads to the subject of fair market value not being a function of restoration cost again. She would probably sell for $150K to a responsible operator if the tape and ditch lights were removed.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

Richard is correct; I was indeed referring to Reading 2100. It would not surprise me if similiar offers were made for other engines.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

> Actually I think he was talking about
> Reading 2100 when she came up for sale a few
> years back and ended up north of the border.
> I'm sure there are those who would probably
> rather have seen her hanging in the casino,
> rather than converted to oil firing and
> covered in reflective tape and ditch lights,
> but that's another example of the guy who
> owns the thing doing what he damn well
> pleases. Of course, now that she's on the
> market again, none of those folks seem to be
> coming forward with the cash to bring her
> home.


Surviving World Steamships
james1@pernet.net

This also raises another question when I saw that locomotive in Coshocton, Ohio back in 1997. Where the heck are you going to run it? 2100 is one big engine, and I haven't seen a great many places in the east that she could run on a regular enough basis to make it worth someone's while financially. Smae with 614, which seems like the better gamble IMHO. To be honest, I'm beginning to believe that unless its a railroad-sponsored steam program (mainly OC, UP, & now CP), that the insurance issue alone is enough to make anyone back away from large mainline steam. If you haven't truly proven yourself with the big four (NS, BNSF, CSX or UP; maybe CP now?) by now, its going to be darn hard in the future. The 1225's, 4449's, 765's (man I hope she comes back) 1522's, 700's, the bay pacifics, etc. are the exception, not the rule. I know I'm going to get smacked around for this, but maybe its time that we in the rail preservation community begin to really look at keeping the operating loco's that have a good track record going, and stop pulling engines out of parks that would cost triple to quadruple what it would take just to keep the one's we have now running, with no hope of EVER running on one of the big four.

Waiting for the othr shoe to drop....

TJG

> Leads to the subject of fair market value
> not being a function of restoration cost
> again. She would probably sell for $150K to
> a responsible operator if the tape and ditch
> lights were removed.

> Dave


Port Huron Museum
tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

I hate to sort of agree with you, but it doesn't make alot of sense to fis something to run with no place to run it. two suggestions about spending mone wisely.

1. Lets get as many of 'em undercover as possible before we rebuild something that may never get out onthe road.

2. Lets use our limited resources to save a few railroad lines to run them on. Broken record: A few miles of your own track is better than a million of mainline you can't run on.

lorija799@aol.com