Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania has quite a firm stance against running their steam locomotives because it would disrupt the historical fabric of that engine, particularly if something should happen to it while on the road, there are no other donor engines for serviceable parts...something to that effect.

What about other museums that run their engines on a case by case basis? Some institutions only let their horses out to play on select weekends or a few weeks or months out of the year and are only limited to a bunch of miles at a time. Eventually yes, parts will wear down and probably fall into a state of disrepair, but over a longer period of time considering the engine wouldn't be used regularly as compared to a railroad that is equipped to deal with said problems.

Cost is another thing. Location is another thing. Insurance, maintenance, labor, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah, etc...etc...etc...
If its a draw for your museum, institution or business, why the hell not!? NOTHING draw money into your establishment like a working piece of equipment.
While I had always admired museum for their history and presentation pieces, I also abhor them for 'caging their pieces' (as it were); almost as if to say,
"Welcome! Take a look at how life was and how (these pieces) were an integral part of everyday life long ago. They just sit there now but imagine how it was. Now go home."
I still believe that if you have the means to do more with your equipment in any way possible, if only for limited times, why not? Why only display and not DO something MORE!? Other people do, why don't you?

That you asked the question shows that you just don't get it. We have discussed this at length in the not so distant past, and I am too tired to do it again.

So do all 1200 surviving steam locomotives have to be operated until they are worn out? How many more currently intact museum pieces have to lay disassembled in the back forty before we as a whole decide that not every steam locomotive must operate? I admire the RRMPA's stance to protect their artifacts (now define "artifact"). Somebody has to stand their ground against the railfan mentality of feeding another steamer into the great foamer photography at all costs machine, to be spit out a worn out wreck when all the pictures have been taken.

I suppose my philosophy has changed over the years. Would it be so terrible for RMPA to have one operable steam locomotive, just to move back and forth under steam and let people hear the whistle blow?

Up in Maine at the WW&F, it's been calculated that during the operating season 0-4-4T No 10 (a 106 yr old machine) puts on less than 1000 miles per year. That's running a 5 mile round trip 7-8 times per day, 2 days per week.

I doubt very much the public would get as much of a "kick" out of seeing a bunch of stationary 2-foot gauge equipment on display at Sheepscot. No, these things were built to operate. That doesn't mean we need to restore and run them all, but if we wish to keep the memory of such things alive, some must steam.

http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=344748&nseq=7

Stephen

Without going into too much detail, let me point out this (and I second the motion that, yes, we've rehashed this debate here many times before):

The desire to demonstrate or "show off" equipment or operations is completely counter to the "academic" definitions of "preservation" and what is considered "proper" museum management. If you seek recognition and accreditation among your peers, it is unfortunately better to pursue "conservative" (in both senses of the word) policies towards your artifacts than to fix up and run that locomotive or train.

Many might say "Those geezers never saw a living, breathing steam locomotive! Who cares what the stuffy academics think?" Unfortunately, a lot of wealthy foundations and charitable organizations, who otherwise have little to guide them, use such accreditation as a "weeding" process or a goal, as do government entities such as the states that run railroad museums.

There are all kinds of compromises that can be made. For example, note that every piece on the train that the B&O Museum runs out and back on its "First Mile" run is a piece that is otherwise ineligible to be added to the Museum collection--PRR sleepers converted to coaches, a non-B&O switcher (usually), and a MARC-owned NYC obs for HEP. The WW&F steams #10, a plantation steamer converted to 2' gauge, not an authentic Maine two-footer (for now). The RR Museum of Pa. has steamed the John Bull replica, a perfect use for a "fake" piece that's still historic in its own way.

I think the idea of restoring EVERY steam engine in the US and then running them into the ground just for photos is a little extreme. If all you want to do is listen to and record bells and whistles, then ring the bell and blow a whistle off of a manifold.

On the other hand, visitors want to see things move, smell the smells, and hear the sounds. You can't get that from a static display. It leaves too much to the imagination and to the movies. Successful museums must have good interpretation. For instance, I work at Mystic Seaport, our nation's finest maritime museum. Mystic Seaport is a "proper" museum and it is recognized as an authority in the fields of martime history, restoration, and preservation. It is a living museum, where you can witness accurate demonstrations of period work methods and the use of the "artifacts" themselves. While the whaleship Charles W. Morgan (built 1841) doesn't leave the dock, we do climb her masts, set and handle her sails, launch and recover whaleboats from her davits, and handle cargo to and from the dock with her cargo rigging. Not every vessel at the Seaport is used this way. By the way, Charles W. Morgan is currently undergoing a major restoration and preservation effort. Upon it's completion, she will sail again for a special outing and return to permanent display at her home of Chubb's Warf at the Seaport. She is the oldest wooden merchant sailing vessel in the world, and the very last sail driven wooden whaling ship. We also operate the SS Sabino daily. She is the oldest coal fired merchant ship in active service.

In the case of railroad museums, I believe that it is indeed beneficial to have at least one of their steam engines in operating condition. If regular running isn't possible or desired, then I feel that it is appropriate to at least run them on select special occasions. It satisfies everyone, "foamers", railfans, John Q. Public, and historians alike.

Other posts claim that the replica is no longer steamed because it has been determined to be "historic".
The State of Pennsylvania has been thwarted in their quests to privatize the Turnpike, so maybe something else might get sold?

The question is no less significant to trolley museums. We face the choice between trying to get visitors to come and look at static displays of cars (we have lots of them) or ALSO getting to ride on some of those same cars. Here the choice boils down to having wonderful and historic static displays or being able to keep the doors open, the lights on, and exhibits doing more than gathering dust.

Our founders back in 1949 chose the latter path. So we have a "live" museum, one you can ride, and come away with a better appreciation of the trolley era. We do have some cars that will probably never run, and we'll have some that only run a few times a year for special events. So the rate of conservation of historic fabric varies a lot. Do we wear out cars? It's unavoidable in our context. But once worn, if restored with original materials and techniques--much as their operating companies would have done--are we really doing anything BAD? We think not.

Dave Hamley, Pennsylvania Trolley Museum volunteer since 1960. (Does that make me historic too?)

Can't you just walk across the street and see a great example of operating steam at Strasburg? I don't see any rational reason for RMPA to try to be better operators than their neighbors at Strasburg because almost nobody is or has the wherewithal to be anyhow, nor do I believe Strasburg needs to try to become a static attraction with a huge collection like RMPA. Let both to what they do best and support both for doing it well, and hopefully they will cross-pollinate and feed each other as well.

Many bigass museums with huge collections find it useful to seperate some stuff for use, knowing it will need to be altered and repaired and partially replaced so they can leave their other stuff in original state. Unfortunately, most bigass museums with huge collections have more than they can actually preserve, which makes a lot of this discussion more about another discussion in another recent thread or several.

Perhaps use is a better form of loss than neglect? At least you'd get some benefit from the loss of fabric.

dave

I don't believe that there is a single, appropriate viewpoint for this argument. Rather, I believe it is important to make a careful evaluation of your collection and make decisions about the conservation of artifacts which reflect the evaluation.
Because the steam era in the United States was relatively short and and especially significant to our nations development, I believe we take a very conservative stance in terms of preservation. Perhaps it is better to be overly protective in the conservation of our artifacts. However, once an artifact is conserved, it is no longer making history of its own.
Consider the 71000 Duke of Gloucester. During its tenure on British Railways the locomotive was noted for its poor steaming and lack of power. Upon the locomotives restoration and review of original drawings it was found to have errors in construction which severely hampered its performance. Upon modification and restoration, the locomotive performed as it was designed, becoming one of the most powerful and efficient steam locomotives in England. The locomotive, which otherwise would have been considered a failure, was restored to operation, and continues to make its own history.
In addition, artifacts loose their cultural meaning when they are no longer being used for their intended purpose. To me, a key to the proper interpretation of railway equipment is use for it's intended purpose. As a community I believe it is important to reflect on the relevance of that statement.
A common example of artifacts which are of significant historical value yet continued to be used on a regular basis includes: Westminster Abbey, The Sistine chapel, The Empire State Building, Grand Central Terminal, The Eiffel Tower. In addition to these large artifacts, include any work of visual art which is regularly on display at a museum.
The conservation of artifacts deals not only with their preservation, but also the mitigation of the effects of their continued use. In the world of art, I would consider this to include the scheduled cleaning of works, along with their display in galleries which are monitored with regard to moisture, light, and air quality. The key to successful conservation of the artifact is to make decisions regard the objects display time (i.e. how long will a particular artifact be displayed for) and how can we best mitigate the effects of use during its time on display (i.e. how can we display it without having a significant depreciation in the condition of the artifact).
With regard to steam locomotives and all historic railroad artifacts, I believe a regular schedule of preventative maintenance/conservation, along with a schedule of operation which allows for the artifact to be properly maintained is necessary to mitigate the effects of use on an artifact. Furthermore, every effort should be made to adopt the best available conservation practices in the use of the artifact. With regard to locomotive operation, I would think this means the use of the most effective water treatment program available, use of the best available lubricants, and careful firing and operating procedures.
Perhaps this means the limited use of existing steam locomotives, a practice which has been adopted by the Monticello Railway Museum and others. In addition, railways such as the Georgetown Loop Railway, which operate chiefly to carry passengers should consider the construction of new locomotives, as was adopted by the Argentine FAF (Ferrocarril Austral Fueguino), Breinz Rothorn Bahn, and the A1 Tornado trust. The operation of these new locomotives mitigates the reliance on aging artifacts to provide service which can be taxing to locomotives. It also allows railroads opportunities to refine the performance and efficiency of locomotives without disrupting historical fabric.
While I have read a great deal in connection with preservation in multiple fields, my only practical experience is with rail preservation. I am certainly open to any criticism of this opinion, and would like to hear others views. My main concern is to preserve the cultural heritage of steam traction, and historical railway operations. The skills and knowledge associated with the maintainence and operation of steam railways are significant, and play an equal part in the interpretation and preservation of steam railroading.

Stephen Piwowarski
Berkshire Scenic Railway Museum, Inc.

Point of order: 71000 arrived at the Woodhams Bros. scrapyard in 1967 minus cylinder block and many other parts. Therefore its reconstruction didn't involve "historic fabric." The rebuild and "fine-tuning" was a perfect opportunity to undo a "great wrong" in British rail engineering, and in many ways that project set the stage for the A1 Tornado Project.

As I recall, the errors concerned the draughting of the locomotive, and had to do with the locomotives ability to steam freely. So the cylinder design and recasting wasn't actually affected. In addition, I believe only the outside cylinders were recast, but I am not positive of this. In any case, I agree with you that the historic fabric of the locomotive was already jeopardized, but this is not an isolated case. Continuing to operate locomotives, in my opinion, does not negatively effect their historic fabric. In fact it preserves the whole nature of the steam era, rather than just the machine itself. Rather, improper conservation techniques, which potentially damage locomotives negatively impact their historic fabric.

Furthermore, if RRMofPa decides not to operate their locomotives on the basis that they are preserving their historic fabric, I agree and feel that it is their right to do so. I disagree in that I don't believe it is the only way to do so.

I agree that the time for replication - or nostalgic new designs not made as true duplicates of historic locomotives but with free use of new materials and techniques that appears appropriate - has already been here for a couiple decades but hasn't yet been economically feasable since we haven't yet eked out the last marginal smidgen of utility in every old bit of every old engine. Of course, we are replacing them bit by bit, but that constrains us to inefficient engineering models, and creation of Great Grandfather's Axe on wheels. LEVIATHAN, JUPITER and 119 - maybe even LYON if it ever gets done - are kind of wierd hybrids of replication with some compromise made for modern materials and techniques, but none were made to earn their keep in tourist railroading venues.

Having been responsible for power on a railroad that eats its locomotives alive, I had occasion to study the option based on what was then SLM design for a 2-10-2 reduced to a 2-8-2 to get around our corners and through our cuts - and found the cost was about the same as 10 overhauls of our old stuff. The tipping point at the time (almost 20 years ago) was saving the cost of a fireman, since they were configured for one-man operation. safety prevented us from taking advantage of that option, as well as not running year-round paying salaries for operating crews.

Sure, when the new boiler or cylinder saddle was required, it might have been a different story, but that was unpredictable.

We've got some new boilers on old running gear in service in the US and Canada now - let's take another look in 15 years and see what's going on.

dave

Typically you are there to teach. That is the overriding mission of a museum. If you're not doing that, then you're an archive.

Operating historic equipment wears it, but it also improves the teaching. You have to calculate whether it's worth it, and there's no consistent answer. Not the same on a Kaiser shipyard car as on a San Francisco PCC.

As long as we are putting myths to rest, could we put this one out to pasture, too?

Folks, I sat in the middle of the AAM Accreditation Program staff for seven years. In all that time, no museum was ever turned down for accreditation for the single reason of using a part of its collection for demonstration and interpretation--not once. Never happened.

On the contrary: AAM has accredited plenty of museums where EVERY SINGLE OBJECT is used to destruction: specifically, hands-on children's museums.

Yes, accreditation is hard. Only 10% of AAM's own members are accredited. Most railroad museums are not accredited for the same simple reason that 90% of AAM's members are not: they still have a ways to go on things accreditation does care about and require. These things include, but not limited to, a collections policy, a governance development policy, a risk management program, a strategic plan, and a balanced program of interpretation and education as well as conservation and research. Oh, and did I mention sound financial condition?

So please, could we put this "operating museums can't be accredited" myth on the shelf? Railroad museums may have reasons they chose not to operate collections equipment. Living in terror of the AAM or the Accreditation Commission is not one of them. Or, if it is, it simply means that museum's staff is misinformed, and simple call to the AAM would connect them with a pleasant accreditation staff member who would happily dispel their fears.

You don't need to take my word for it-- call them. They're quite nice. OK?

Let's look at a specific example at WRM: Petaluma and Santa Rosa 63, a 1904 wooden interurban built by Holman Car Company in San Francisco. It is one of the mainstay cars in WRM's fleet, but it is a very old car and every trip takes its toll.

Should we operate this car for:

1. A family bringing young kids to the museum for a train ride.

2. The Sonoma County Historical Society (home of the P&SR) on a field trip

3. An operator who wants to run something, with only a couple of incidental adult passengers

I would only say "yes" for group #2, but obviously a given trip's passengers are a mixture of the above. I think the only good answer is to have a tough (probably less-historic) car for routine runs, and reserve the really historic equipment for specific advertised runs (possibly advertised on our web site?) or for special charters such as by a historical society.

When I was in college, we were taught to recognize when our proposed actions were "mining resources" (e.g. replacing an old-growth forest with a fast-grown plantation). Not that such an action was necessarily bad, but to understand its consequences. The same thinking should apply to historic railroad equipment and facilities when maintenance cannot keep up with wear and tear.