I don't live in Pennsylvania for starters, but I think this bolony about historical fabric is silly. What is wrong with running a steam locomotive for several years and then a museum putting it back on disply. In most cases the average visitor will never know the difference if a few operating parts were changed, just like when it ran in regular service.

Look and N&W 611, which was retired in 1959, restored in 1981-2, and ran until 1994, and is now back in the Museum in Roanoke on display again for folks to dream about it running again. Whats wrong with that!!

Given the perspective of the folks who don't want to lose the historic fabric we should cease operation of steam on the D&S and C&TS in Colorado/New Mexico, and put them all in ziplock bags in a warehouse someplace for future generations to see before we destroy some more wheel bearings or something. This is rubbish! And some folks wonder why railroad museums and the hobby are slowly dying. I am all for great museums, which do a nice job of interpreting the past glory years, but there is no better ambassador to the cause than an operational train, and better yet a steam engine.
Places like Steamtown have a golden opportunity to fix up an engine and run it for say 15 years, and then have another ready to run after that if they wish. Recreating history is something most historical communities do not have the luxury of doing. You can't fly the Hindenburg anymore, but you can restore a Pennsy Engine to actually run. Younger generations will be in awe of what steam used to be like. No we can't go back to the glory years, but we can provide a small glimpse of the past, when things come alive again to inspire the general public. Please no more talk fo ziplock steam verses running one. If the money is there the choice should be clear.
CC

That is pretty well spoken. Another way of looking at it is this example. An airplane on the ground is not natural as an airplane is built to fly. Just the same, a steam locomotive sitting in a museum building is unnatural as a steam locomotive is built to haul trains. Entombing a locomotive in a museum building is just like placing a corpse on display in a funeral parlor. All it does is lie there. The only way to get anything meaningful from a museum experiance is for that experiance to be interactive and the only way for it to be truely interactive is to have an example of a steam locomotive in service. Our museum's founders had that figured out forty years ago and that's probably one of the prime reasons that we are still around. We could have had a nice static museum in the NC&StL roundhouse at Craven's Yard, but in hindsight, that probably would have been the death of us.

As for preservation of original "fabric", we need to ask what we are going to define as "original". Is original as the the manufacturer made it or the condition that the item was in when it was retired from active use? Someone asked if there were any high quality seat covers available for use in coaches. TVRM does not employ seat covers like that. What we do is clean spills whenever possible, clean the seats periodically and replace the fabric every few years. In short, why do something like use plastic seat covers when we have the ability to take care of things the old fashioned way and provide an experiance of higher quality? Besides, they did not have plastic seat covers in the 1920's and that would mean compromising our mission statement.

awalker2002@comcast.net

Dear Concerned,

With as much due respect as I can give a poster with no e-mail address or name (at least use ONE of them), there is a question at the heart of this which may have different answers for different engines.

Are any steam locomotives truly historic artifacts?

If they are then shouldn't those examples be conserved for the future? I would argue that those in the most "original" or "as-retired" condition might head that list.

If you don't believe that any steam locomotives are historic artifacts, then all should be run. However, you will be hard pressed to have an accredited museum if your stated goal is to use up most of your largest artifacts.

It does not have to be an either-or proposition. In an off-list thread I made the point that C&O #614 has been so messed with that maybe she's a candidate to always be a runner? Maybe the operting Rio Grande and EBT Mikes are at that point as well?

But maybe the other 2 EBT Mikes should be left alone?

There are many auto and air collections where the pieces are fully restored to traditional museum standards and are operable, but they never run becasue that would eat the artifact.

Why is it so controversial that railroad artifacts be treated with the same respect?

It is a dangerous argument to make, if you argue that steam locomotive fabric is without value in its original or authentic form. In fact, it undermines the whole idea of the railroad preservation movement progressing in the museum world.

I, for one, also appreciate we are interpreting skills and a way of life that is gone. So, yes, I see big difference between hammer marks in sheet metal that was pounded in Altoon 1952 than by you or I in 2002. I deeply believe that making distinctions on that level is an intregal part to museum conservation.

Again, I am not saying I think it is wrong to restore engines to run, we are just talking about which ones.

That's what makes it difficult.

It is not black and white, CC. If it were, it would be easy.

Please use a name or e-mail in your next post. It really adds value to your thoughts.

All the best,

Rob

Ahead of the Torch
trains@robertjohndavis.com

Allan,

This raises some interesting questions. Following your thoughts, the Smithsonian aerospace museum is in big trouble. We'd have to go to the moon to see a rover, right? I mean, it doesn't have any value being on earth, right? (unless you are the guy Buzz Aldrin punched last week for thinking we never were on the moon ;-)).

They will need a visitor's plane so we can all go up in the air to see the Spirit of St. Louis in flight.

I say this tongue-in-cheek, so don't get mad. The point is that some pieces are worth conserving and some are worth using.

TVRM is an interesting example. I would argue that the CN pacific should have been conserved in Canada. Instead, it will run in Dixie.

(I AM NOT BEING CRITICAL OF TVRM... it is just an example)

Well, OK. The NPS decided the piece was not valuable enough for Steamtown (even though it ran on the Central Vermont from time to time) and put it up for grabs. Apparently, nobody from Canada came forth with a plan to conserve, and TVRM had deal to run her. So often, that is how judgements are made: who has the time, money or idea.

In an ideal world, those would not be the first lines in deciding an artifact's fate.

One could be left to conclude that the CN 4-6-2 has no value as a conserved museum piece, but does have value as a working machine.

Now, fast forward 20 or 30 years to the time when the engine is retired again. Now what? It has lost some of it's luster as a conserved piece. What is it at that point? Is it worthless as anything but an old machine?

Again, no flames. These are questions we need to look at to understand the topic.

Rob

> That is pretty well spoken. Another way of
> looking at it is this example. An airplane
> on the ground is not natural as an airplane
> is built to fly. Just the same, a steam
> locomotive sitting in a museum building is
> unnatural as a steam locomotive is built to
> haul trains. Entombing a locomotive in a
> museum building is just like placing a
> corpse on display in a funeral parlor.


Ahead of the Torch
trains@robertjohndavis.com

First of all, no one ever improves my opinion of their argument by referring to the other side's arguments as baloney, etc.

Leaving that aside however, I ask again, why oh why can't we use some common sense in discussing this subject. Some locomotives will and should run to interpret what a steam locomtoive does--to create the living history experience. And no one--no one--is advocating that all engines be put in conservation collections.

Other engines--like the B&O Museum's Memnon 0-8-0, should in my opinion never run, becuase running it would add nothing to our understanding of steam as living history, but it would require a lot of general messing around with the most authentic, least altered remaining antebellum US steam engine.

OK, so Memnon is an exteme case. But what I meant by vive la differenace a few threads below is that we need both schools of interpretation. It's not either or. I hope there will always be runners; in fact, I strongly advocate starting to build them new.

I hope there will always be conservation collections, so I can read great books researched in them, like Jack White's books.

I want BOTH, not either, not or. Each has a purpose. Each has a place. The only mystery to me is why what seems to me to be pretty commonsensical--that each type of preservation has its place, and deserves respect form the other-- apparently isn't.

Okay maybe balony was a bit strong. I can't post my name cause I deal with a lot of folks who read this stuff.
My complaint is with the folks who say that they will absolutely not let their engine out of the museum to operate since it destroys its historical fabric, or whatever they want to call it.
In 2002 we are facing far greater impedements to operatin any mainline steam that is OPERATIONAL. Just look at 4449 and 1522 which are facing Insurance difficulties. When the opportunity arises for an engine to operate it should be considered! Why! Cause the opportunities are becoming fewer and fewer. When there is no more corporate sponsorship,from the likes of UP, BNSF, and CPR, then there will be no more worries about historic fabric cause nobody will be allowed to run anyway. Insurance, places to run, and money to restore these things is a far bigger problem than historic fabric. I say if the opportunity is there go for it....let the engine have its day in the sun, and if and when it is not feasible to run it...back to the museum for folks to enjoy.

What really gets me is the folks who turned down opportunities in the past. Stories like the IRM that was offered to run the Y3 by N&W, and other instances where corporate of individuals wanted to lease a loco. These were opportunities lost, perhaps forever. Would it not have been cool to see an N&W 600, and a Y6, and an A!!!

Sometimes windows of opportunity are only open for a short time, and when they open museums shouldn't have them closed so quickly. If a guy from the State of PA requested an engine from the Museum of Pennsylvania be used on a statewide historic train, why not say Yes! I get the feeling the answer would be no before the question was asked.
CC

I suppose the balony factor came along with the high fallutn' musology and museum ethics. How can you really consider common sense when in the end what this is is nothing more than business. If I'm a museum professional, trained as such, I support my business by displaying corpses and promoting the validity of that. I use intellect, museoloogy and museum ethics to drum up funding to do so. Or, if I'm an operator I drum up business putting on different sort of show. Perhaps the operator's show is a bit more appealling to people's passions and pocketbooks. Well, it has to be, because it's often a in need of profit. The Gears family is the client. In the case of the museum the 'client' is a bit more vauge. And without it's non-profit, or not for profit status, it all likelyhood wouldn't exist at all. For many people, that status of non or not for profit creates a lot of issues, a major one being respect.

> First of all, no one ever improves my
> opinion of their argument by referring to
> the other side's arguments as baloney, etc.

> Leaving that aside however, I ask again, why
> oh why can't we use some common sense in
> discussing this subject. Some locomotives
> will and should run to interpret what a
> steam locomtoive does--to create the living
> history experience. And no one--no one--is
> advocating that all engines be put in
> conservation collections.

> Other engines--like the B&O Museum's
> Memnon 0-8-0, should in my opinion never
> run, becuase running it would add nothing to
> our understanding of steam as living
> history, but it would require a lot of
> general messing around with the most
> authentic, least altered remaining
> antebellum US steam engine.

> OK, so Memnon is an exteme case. But what I
> meant by vive la differenace a few threads
> below is that we need both schools of
> interpretation. It's not either or. I hope
> there will always be runners; in fact, I
> strongly advocate starting to build them
> new.

> I hope there will always be conservation
> collections, so I can read great books
> researched in them, like Jack White's books.

> I want BOTH, not either, not or. Each has a
> purpose. Each has a place. The only mystery
> to me is why what seems to me to be pretty
> commonsensical--that each type of
> preservation has its place, and deserves
> respect form the other-- apparently isn't.

CC:

This is what I do for a living too. I have worked on both sides of the conservation VS operation fence. Many on this list will attest i occasionally post some ideas or comments which are not tempered in political correctness or with the POV in mind of providing universal warm fuzzies.

I do it in the spirit that we are in a critical phase and need to harshly examine our industry and ourselves and make rational decisions, however unpleasant, to continue to survive and even better to prosper.

Anybody who disagrees with me knows how to reach me to tell me how I am wrong (best case and always welcome) or how much of an ass**le I am (without supporting evidence ignored - Let's not all pitch in at once now.)

If I can do so you can too in order for your opinions to have some degree of credibility. Erik would be well within his rights to remove your anonymous postings. Don't we have a policy statement out there somewhere? Rob Davis is an exceptional and intelligent provacateur and he always lets us know who he is. Kurt ditto.

If you are going to join in, join in. If not, don't. Not everyone here may be your friend but you are among colleagues, and those whose postings are emotional reactions don't need to be considered.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

First, my name is right up there for all to see and if you disagree with me I don't think that any of you have been slow to say so in the past

Yes steam locomotives have historic value both as static displays and as operating equipment.

Historic fabric should be replaced in kind, steam engines should be displayed as what they were, not some other railroad, not some other Company. Usually a large Class 1 not the gravel pit that used it for two years.

I don't think 19th Century engines need to run; when there are so many early to mid 20th century locos around. I like what J David Conrad is doing to that1857 engine in Texas, he is conserving it, keeping as much old materiel as possible.

There should be static museums displaying steam like RR Museum of PA or CA State RR Museum. Other museums like the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic RR have a place as well. My co-workers at Steamtown NHS should run their engines.

My own museum does do both: we run a steam tug boat and a sailing schooner and we display some of both kinds.



ted_miles@nps.gov

I don't imagine we will all ever agree on this issue and that's fine; it makes for interesting discussion.

I recently went to a local steam traction engine show and many of the engines now have new welded boilers with everything else still original. They don't hardly look any different than an original, and they can now operate at the pressures they did when they were new as opposed to much reduced pressures of the original engines. So, I guess one possibility, at least for the 19th century engines, is to build replicas which is what some people are doing. While it is usually more expensive than restoration of an original, it doesn't destroy any historical fabric and due to their relatively smaller size, compared to the later generation, may accomplish the same thing (sites, sounds, smells etc.) at a more reasonable price. However, the money is always an issue unfortunately.

In order to operate the 20th century locomotives, perhaps an option would be to remove and store the most "wearable" original parts, and replace with new ones for their operating careers, preferably made using the same techniques as the originals. Now we can all disagree on which parts to save!

An interesting twist on building replicas may be that 50 or so years down the road, the "new" engine will be representing the construction techniques of the early 21st century and come re-building time the next generation of preservationists will be having this same argument over its future!

Rob;

I had a discussion relating to another Canadian locomotive a while ago; one which ran in excursion service, but is now stored in a museum.

The following is from the ex. currator of land transportation of a large museum, written when he/she was currator. (no names because I have no idea as to how to get this person's permission right now)

"With respect to 1201, it is in fact a very important artifact. Even though the engine was restored and modified to operate, it continues to have a history and its history includes the years it spent in steam excursion service and in marking the 100th anniversary of the CPR, etc...."

So, replace 1201 with TVRM's ex. CN Pacific.

I am glad that the TVRM got her, as they do good work, and she is better there than rusting in some park somewhere.

I just hope to see her running, and still looking Canadian, not trussed up as a Southern Belle. :-) :-)

> One could be left to conclude that the CN
> 4-6-2 has no value as a conserved museum
> piece, but does have value as a working
> machine.

> Now, fast forward 20 or 30 years to the time
> when the engine is retired again. Now what?
> It has lost some of it's luster as a
> conserved piece. What is it at that point?
> Is it worthless as anything but an old
> machine?

John Stewart.

freewrl-1@rogers.com

I agree about TVRM, without a doubt. Good people and good work. The CN 4-6-2 was just the example I used for my question... No offense meant to them. In the end, the best solution on hand was TVRM.

She certainly will have long-needed TLC.

And she'll be at least the sixth ex. Steamtown Foundation locomotive to steam after leaving. (#1218, #2816, #1278, #1293, #1098... any others?)

Rob

> Rob;

> I had a discussion relating to another
> Canadian locomotive a while ago; one which
> ran in excursion service, but is now stored
> in a museum.

> The following is from the ex. currator of
> land transportation of a large museum,
> written when he/she was currator. (no names
> because I have no idea as to how to get this
> person's permission right now)

> "With respect to 1201, it is in fact a
> very important artifact. Even though the
> engine was restored and modified to operate,
> it continues to have a history and its
> history includes the years it spent in steam
> excursion service and in marking the 100th
> anniversary of the CPR, etc...."

> So, replace 1201 with TVRM's ex. CN Pacific.

> I am glad that the TVRM got her, as they do
> good work, and she is better there than
> rusting in some park somewhere.

> I just hope to see her running, and still
> looking Canadian, not trussed up as a
> Southern Belle. :-) :-)

> John Stewart.


Ahead of the Torch
trains@robertjohndavis.com

Actually, a lot of work has been done on replication but it isn't well publicized. Strasburg is building a new V&T engine now. Golden Spike NHS obviously - I am unaware if the B&O museum has the old drawings, paterns and dies for making its replica fleet or NS those for Best Friend. A large stock of old patterns is in the collections of Kennesaw Civil War Museum from Glover Machine Works.

If I wanted to build a replica of a steam locomotive, would these existing resources be made available to me? The development costs having already been paid could make the difference in project feasability.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

About 5288....let's not forget who spent 70 grand to get it moved to a safe haven.

> I am glad that the TVRM got her, as they do
> good work, and she is better there than
> rusting in some park somewhere.

> I just hope to see her running, and still
> looking Canadian, not trussed up as a
> Southern Belle.

> John Stewart.

Well, it might be interesting if TVRM were to dress her up as a Southern belle in Virginia green with gold trim. And on the other hand, ex-CP 972, now at Strasburg, is likely to emerge looking like a Pennsy 10-wheeler when Linn Moedinger and company return her to service. During her long-term rebuild she is scheduled to get a Belpaire firebox and like ex-N&W 475 emerge as a locomotive representing a particular "period" rather than any one railroad. It's their engine - their option.

I wonder how many people noticed several years ago that No. 90's smokebox was two feet shorter. That alteration was done for mechanical rather than cosmetic reasons to improve her steaming capabilities.

I think I tend to side with those who prefer operation over "stuffed-and-mounted" preservation. But I also realize that operation in most cases just isn't practical, now becoming even more problematic with high insurance costs and the no-steam policy of the major rail lines. Truth be told, I'd like to see every engine in the Steamtown collection capable of operation. But the reality is that it will a long time before even B&M 3713 is ready to run. I hope others will follow, but it doesn't seem too likely at this time. Sad how reality just jumps up and hits you between the eyes.


hcastle@rcn.com