I agree. Not a good idea. Maybe sell a replica casting.
Also, digital cameras are cheap, would it have killed them to add a picture of the stack.
http://www.todengine.org
jrowlands@neo.rr.com
| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| 1361's stack on auction https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4115 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Chris Coleman [ Thu Oct 03, 2002 3:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 1361's stack on auction |
Bumped into this on ebay. Well... at least this is an innovative way to make money for the restoration. However I question the appropriateness of selling off original parts of the locomotive. It is a bad president if you ask me. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... =719837974 Smokestack - PRR K4s #1361 ebtrr@spikesys.com |
|
| Author: | Rick [ Thu Oct 03, 2002 3:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1361's stack on auction *PIC* |
I agree. Not a good idea. Maybe sell a replica casting. Also, digital cameras are cheap, would it have killed them to add a picture of the stack. http://www.todengine.org jrowlands@neo.rr.com |
|
| Author: | Superheater [ Thu Oct 03, 2002 6:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1361's stack on auction |
> Novel way to raise money maybe- except the restoration is being gov't funded. Original parts should be retained. I remember seeing a few years ago where a souvenir piece of steel from the batch used to make the Titanic was analyzed and it provided important clues as to why there was a catastrophic failure of the ship's superstructure. Who knows what value "the original fabric" might have in te future. I've argued here against the stuffed and mounted approach-but events like this might make me rethink my position. I would definitely not characterize this as "scrap". Where's the accrediting folks on this one? Superheater@beer.com |
|
| Author: | Pete [ Thu Oct 03, 2002 7:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1361's stack on auction: Bad Practice |
A museum selling off collections to raise cash is not setting a good precedent at all. I'm sorry but even though the stack is surplus to the engine, it is still a museum artifact. I hope the financially astute Altoona board does not try to sell off collections to raise cash for operating funds. History shows that museums who do so are destined to fail. > Original parts should be retained. I > remember seeing a few years ago where a > souvenir piece of steel from the batch used > to make the Titanic was analyzed and it > provided important clues as to why there was > a catastrophic failure of the ship's > superstructure. > Who knows what value "the original > fabric" might have in te future. I've > argued here against the stuffed and mounted > approach-but events like this might make me > rethink my position. I would definitely not > characterize this as "scrap". > Where's the accrediting folks on this one? |
|
| Author: | Scott Cessna [ Fri Oct 04, 2002 8:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1361's stack on auction: Bad Practice |
> A museum selling off collections to raise > cash is not setting a good precedent at all. > I'm sorry but even though the stack is > surplus to the engine, it is still a museum > artifact. I hope the financially astute > Altoona board does not try to sell off > collections to raise cash for operating > funds. History shows that museums who do so > are destined to fail. Everyone needs to take a giant step back and coem up for air on this one! We are NOT selling collections. We are selling or may sell individual pieces that are not necessary to support the telling of our story. This museum obtained many many pieces in its early years that are not appropriate and never were. We will not continue to be faced with the cataloging and storage challenges of an accession program run amuck. The collection needs to be examined and appropriate deaccession action taken. That's why the word exists - deaccession - museums do it every day - day after day. There is NOTHING inappropriate or unethical about offering this piece of surplus iron for sale to the general public or any other museum that wishes to have it. cessvw@cs.com |
|
| Author: | Rob Davis [ Fri Oct 04, 2002 8:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | There are many aspects to this one |
You know, this is one of those things... It sounds wrong on its face, then again, we'd be foolish to think that the owners of restored steam across the country haven't discarded replaced parts. Where's #2317's old cab, or Strasburg #90's extended smokebox? Maybe they were saved, maybe not. I don't think anyone questioned it. I doubt they ever will. It's part of operation. Now, the last time we ventured down this road, someone mentioned that #1361 is an "icon." If she is an icon, then siginificant parts like her stack might make good museum exhibits. Then again, since so many people revere the engine, the stack might set a record for scrap metal price-per-pound. I will argue that if she is an icon, then the work being done is innapropriate. Icon or not, she's joining the ranks of operating steam and she's not immune fromt he consumption of parts that requires. I don't think we need to hang anyone face-first from the tender's water scoops on this one. Rather, it goes back to the old debate of conserve vs. operate. #1361 is going to run. When that decision was made, she made the transition from museum display to operating machine. Right or wrong, she is an operating machine (to be) and anyone who would argue the value of her original fabirc is 15 years too late. This is why, despite the angst, the discussions about original fabric are so important. #1361 is going to run. Unless the RRMPA changes their no-op policy, the K-4s at Strasburg is the one that will be the one that retains more of her PRR fabric. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't know. But it is what it is. Frankly, I am weary of jumping on the Altoona guys at every turn. They are trying, and maybe a little support will go further than more damnation? Rob Davis Ahead of the Torch trains@robertjohndavis.com |
|
| Author: | Erik Ledbetter [ Fri Oct 04, 2002 8:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | MODERATOR'S NOTE: I have truncated this thread |
Dear all-- in accourd with out new policy of truncating or terminating threads which threaten to become unproductive, I have truncated this thread. No offence to anyone whose posts were among those deleted I hope, but the conversation was getting too heated. I have left standing posts which define the original objection raised, and left other posts which define the key elements of the response to the objection. I would prefer to leave it at that unless someone can think of new light to shed or a new way to approach the issue: otherwise, both points of view are represented and let's leave it at that. eledbetter@rypn.org |
|
| Author: | Chris Coleman [ Fri Oct 04, 2002 10:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | 1361 stack - fabric? *PIC* |
As the (now regretful) person who started this thread, I want to say the opinions of others are not mine and clarify my own opinion. I just hope I'm not throwing gas on the fire. Scott is quite right. It is perfectly valid for a museum to deascession a piece they have come into possession of and is not considered part of their mission. It is neither inappropriate nor unethical. The alternative is a gridlock of pieces that a museum can neither fully interpret or properly conserve. That being said, what I disagree with is the view that a publicly recognizable part of 1361 which was almost certainly made in Altoona in the PRR shops by the workers the museum is based around is not part of the Altoona Railroaders Memorial Museum's objective. The museum has clearly taken the position that 1361 is part of its mission. I see this as encompassing all historic parts of 1361 as well. I disagree with Ron's apparent opinion that once one chooses to place an artifact in operation that it is an operating machine devoid of historic relevance and only serves in the role of interpretation. Such clear-cut lines cause the violent debates we have seen on this board over the virtues of operating artifacts. Unless every piece of a locomotive has been replaced, it still has value as an artifact. The fact that it is in operation does not change that. What has changed when an artifact goes into operation is that the direction of its benefit to the public has been shifted along the spectrum away from conservation toward interpretation. However, no matter where on this spectrum an artifact lies it still possess components of each. That being said, the ARRMM has chosen the interpretation end of the spectrum for 1361 and that is their choice. It happens to be one I agree with. But that does not absolve them of conservation of the locomotive as well, and that includes all parts thereof. I would have though that a physically manageable piece like the stack would have invaluable interpretive value inside the museum. Coupled with a photo of 1361 it would give perspective to the size of the locomotive. It tells of how parts were cast for locomotives and how they failed and had to be replaced. It tells of how steam locomotives could run far into obsolescence because they were designed to be repairable rather than disposable, an hence the need for railroaders to perform the repairs. The wear on the stack tells of thousands of miles the locomotive ran, spewing corrosive cinders through it. Another piece, like the backhead or smokebox, lends itself less to interpretation, but is no less a piece of the historic fabric of the locomotive. A path through the railyard at the museum could pass through the old smokebox (if it still exists). With an interpretive display it could turn some visitors' heads. The mission statement of the museum as stated on their web site is rather vague, as perhaps it should be. Its interpretation with regard to specific artifacts would be very subjective. “The purpose of the (Altoona) Railroaders Memorial Museum is to honor the railroad workers and their significant contributions to the culture and development of the railroad industry and to preserve this rich heritage for the education, enjoyment, and enrichment of present and future generations.” In the end, the museum is the one that must decide whether an artifact is appropriate for their collection. They know the realities of their museum better than any of us do. I just hope they choose wisely. The GG1 Homepage  ebtrr@spikesys.com |
|
| Author: | Rick [ Fri Oct 04, 2002 7:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: MODERATOR'S NOTE: I have truncated this thread |
Im not sure I like this new policy of censoring and editing discussions. I didnt find this unproductive at all, and I do have a new argument to present for the conservation of the smokestack. I think this is an important issue to talk about, perhaps not specifically about the 1361, but regarding modified artifacts in general. I find that these discussions are much more informative and educational than the usual "I found this car in the weeds" threads that are common on the board. However, stifling discussion will leave topics like this unexplored. Sometimes debate is messy, but in this country of ours we have never forbidden debate because it was messy. However alot has changed since September 11, and I guess we aren't as free to discuss things as we once were. I remember the old RYPN once talking about an old horse car that was so far gone that if rebuilt would be 90% new fabric. So the decision was made to conserve the carbody in its current condition. That provided future historians with an unaltered artifact that could be studied and if someone someday wanted to replicate the car, it could be used as a pattern. The same could be said of discarded locomotive parts. If the original 1361 stack is lost to a private collector, then the only source of information about the 1361s stack would come from the replica. And the replica isn't an EXACT copy of the original. So in the future we are basing our research on a part that is an approximation of the original. Same thing with the backhead. It is no longer an historic artifact because it is an approximation of the original, and if the backhead is sold off, some historian in the future would not be able to use that new backhead as a resource for studying the original. With our Tod Engine, we have a policy that any parts replaced from the engine will forever remain in our custody. For example, we have two handwheels that were broken and have been recast. Although we cast the new ones using the originals as patterns, and they will be machined to the same tolerances as the originals, we do not know if the original parts will be of some value in the future. Who knows, maybe someday we might break one of the new handwheels. Thank god we have the originals to cast another one. So for these locomotives that have a tremendous historical value, what would be the harm in providing a 20' shipping container on site for storage of discarded parts. Call it pattern storage if you will. A container is weathertight, doesn't take up much room and could provide dry storage indefinately for these parts. That stack may sit in that container forever, but it is cheap insurance against the possibility that the replacement might need replaced again, and if that happens I would certainly like to know what the original looked like so that my new replacement looks as close as possible. There I have said my peace. http://www.todengine.org jrowlands@neo.rr.com |
|
| Author: | Erik Ledbetter [ Fri Oct 04, 2002 9:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: MODERATOR'S NOTE: I have truncated this thread |
> Im not sure I like this new policy of > censoring and editing discussions. You can't like it any less than I like doing it! Rick, your post here is an excellent example of the constructive criticism we welcome--thanks for adding it to the thread. We don't want to stifle discussion. Nor do we want to discourage anyone from contributing a new perspective, especially one based on their own preservation experience or policy. But, at least for the time being, we are going to continue to damp down threads which show any sign of degenerating into name-calling or flaming. The is no way to draw the line with perfect fairness. All we can do is use our best judgement. But, until the tendency for flame wars to break out dies down again, draw it we will. If anyone wants to add something to a thread we have damped down, or has a new perspective or constructive criticism to offer, feel free to do so, as Rick just did. All we want to do is damp out impending flame wars, not close down reasoned discussion. eledbetter@rypn.org |
|
| Author: | Superheater [ Fri Oct 04, 2002 11:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: MODERATOR'S NOTE: truncated (early?) |
> You can't like it any less than I like doing > it! > > But, at least for the time being, we are > going to continue to damp down threads which > show any sign of degenerating into > name-calling or flaming. Erik, I didn't see the thread because it was yanked. Perhaps it DID degenerate-but if it only showing signs of it- then you might of yanked it early. That said, I offer the following thoughts, mindful of the difficulty of your position. I agree with Rick-about the value of vigorous debate-although i'm not sure I'd tie into post 9/11 security. I think its stems from this weird new paradigm of PC poltics and Barney (i love you, you love me)where probity and clarity are slaughtered at the altar of "self- esteem". Its been pointed out that for a lot of us, this is an all-consuming-perhaps disproportionate passion and such things inevitably cause high emotions. We somehow have come to believe every deliberative assembly operates like an an eight grade cotillion- Of course, anybody whose followed the history of the parliamentary bodies knows the ceremonials are best likened to fighters who shake hands and then proceed to do their best to inflict debilitating injury on their opponent. I happened to see a part of the re-release of the Ken Burns Civil War series last week and heard them saying it was common for elected representatives to bring guns in the capitol as an example. Our British friends are the best at the art of tactfully telling somebody they can go straight to hell. They start every sentence with "will the right honorable gentleman" and then proceed to ask the prime minister if he's aware that that he's an assasin of all that's good and holy. Nobody enters the fray of the public square involuntarily. We post our opinions here in part because of the slightly vain belief that our voice matters and must be heard. When you speak up, you should be prepared for criticism. If you don't wanna run with the dogs-stay on the porch! I'm not suggesting a free-for-all, with cussing, spittin' and gunplay. Certainly profanity adds nothing and should be verboten. Similarly, if somebody makes a charge that show no merit, yank 'em. But if you try to make this into the local ladies tea social, we will be left only with pablum. If that happens this forum, with its clear mission will cease to be of any consequence. I like steak myself-and I understand that T-bone comes only after the butcher does some messy work. Just something to chew on. I sincerely apologize for the parliament analogy-since that makes you the equivalent of speaker Betty Boothroy. Or-duh, There will be or-duh. Superheater@beer.com |
|
| Author: | Erik Ledbetter [ Sat Oct 05, 2002 4:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: MODERATOR'S NOTE: truncated (early?) |
> We somehow have come to believe every > deliberative assembly operates like an an > eight grade cotillion- Of course, anybody > whose followed the history of the > parliamentary bodies knows the ceremonials > are best likened to fighters who shake hands > and then proceed to do their best to inflict > debilitating injury on their opponent. I > happened to see a part of the re-release of > the Ken Burns Civil War series last week and > heard them saying it was common for elected > representatives to bring guns in the capitol > as an example. Our British friends are the > best at the art of tactfully telling > somebody they can go straight to hell. I guess that goes straight to the heart of this matter. What I would say is that this would be true, of the Interchange had been established primarily as a debating forum or a deliberative assembly. But rightly or wrongly, that's not what Hume Bob and I had in mind when we established this place. What we had in mind was something a lot less like Preston Brooks vs. Sumner, and more like a practical forum where people could get together and bring their collective experience and intelligence together to solve problems and exchange ideas about railroad preservation. Our favorite posts have always been more of the "Where do I get light valve oil," "how do I set the timing on inside Stephenson valve gear right," or "what is your Museum's collection policy" variety. In other words, we wanted the place to serve as a problem-solving forum, not a deliberative forum. My personal preference for the Interchange--one I think Hume and I share, having talked about it--is more a coversation among friends, maybe guests in Hume's or my virtual living room, than a public political forum. People say things to one another under "Roberts Rules of Order" that they'd never say to someone face to face under the rules of basic polite social exchange. Why? Becuase debaters and parlimentarians are seeking to advance a cause or a political position, and people in a social relationship are trying to get along over the long haul. The relationships are as important or more important than scoring the point. Is that too PC? Maybe. But in then end, Hume Bob and I have to live with this place over the long haul, and more to the point we have to live with the reputation it earns the three of us personally. What really grates my cheese is when I show up at a preservation site I've never visited before, or meet somebody at a convention, and they are carrying an axe to bury between my shoulder blades over something which happened on this board. That makes it harder for me personally to engage in what I enjoy doing in this movement, and in the end of the day its just not worth it. So I guess I'd argue that its not so much PC-ness, or wanting everybody to be nice becuase tolerance is the only virtue, so much as the fact that behind the site stand three real people whose reputations in greater or lesser degree are affected by what gets said and done in this forum. All of that said, as Brian Wowak pointed out in another post on his board a week or to ago, there are some other places out there that welcome debate for its own sake, his among them (the Railfan board at www.chaski.com). But in the end this is not that kind of place. Why? Becuase its too frustrating for the people who run the place, wipe the glasses and keep the bar clean. And if its too frustrating for us to keep the lights on anymore--and at times it gets that way--then someday it won't be here for any purpose, becuase Hume Bob and I will run out of willingess to put our time and our dinero into it, becuase we as self-interested creatures are no longer getting out of it what we put into it. So there is is, from the heart. Its not that I want to change ya'll, or make this into the Junior League social. It's more that I'm asking ya'll to conduct yourselves in a way that makes me proud when I travel around and meet people, that gives this site a good reputation in the movement, and that makes it energizing enough for your hosts to want to keep the place up for you. And in the end, that means running this place as a constructive conversation bound by social, not parliamentary, rules and expecations. eledbetter@rypn.org |
|
| Author: | Wowak [ Mon Oct 07, 2002 1:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: MODERATOR'S NOTE: truncated (early?) |
> All of that said, as Brian Wowak pointed out > in another post on his board a week or to > ago, there are some other places out there > that welcome debate for its own sake, his > among them (the Railfan board at > www.chaski.com). To expound on what Eric has said, I have and continue to suggest Chaski Railfan WWWBoard as a suppliment, not an alternative to, the RyPN Interchange. Yes, it may be a hassle to read two boards instead of one, but because of differences of ideology and mission, there is very little room to accuse anyone of censorship on Railfan (not that I personally believe that censorship is occuring here, but it has been alleged). In fact, unless a post is not at all railroad related, contains profanity, blatant personal attacks, or is a verifiable lie, it will not be deleted. Its a perfect forum for such "hot" debates as the status of 1361. mrwowak@yahoo.com |
|
| Author: | Ted Miles [ Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: MODERATOR'S NOTE: truncated (early?) |
Censorship issues aside, this started as a report about a piece of a historic steam engine for sale on e-bay. What we do at the San Francisco maritime Park is keep what we take off. For example the former western Pacific tug Hercules has had a valve and two sections of copper steam pipe removed recently. They are given steel and wire labels and placed in our warehaouse for permanent storage. If at some future date the tug drops back to static display, the original 1907 steam pipes can go back in place. In the mean time the American Bureau of Ships will certify the repairs. Yes, shipping containers are great storage tools. They provide a dry place to keep almost anything you want except hazardous chemicals. ted_miles@nps.gov |
|
| Author: | Scott Cessna [ Mon Oct 07, 2002 10:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 1361 stack - fabric? |
> As the (now regretful) person who started > this thread, I want to say the opinions of > others are not mine and clarify my own > opinion. I just hope I'm not throwing gas on > the fire. > Scott is quite right. It is perfectly valid > for a museum to deascession a piece they > have come into possession of and is not > considered part of their mission. It is > neither inappropriate nor unethical. The > alternative is a gridlock of pieces that a > museum can neither fully interpret or > properly conserve. > That being said, what I disagree with is the > view that a publicly recognizable part of > 1361 which was almost certainly made in > Altoona in the PRR shops by the workers the > museum is based around is not part of the > Altoona Railroaders Memorial Museum's > objective. The museum has clearly taken the > position that 1361 is part of its mission. I > see this as encompassing all historic parts > of 1361 as well. > I disagree with Ron's apparent opinion that > once one chooses to place an artifact in > operation that it is an operating machine > devoid of historic relevance and only serves > in the role of interpretation. Such > clear-cut lines cause the violent debates we > have seen on this board over the virtues of > operating artifacts. Unless every piece of a > locomotive has been replaced, it still has > value as an artifact. The fact that it is in > operation does not change that. What has > changed when an artifact goes into operation > is that the direction of its benefit to the > public has been shifted along the spectrum > away from conservation toward > interpretation. However, no matter where on > this spectrum an artifact lies it still > possess components of each. > That being said, the ARRMM has chosen the > interpretation end of the spectrum for 1361 > and that is their choice. It happens to be > one I agree with. But that does not absolve > them of conservation of the locomotive as > well, and that includes all parts thereof. I > would have though that a physically > manageable piece like the stack would have > invaluable interpretive value inside the > museum. Coupled with a photo of 1361 it > would give perspective to the size of the > locomotive. It tells of how parts were cast > for locomotives and how they failed and had > to be replaced. It tells of how steam > locomotives could run far into obsolescence > because they were designed to be repairable > rather than disposable, an hence the need > for railroaders to perform the repairs. The > wear on the stack tells of thousands of > miles the locomotive ran, spewing corrosive > cinders through it. Another piece, like the > backhead or smokebox, lends itself less to > interpretation, but is no less a piece of > the historic fabric of the locomotive. A > path through the railyard at the museum > could pass through the old smokebox (if it > still exists). With an interpretive display > it could turn some visitors' heads. As a note - ys the original smokebox does exist. Salvagable parts are being removed and installed on the new piece. The old one will then be returned to ARMM and we can start this whole conversation over again!! Please NO!! > The mission statement of the museum as > stated on their web site is rather vague, as > perhaps it should be. Its interpretation > with regard to specific artifacts would be > very subjective. > “The purpose of the (Altoona) Railroaders > Memorial Museum is to honor the railroad > workers and their significant contributions > to the culture and development of the > railroad industry and to preserve this rich > heritage for the education, enjoyment, and > enrichment of present and future > generations.” > In the end, the museum is the one that must > decide whether an artifact is appropriate > for their collection. They know the > realities of their museum better than any of > us do. I just hope they choose wisely. cessvw@cs.com |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|