I understand that the Smithsonian has lately loaned out their 1903 Hart Parr Kerosene tractor #3, the 3rd model of petroleum tractor that the Charles City, Iowa firm made. It is in the care of the Oliver Tractor Collectors Assn., and the Smithsonian allowed them to restore the tractor adn replace its full canopy that had been missing since the Oliver/Hart Parr company bought it back from its owner in 1927.

These guys have been running this thing all over the midwest antique tractor circuit this summer.

This is heavy petroleum technology at its infancy. It is the agricultural equivilant of Baldwins' Old Ironsides going into excursion service.

for you Southeastern boys, the precedent has been set.........get out your negotiatin' hats and masonry chisles.

> for you Southeastern boys, the precedent has
> been set.........get out your negotiatin'
> hats and masonry chisles.

Well... it might be a little tough since the new exhibit was just put in.

Wrinnbo@aol.com

> Well... it might be a little tough since the
> new exhibit was just put in.

Agreed, but the time to negotiate is NOW before the exhibit closes. Besides I think that a certain green machine would look mighty fine in the Spencer roundhouse.

kevin.r.gillespie@verizon.net

Here's a picture of the old gal in action.

Some day, the big transport exhibit will be over, and the next historic flavor of the week will take center stage. Then the 1401 could really be put "in context".

Yes the old tractor looks pretty neat! But is it really smart to take a museum piece and operate it 'all over the circuit'? In effect, aren't they using up whatever hours are left in it and essentially consuming the artifact?

You clever readers will see through the above comment to realize that is almost exactly what many of us preservationists are doing with our rail equipment. In our hearts, I think we would all like to see pieces restored to operating condition and to see those wheels roll. But I think there is a case to be made not to use such valuable relics to haul 100,000 visitors around each year.

If unlimited funds were available, yes repairs could be made ad infintum to keep such equipment 'whole'. But wouldn't we end up with something akin to the 'original' hatchet used by George Washington? 100% authentic and original, but three new heads and six new handles over the years.

If these same unlimited funds were available wouldn't it make sense to limit operation of historical items to preserve them as long as possible and give 'rides' with replicas?

Of course, most of us do not have the funds for either option - - -

Bob Kutella


68trolley@comcast.net

> Of course, most of us do not have the funds
> for either option - - -

> Bob Kutella

Bob
I have two or three pieces of equipment that could be loaned out for restoration and operation at the drop of a hat. Maybe interurban cars are different in that they seem to thrive on the proper care and feeding and run darn near forever ?????


lamontdc@adelphia.net

> Yes the old tractor looks pretty neat! But
> is it really smart to take a museum piece
> and operate it 'all over the circuit'? In
> effect, aren't they using up whatever hours
> are left in it and essentially consuming the
> artifact?

As someone who has operated and restored historic farm equipment, I can tell you that it is virtually impossible to "use up" one of these tractors in tractor parades etc. Our experience has been over the last 30 years that replacements to worn out parts has been limited to rings, bushings, bearings and the like, which were replaced in normal service. If you have ever operated something like a Rumely or Aultman Taylor, you know that these things were incredibly overbuilt. I have seen many instances of tractors damaged by improper storage, but have yet to see one damaged by normal operation. By the way, that is me in the picture on our 26,000 lb Sawyer Massey plowing engine.

A case can definitely be made for leaving these things alone and not operating them, but the Smithsonian is a little bit different in that respect and for me that's one of the things that makes them so special. They took the John Bull out for a spin several years ago and apparently that is no longer a possiblity, but it's pretty neat that they did it.

IMO it's this idea that most of the artifacts are fresh from use and could be taken out and used again at any time (with the exception of Julia Child's kitchen). It makes their collection an exciting one to say the least. They paid a price for this last year when they attempted to fly the freshly restored Boeing Stratoliner from Seattle to Washington, DC. It had to make an emergency landing in Elliot Bay, you may recall. Why didn't they just truck it coast to coast? While that may have been a more expensive option, having a real-life flying Stratoliner is much more in keeping with the spirit of the Smithsonian.

The 1401 is in immaculate condition (you could eat lunch on the cab floor if that's your idea of a good time) but wouldn't she need to be modified and updated to current FRA standards?




SJHussar@aol.com

> Some day, the big transport exhibit will be
> over, and the next historic flavor of the
> week will take center stage. Then the 1401
> could really be put "in context".

This puzzles me: if everything is put back "in context" what will be left in the Smithsonian? It always seems to me that it's innate in the concept of a national museum that everything will be out of context by a strict definition... if not 1401, then something else...


eledbetter@rypn.org

> The 1401 is in immaculate condition (you
> could eat lunch on the cab floor if that's
> your idea of a good time) but wouldn't she
> need to be modified and updated to current
> FRA standards?

The only actual modifications or updates Part 230 requires are a second lighted water level sight glass and a cab-readable tender water level indicator. The rest of Part 230 covers a detailed inspection and licensing procedure, but doesn't require any other outright modifications. Speaking hypothetically, she would have to have a fresh 1472 day inspection and new Form 4 under Part 230, but no other mods other than those two.


eledbetter@rypn.org

Seems to me the concept of removing the best preserved indoor-in-a-climate-controlled-environment steam locomotive isn't a real sensible or practical option. There are plenty of park hulks rusting away in the weather out there more in need of attention.

Besides, just where would she go? How many roundhouse queens awaiting the rare chance to get out and run on the mainline can we afford to subsidize?

If a mainline passenger steam locomotive is required in the southeast, 290 is a much more realistic option, and about the same size.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

Here we go again. In my opinion, the 1401 belongs in the restored Spencer roundhouse backshop complex (sans airplanes, autos, boats and spacecraft), where it was historically maintained. If operated, it should be done so lightly within the complex, as part of an engineer-type demonstration program. No attempts at Claytor-type death march excursions, but perhaps a little gentle movie work. What would you give to pull the throttle on an engine that hauled FDR's funeral train?

For now, it is very well cared for in Washington and should stay there until a credible plan comes up to move it to Spencer, which I doubt will ever happen. It is certainly hard to argue that a more beautiful locomotive was ever built.

http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?00015262+OP-15262
ryarger@rypn.org

I figured once that we (the Pennsylvania Trolley Museum) would be unlikely to ever put more than 10,000 miles per year on our equipment. If this is spread over a goal of a 15 car operating fleet, an average car would run 666 miles per year. These cars were built to run about 500,000 miles between major overhauls. Thus, a car would require restoration every 750 years.

Time is the enemy, not use at the museum level.

artschwartz@sprintmail.com

>>>You clever readers will see through the above comment to realize that is almost exactly what many of us preservationists are doing with our rail equipment. In our hearts, I think we would all like to see pieces restored to operating condition and to see those wheels roll. But I think there is a case to be made not to use such valuable relics to haul 100,000 visitors around each year. >>If unlimited funds were available, yes repairs could be made ad infintum to keep such equipment 'whole'. But wouldn't we end up with something akin to the 'original' hatchet used by George Washington? 100% authentic and original, but three new heads and six new handles over the years. >>If these same unlimited funds were available wouldn't it make sense to limit operation of historical items to preserve them as long as possible and give 'rides' with replicas?

Of course, most of us do not have the funds for either option - - - <<<

Now ugly practicality intrudes upon our ivory tower. As is frequently discussed on this forum, there aren’t enough dollars and other’s success in gaining dollars are frequently viewed with envy. It is an unfortunate fact that most American’s visits to a museum begin on a bus painted chrome yellow. Once the “American” leaves the confines of a school they are unlikely to ever set foot in a museum again. So the eye catching activity is a way of generating interest and therefore funds. Even in the year that I’ve been following the organized rail fandom and preservation, I’ve become aware of the fact that it is a rather small fraternity that is required to generate large sums of money to preserve (and operate) historic rail equipment. The operating steam engine is a very large draw for those who might become contributing member of the fraternity.

So I guess the question is, which artifacts need to be “used” to keep the interest high (and funding) and which are preserved for posterity. This process, . . . well, it doesn’t seem to exist within the railroad preservation movement. When decisions are made, they tend to political and/or expedient rather than rational or a consensus of those active in the field. The result is divisive and probably doesn’t lend it’s self to fund raising or presenting a unified front to other adversarial or competing interest groups. So as an outsider looking in, I would suggest that it’s a bit premature to discuss a funding foundation, but I would suggest that the first step is to develop an “industry” wide and accepted triage system to decide where money needs to be spent, when is best to list a piece of equipment as historically important to preserve, good to use in some fund raising method or too late to save based on some logic other than it once was a good machine. The railroad preservation movement lives in what the military calls a “target rich” environment (more targets than weapons). The number of railroad structures and rolling stock greatly exceed any expected or possible funding to preserve them. The current preservation process appears to be random and without logic and therefore it’s a hard to sell to those with deep pockets.

Ed


ff1044@aol.com

> Here we go again. In my opinion, the 1401
> belongs in the restored Spencer roundhouse
> backshop complex (sans airplanes, autos,
> boats and spacecraft), where it was
> historically maintained.

OK. What should replace it to represent steam engines in the Smithsonian?

eledbetter@rypn.org