I do not consider myself any sort of an expert on this subject, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night...but I do have a couple thoughts I'd like to throw out.

First off, I think we need ask the basic question that no one seems to be asking, but that forms the basis for this entire argument. What, exactly, is it that we are "preserving"? By the time a museum or organization receives a locomotive at the end of its service life, what they have is not the original artifact but rather the piece of equipment as it happened to exist at the end of its service life. If it is typical of most equipment, the locomotive has been constantly modified and quite possibly completely rebuilt numerous times during its service life. Little to none of the original artifact may be left by the time the locomotive is "preserved".

Second, it appears to me that positions such as the one starting this thread are a tacit admission that the equipment simply cannot be effectively maintained. The enormous shop complexes and legions of skilled personnel that once continuously maintained and rebuilt steam locomotives and keep them in operation indefinitely are simply not around anymore, nor is the revenue stream needed to pay for those facilities and personnel.

Bottom line is that, at least in my view, "historical fabric" doesn't hold much water. Only the "purists" are really going to care one way or the other, and the vast majority of the people who who are going to show up to ride the trains, and who's revenue pays the bills, won't know the difference even if it is pointed out to them. To the vast majority of the paying public, all trains look alike and individual equipment heritage just. doesn't. matter.

Jeff Moore
Elko, NV

[quote="Stationary Steam"]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.

I always find these kind of responses interesting. Its a bit like listening to the radio and complaining about what's playing. If you don't like what is playing on the radio, change the station. If you don't like this question, then don't read it or interact with it. There seems to be a number of people who were interested in the topic. I noticed that further down the subjects was a person who asked about what types of medal people are using for rods. Apparently this topic didn't interest anyone (or at least not yet). People voted by ignoring it, not complaining about having to read it. No one on this site has to read let alone interact with anything.

Of course what sets this site aside from other unmentioned sites is that its not clogged up with endless and mindless debates primarily by people who know nothing. I like hearing from those in the industry like yourself and I choose to move on when a 'railfan' gets on asking 'railfan' type questions.

I will plead guilty to overgeneralization. And you are quite right that most of the struggles to reach a standard that accreditation mandates goes a lot further back than "do we run it or put it in amber?" debates.

I would argue, however, that FOR THE MOST PART, the goals and strategies of "operating railroad" museums run somewhat counter to the "other things" not itemized in the list above. This is not so much malice against the likes of the AAM as it is a tacit admission that the logistics of operating railroads don't lend themselves handily to the stated or implied goals of what I would call (for want of a better term) the academic and bureaucratic side of museum administration. Trust me, I've run into my share of academic and bureaucratic "geeks" in the museum industry, including at least one with lots of letters behind his name who should probably never be let near the public unattended.

Just as an example, I could write up on behalf of Xanterra "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" for the Grand Canyon Railroad. I doubt I would be taken seriously no matter how creative my writing was and how seriously Xanterra wanted to convert the operation to a "museum."

And, oh, yeah, let's talk about the day some idiotic curator took the trouble to jack up an 1830's locomotive and then apply an air compressor to the boiler, and got the wheels spinning almost furiously enough for the loco to fall off the jackstands and run through a wall. And how, a few weeks later, he was chucking flaming materials into the firebox to build up steam........... Boy, that was a really crazy excuse for a curator, huh?

A locomotive is a commercial tool designed to perform a particular job, and I have never seen anything wrong with operating a historic locomotive to demonstrate its function. Whether it is feasible to restore an older locomotive to operation is a question that has sunk many groups, and whether it is necessary or desirable to have a large number of operable locomotives available for use is questionable both from a mission and financial standpoint. Frankly, beyond the train ride two things that the general public finds particularly interesting are how locomotives function, and how they are built. Unfortunately at some museums the "education" mission seems to rely on osmosis, you see the equipment, and you are supposed to "see the light". I have visited a lot of museums over the years and in some of them you run into people who come up to you and ask "do you know anything about these things", because there is nothing in the display that explains the equipment.

The preservation industry misses a lot of opportunities to make things more interesting and informative.

PC

One thing that's forgotten is that, as a "commercial tool," the locomotive, as with almost any tangible asset, is built with a defined lifetime and purpose. With the possible exception of the PRR's massive stone arch bridges and a few other such spans elsewhere, no railroad assets are designed to exist or operate for a century or more. (In the same way, you can drive an ordinary auto for a million miles or more, albeit at diminishing returns that would eventually make a new car a more rational decision, and no one constructs an auto to last 50-100 years.) That we have hundred-year-old rolling stock operating today is a testament to not only how well they were built, but how well they were/are maintained or "babied" and how many times the shop can repair or right the wear and tear.

Which also brings up the issue of whether the equipment in use is being appropriately demonstrated consistent with the educational mission, if the organization in fact has any educational mission. But frankly, when the train is loaded with members of the "XYZ Historical Society", and their interest is to get their photos and gather their rare mileage then run for the bus to get back to the hotel and start the evening slide show, does it really make any difference that the train was hauled with a switcher that may be inappropriate to the application?

If there is no effort to "interpret" the equipment then does it matter what equipment is being used, as long as the paying passengers are happy with the ride experience? There are some very nice shortlines with tourist operations that use EMD and ALCO switchers to haul their passenger trains. The trainload of passengers seems delighted with the motive power, the only people likely to complain about it not being appropriate for the service are the railfan photographers who seldom buy a ticket anyways. So how much motivation is there to invest time and expense in resurrecting a rare and potentially troublesome piece of motive power when a very common locomotive that is economical to operate gets popular acceptance even when doing an "inappropriate" job?

PC

Good point. The coin always has two sides. Not every operation can go to those extremes. Although, there are those who can.

[quote="Alexander D. Mitchell IVOne thing that's forgotten is that, as a "commercial tool," the locomotive, as with almost any tangible asset, is built with a defined lifetime and purpose.[/quote]

With respect I beg to differ - perhaps forgotten (or more likely never considered) by many on the "outside," but paramount in the daily concerns of those of us who are (or were in my case) charged with keeping them working as a commercial tool in the 21st century - many on their 4th or 5th anticipated lifetimes with almost no source of supply for some consumables, and almost all other parts custom fabrications only. A review of many threads will demonstrate a lot of concern about how to practically overcome this chain of events.

dave

Well Mr. Stationary Steam? Apparently, I DO get it and a lot of other people as well. EVERYONE who feels the same as I do and are obviously in the same boat as I could not have hit the proverbial nail on the head any better! They conveyed exactly what I was trying to say all along and with regards to Mr. Scott Markloff he was the most dead on.
There are a lot of people on here that are in the industry in one way or another and Im willing to bet a LOT MORE railfans too. I being one of them may not have the railroad industry savvy as most here, hence my logic for posting such a topic but Mr. Markloff was right. If you don't agree, don't reply.
But a lot of responses were made and for the most part they were in accord.

If an organization has the people, resources, money, time, space...all factors on hand to run a piece of equipment, whether it be a steam or diesel loco, an electric traction car or trolley, speeder or even a piece of rolling stock either passenger or freight, then why not?!
Mr. Hussar was right. "...we don't need to restore and run them all but we wish to keep the memory of such things alive, some must steam."

Mount Royal said visitors want to see things move and you can't get that from a static display. Well, in the case of RRMPA if people want to see things move, then yes, go across the street to SRC but what of other museum who have no adjacent working railroad? This goes back to my original post. They just show you what they look like not what they do. This case can be argued for just about ANY museum...(kind of) where they have pieces on display that USED to do something but are afraid to damage it any further by operating it.

Mr Stephen Piwowarski mentioned to make a carefully evaluation of your equipment and make decisions about the conservation of artifacts which reflect the evaluation.
Which static display is in the best repair versus the one which will bring in the most money versus the one that will break down as soon as we start taking it apart for restoration?
Find your candidate which is in good to great repair, assess what is needed and carefully have at it.

In a nutshell, and not just at RRMPA, these things were meant to run in one way or another.
Thanks to all of you out there who feel the way I do regarding this. And you are right. The term "Historical Fabric" doesn't hold much water at all!

Historical fabric is what is on the locomotive in the couple of seconds it takes the plant switcher to take it through the gate on its way for delivery to the customer, and its context in the industry at that moment. As they say in the business, "That one is history". From that point on, the builder and the railroad start changing things on the locomotive.

A friend who handles the documentation of locomotives for a major railroad calls the point of the signing of the final acceptance papers a "snapshot in time". That signing is usually done when all the field modifications are completed and contract provisions have been met. Then the railroad starts changing things on the locomotive again.

Change is a constant process.

PC

Airplanes were meant to fly. Rockets were meant to launch. No air and space museum flys planes or launches rockets. Are they bad museums?

Ships were meant to sail. The Maritime Museum at Newport News does not sail anything. Is it a bad museum?

Autos were meant to drive on roads. Few auto museums drive their cars. Are they bad museums?

It seems to me that you hold railroad museums to a completely different standard than any other form of technology based museum. To each his own, but I genuinely don't understand why what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

Respectfully, no. Historical fabric is defined only in reference to a specified period of significance. To make this more concrete, here is a fictional example:

An E8 rolls of EMD's assembly line in 1952, is sold to B&O. While working for B&O it pulls a President's funeral train in 1960. It then works for B&O/C&O, is transferred to Amtrak in 1971, then is retired in 1975.

To a museum interpreting diesel manufacturing, design and OEM engineering, the period of significance may be one day: the day it rolled out of EMD.

To the Presidential museum of the dead president, the period of significance is one day in 1960.

To a B&O Museum the period of significance is 1952-1971.

To an Amtrak museum it is 1971-1975.

Historic fabric is anything that was on the artifact during its period of significance. It is different for each of the four museums.

All of these situations reflect a common problem, however: You need a demonstration place for all of the above: a navigable waterway for the boat, a racetrack or public road for the cars, and an airport and air space for the planes. You can park planes in a barn or cars in a pole shed or boats at a dock, but to give them room to run you need more space, a wiser/different location, plus the inherent risks of crashing the car/plane or sinking the boat. With the railroad stuff, assuming you don't have a loop of track around your place, you have the additional complication that someone else always owns and controls the only place you can "run."

In cars, we have static museums where everything sits. But we also have collectors like Jay Leno, whose stated goal has been that any vehicle in his massive garage can be rolled out and driven to work (or a show, whatever) on a moment's notice if he so chooses. And, occasionally, he does just that with a variety of his cars. We almost have that model on a scant few short lines or with a few PV or business train owners (Reading & Northern, Iowa Interstate, Delaware-Lackawanna, etc.)

And contrary to your assertion, there ARE "air and space" museums where planes fly on select occasions. They may be guest or replica planes, but they do offer the chance to see and experience such things as air shows (usually drawing numbers that dwarf even Thomas the Tank Engine), a flight in a private plane (fundraisers for the Civil Air Patrol, anyone?), or the spectacle of a DC-3 taking off and landing. And Goddard Space Flight Center near D.C. used to have a model rocketry club demonstrate there on occasion--some with some serious rocket power to boot.

There are maritime museums that sail craft. Check out the extensive collection of the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum in St. Michaels, Md. or the Calvert Marine Museum in Solomons, Md., both with craft that sail on occasion. The former even has a restoration "shop" where they demonstrate the rebuilding of their boats. Both museums consider the "demonstration" aspect--such as taking kids out on the water in an oyster dredger skipjack--an important part of their educational missions, and an ideal way to attract the pleasure boaters to pay attention to holes in the water besides their own.

Certainly you can have a static museum that draws lots of people--especially when you have free admission, the Hope Diamond, Lincoln's top hat, gold coins, the Spirit of St. Louis, Archie Bunker's chair, and Judy garland's ruby shoes. Most of us can't pull that off. The rest of us have to somehow get people to care about what we do and preserve. And operation--read that as anything moving, making noise, "bells and whistles" in the original literal sense, etc.--can be an important part of both the mission statement and the public relations. Is it a smart use of the artifact or resources? That has to be decided case by case, and sometimes "bringing butts into the seats/through the door" is as important as some academic protocol regarding preservation.

I literally do not know what you mean by "some academic protocol."

This is the latest of several statements in your recent comments that imply that there is some person, people, or organization(s), that you denote by the label "academe," that is standing in the way of operating preservation.

Who, Sandy? Who are these academics? What are their organizations? What are the names or the text of the protocols? Do you mean the ARM Recommended Practices? The Secretary of the Interior's Standards? What protocol are you talking about?

Can you show me who exactly it is who is standing at the door or railroad preservation, brandishing a protocol, and imposing their vision on the rest of us? I can't grapple with shadows. Give me something or someone specific to work with.