With the rules on the railroad shipment of historic equipment getting more and more stringent, as demonstrated by recent discussions in this forum, we are reaching a point where there are going to be some very difficult decisions to be made in the not too distant future.

If equipment is positioned for rail movement but cannot be transported on its own wheels, the most reasonable alternative would usually be to partially disassemble it to the point where the various components are suitable in weight and dimensions to allow them to be secured on suitable high capacity flatcars. Using a diesel locomotive as an example, this might require removal of the trucks, the prime mover and main generator, and maybe other components and structure, to get the loads to the weight and dimensions that they are suitable for flatcar transportation.

But suppose a really significant piece of equipment is in a location where direct loading to high capacity flatcars is impractical? Suppose there is a really rare or really special piece of motive power that needs to be saved and the only viable transportation route is going to require the assistance of a specialty trucking company, and you have to break the equipment down to the point where you can meet highway load and clearance requirements.

What if you need the equipment down to size and weight for highway movement. Is it worth "scrapping" that special piece of equipment to save it? What do you think of the idea of cutting a locomotive or car into several pieces to meet a much lower highway weight restriction, then welding it back together at the destination? How does that kind of controlled demolition fit with your rules, ethics and concepts for preservation?

Do you take the torch and start cutting up that valued piece of railroad history in the hope of a better tomorrow, or do you let it sit in that abandoned siding at the abandoned power plant while it rusts to oblivion and the scavengers pick it clean?

Not a pleasant thought for sure, but one we need to be thinking about.

Your views welcomed as always!

PC

One can use a wrench to remove fasteners and connections such that the boiler can be removed from the frame, etc.....if necessary, knock out rivets to remove dome from boiler. Disassembly doesn't imply irreversable destruction. Imagination, practicality and money are the missing pieces of most such ventures.

dave

I can agree with "sectioning" a piece of equipment to ultimately save it through reassembly. Depends on the circumstance though. Section a rare item or scrap it if funds aren't available for a proper move? I say do what keeps it out of the scrap heap. Transport or section a GG1, E8 or insert overly represented locomotive class here(___) well maybe not. Then part it out for the best at that point. Cut the cupola off a caboose for transport then reassemble, absolutely. The thing we need to accept is that not EVERY piece needs to have potential to operate.... How much more equipment could be saved/displayed/STABILIZED if the "someday operational" goal is overlooked?

If a GG1 was cut up and put back together then I'll say anything is possible.

The outcome relies in the ablility of the organization that owns the piece in getting it reassembled. This involves not only the tools to do this but also the knowledge of the individuals involved that took it apart and also the ones to put it together and the finances for such an undertaking. As Preston said, it's CONTROLLED demolition, the wrong people taking it apart could render the piece absolute scrap, or at best cause extra work/money in fixing it.

The final intent of the piece as being static or operating affects the way it would be handled also. More work would be needed to put a unit back into operating condition, even if it was before the move. The size and type of equipment will be another factor in how to proceed, the effort to move a 44 tonner over the road isn't as bad as a steam engine................or say for argument's sake......a DD-40! Moving a DD-40 over the road would likely require cutting the frame into 2 or 3 sections, I don't recall how long one of them is but I'd guess 80'. To reweld the frame back together with everything straight would be an undertaking........if not impossible........ for the adverage museum.

I unfortunately see many good pieces being lost in the future due to the newer mandates. Not all organizations and individuals have the ability or funding to handle the extra work it would take to sucessfully complete a move.

I don't think moving a GG1 on two flatcars would be all that difficult of a project. Would be quite easy actually. Jack it up a couple of feet, roll the trucks out and roll an 89' 100 ton flatcar underneath. Load the trucks onto the second flatcar with a crane and you're ready to go.

With a steam locomotive, separating the boiler from the frame at the saddle casting is not difficult, and then the boiler and frame sections hauled separately. Two or maybe three flats needed for that haul. With the increasing availability and capacity of heavy equipment movers with hydraulic cranes, gantries and Goldhofers, moving the "big stuff" is not as labor intensive or expensive as it would have been in the distant past. Some moves done today would simply have been impossible years ago.

What I am seeing as a problem is not in physically being able to dismantle a locomotive into manageable sections for transport, it is in finding the people who know where to disassemble the locomotive and how to carry it out. I've seen some really stupid things done over the years.

I'm planning to move two small locomotives next year, and I am kind of grateful that they have to be moved off their own wheels. I actually think that as flatcar loads they will be less of a PITA to move than trying to move a larger loco on its own wheels, especially if those wheels aren't of the best profile or the couplers are not alignment control.

I have been curious how others view "controlled demolition" as a method of saving a piece of rolling stock. It is of course done occasionally with some buildings that have high historical value.

This kind of disassembly and reassembly should pose reasonably manageable technical problems provided that such a project is well designed by a person very familiar with the construction of the equipment and capable of making the informed decisions on where and how to cut it up. Reassembly is not unsimilar to marine construction using hull modules, and the most important consideration would be to have a good level working area and a good set of laser sighting equipment to get everything into proper alignment. The welding process is also not a great technical problem, there are specialty welders (particularly at Marine Systems in Virginia) who do EMD crankcase repairs, that would have no problem at all reassembling a locomotive underframe and welding it in a manner that will not leave any great residual stresses.

Admittedly though, this would be expensive and would also probably be confined to use on some of the highest value equipment stuck in the most difficult places. In many other cases there are value judgements to be made on whether the cost can be justified to save a nice locomotive or car if there are other essentially identical examples of the same builder and variant already preserved. I suspect in the future a lot of equipment is not going to meet the test and will be scrapped, so better to get as much as possible to safe havens as soon as possible.

I am still amazed that there is not more effort to use components from locomotives in museum displays. EMD effectively displayed prime movers, generators, trucks with motor combos, accessory racks, roof hatches, and even entire locomotive machinery sets (without the carbody) at their trade show displays and open house events. This kind of outside the box thinking could produce a more interesting attraction than lines of nicely painted equipment sitting silently coupled in parallel rows that look just like the stuff at that other railroad museum down the road.

PC

I think the big reason here is the space and even the proper support for displaying components. I don't know of any local museums to me (in the CT area) that have the space for displaying something like a prime mover. You won't put something like that on a spanned floor either, it would need a solid floor/slab for it's weight.

A few individuals that get a tour of RMNE's shop currently get to see a 567c in a disassembled state as it's getting rebuilt to go in the B&M GP-9 #1732. The adverage public doesn't get to see it though. If we wind up with an extra piston and/or cylinder liner we may be able to display it at the station.

This isn't just lack of ability... it's malicious, flaming indifference to history. If it was lack of ability, that could be fixed.

But nobody can learn anything if they are egotistically dependent on believing they already know everything.

The guy who figures how to crack that ... deserves a hefty grant.

Robert, you nailed it!