While it is not how railroad museums think, consider a collection/display (now not possible) which might include the Advanced Concept train, an Auto Train, a early bud car, a Metroliner, a Boeing LRV and a PCC... and/or similar cars that advanced railroad technology and design. They would tell a great story.

In the art museum community, someone might have such a concept, then borrow art from other museums or private collectors, for a defined time period, with a core interpretive message.

Of course, our artifacts are generally too large to easily transport so loans are difficult. Many sites are too close to survival mode to thing big...

Randy

That's sorta what we had in mind when making offers to groups that had similar things like Aerotrain and the like. I'm still thinking the jet powered RDC is something I'd like to see demonstrated at TVRM (round the curve... crash!). That's another conversation entirely, however. :-)

Yeah... But... The early Budd car, Metroliner, Boeing LRV and PCC, are all things that had long and successful service lives, and should be familiar to many people, at least through pictures as time goes on. Even the Pioneer Zephyr, while quickly eclipsed by bigger trains, had a useful service life in its own right. The problem with these 'dog and pony show' concept cars is while they may have had advanced, for the time, mechanical equipment, they also came with all sorts of outlandish things that were included for their WOW factor... strange ends, strange doors, strange carbody cross sections. Given our limited resources, wouldn't it make more sense to preserve, say a pair of CTA Boeing-Vetrol cars, of which there were a couple hundred, rather than the one of-a-kind? The Boeing cars likely incorporated many of the mechanical innovations of the SOAC cars, wrapped in a useful package that a couple generations can identify with. THAT's the cars your gran'pappy rode, kiddies, not that 'Buck Rogers' thing.

SOAC was actually the genesis for the R-44 and R-46 subway cars in NY City, so it actually did serve a function.

I rode SOAC during its demonstration runs on the BMT Brighton line, I guess in 1974 or so. It really was quite impressive at the time for ride quality, and the "p-wire" transition (albeit a bit buggy in its early days) was far smoother than the the three-position controllers on subway cars at the time. Back in the day when they were a little more adventurous about track speed, I recall seeing the digital display reading 64 MPH on the flats of the Brighton express tracks...

I have the brochure they gave out onboard somewhere in the archives...I'll have to see if I can find it.

Not a story worth telling. Anything post-1930 is junk.

PCCs, super-power, RDC cars, anything stainless or welded or with stokers or AB brakes. It's all just taking up carbarn space that we should be using to collect more USRA boxcars. And what's with superheaters. That was a development the world just didn't need.

We're on it: http://www.irm.org/events/snowflakespecial.html

So, Strongly suspecting that Robert is being sarcastic, how do we show modern relevance with a collection which is mostly now 80+ years old if not connecting to modern rail systems...

Randy

While we're at it, let's remember equipment replacement is coming up for BART and the Washington Metro. . .

(ducks for cover. . .)

Well, the MODERN relevance is the comparison with the equipment that is still in service... admittedly difficult if your collection is mainly obscure pieces from far off corners of the world, but that's why highly detailed collections should be local in nature.

What is maybe more important is the continuity of the collection... if you have an example of every significant design used over the years, you can easily illustrate the design progression, up to the equipment that is still running, and that should be something that is mostly familiar to your visitors. Even if they don't ride the local transit system, they see it around, and the most modern pieces in the collection won't look all that different from what is still running.

The problem with trying to acquire every prototype, one-of-a-kind, and other oddity is that you end up with a freak show, that no one can relate to. Anyone who has had to trudge through The House On The Rock attraction in Wisconsin knows what I mean.

A bit off off the topic but as FYI...

P (potential, or voltage) control actually dates from the IC electric mu cars dating back to 1928.

In the mid-40's, GE took out a patent on the application of this concept to the control of dynamic braking in Alco/GE road locos.

The LIRR M-1 of 1968 cars introduced the use of P-wire control in heavy commuter
rail stock-controlling both propulsion and braking.

I suspect the SOAC equipment brought the application of P-wire into what some of us would refer to as "subway" type equipment.

DPK

Just to correct the impression that the "engine" on this train was a total failure, this propulsion system worked well enought to be tested at Pueblo for a period of time. It was complex, involving a flywheel energy storage system, but was not a complete failure as has been stated. It did not tour the country like the State of the Art (SOAC) cars and wasn't duplicated, but it did work.

Why?

Well, if being part of the story of technological success is the only reason to preserve railroad equipment, then I agree that such dead end oddities are not the most useful way to use the limited resources that we have.

If, on the other hand, your museum dabbles in social or political history as they pertain to railroads--or vice versa--then I'd make a different argument. This is a prime example of the type of government spending and experimentation that occurred in the 1970s. It is emblematic of the period.

I say if you want young and future generations to understand the things that make the political pendulum swing, then you need to keep stuff like this around. You know...those who don't understand the past are doomed to yadda yadda....

I'd bet that as an exhibit theme, political influence in railroading would draw at least as much interest from the general public as, say, a context-less exhibit on the technological evolution of transit vehicles--and in many cases more. After all, it's a story full of dirt (hey, there's dirt in politics?) and a heck of a lot of people eat dirt like it's a delicacy. If nothing else, they find it interesting.

That said, if you really are with a technology-focused museum, you might still have a place for something like this. If you chose to explore the ins and outs of invention and innovation under varying circumstances, with all the personalities and politics involved, then the story of how such a failure came to be in the first place might make for a pretty interesting exhibit. That way it's a human story, and not one that is just about nuts and bolts.

Admittedly, I don't know what that story is for this particular piece. For all I know, it really is boring. But, I'd bet not. If it really was a failure and a bad idea from the start, someone, somewhere, probably raised some questions at some point. Perhaps they were shushed, or perhaps they were just ignored. Either way, they were bypassed by someone else had a motivation for proceeding in spite of it. On the other hand, if Mr. Goldfeder is right and some things worked, and it earned a reputation as a dud anyway, I'm sure there are some politics at work there too. To me, if the details still existed, that whole interplay would make a fascinating story. I'd bet my non-railfan, would-rather-go-see-quilts mother, or my "these trains are neat, hey when's the game on" buddy, would actually agree. They're still suckers for a good story.

No matter what, if you provide the technical information, technology people will get it. Done. Easy. However, for those whose frame of reference comes from the outside, it's got to relate to something a little more universal. For a head of household who is all about saving money, or a parent who is all about safety for young riders, a little bit of the backstory behind the technology is necessary to make it relevant...and therefore interesting. Lucky for you, economics and safety are both drivers of technology, just like politics, AND they are things that lots of people can relate to.

At the end of the day, I am not losing sleep over the loss of this ugly duckling, nor have I given it a moment's thought since I last saw it. It was definitely a fish out of water at TVRM.

Nevertheless, I do think that our museums might sometimes benefit from a bigger view of what can make an artifact interesting. This especially goes for exhibits that must please the wallet-wielding, non-expert, don't have to come back if they're bored, usually did come to at least learn something, "oh wow, Maude, what a neat story," 80-90% of our visitorship. If you can tell the really neat story that makes the piece worth keeping, then you are providing the service your customer came for.

Best,
David A. Vago

Just for reference--modern equipment preservation in Canada:

http://www.trha.ca/LRC/

The cars of the LRC sets were the design basis of the cars used in Amtrak's Acela:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRC_(train)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express

[quote="gmray"] After many years in the intense sun, the glazing began to craze significantly. quote]
The SOAC cars at Seashore have the same problem with the glazing on the main drivers compartment windows. When I was there over the summer, both cars had the windows cracked and distorted. The car facing towards the museum entrance (I can't remember the number) looked like it's windshield was shot with a cannonball! Our motorman on the Ct. Company 303 said it was because of the experimental nature of the window glazing. Seems to reason that both the ACT-1 and the SOAC were both testing the same technologies, albiet in different applications. I would have imagined that the SOAC and ACT-1 wouldn't be testing the same technologies (or types of glass for that matter).

There is a second LRC loco preserved at Exporail.