And how, exactly, does one bring ANY RR equipment from ''artifact" status to operating status without crossing that static museum/operating (AKA TOURIST) museum line? It certainly is in the interest of the operating museum to keep their equipment up to some reasonably correct representation of the original. However, the reality of today is that if we want to take antique equipment out on the road we have to compromise with the modern world, i.e. roller versus plain bearings. Each tourist RR/operating museum must make those decisions and most typically opt to keep the more historically significant equipment home. SOU 630 has oiled main bearings instead of its original greased mains. The 4501 is getting roller bearings on its front and rear trucks AND on its tender. Is that a bad thing when these locomotives can do more to bring the steam era to more people than ANY stuffed and mounted artifact possibly can?

On the other hand, is it the right thing to do to keep a lovingly and historically accurate restoration of a wooden coach locked up in the car shed where the public can only look in a few of the windows? How is this interperting history? How does the interested public get any feel of what this car might have been like to ride in? After all THAT is what it was originally built for!

Every steam locomotive in existence today is a shadow of its original self. Nearly every steamer that survived was put out to pasture only when its owner used up its economic value. And that meant that the legacy passed to us was a worn out barely functioning machine. The artifact can't tell us much about the details of its original construction. We have libraries and archives to tell us that. And if we are going to go to the huge expense of restoration to a close representation of "the original fabric", why is it not a great idea to finish the job so the "artifact" DOES what it was designed to do?

Did I miss something, like maybe a deleted post? How did this thread turn into a debate about "historic fabric"? Did my suggestion about putting an MU box into a steam locomotive, thus allowing it to lead a diesel with a much larger train, and on a scenic railroad -and not a museum-, set off this argument?

Historically I believe the Clinchfield was the first to add diesel controls to a steam locomotive, their number 1. I believe UP 844 has a set, as does NKP 765, Southern 630, and I'm sure others; a list would be interesting reading.

As others have stated, railroads constantly modified their locomotives to reflect operating conditions. And if a railroad sold a locomotive to another, it often received many changes to reflect the new owners operating conditions. To bring this back on point, WMSR 734 is no longer LS&I 34, but that is fine. WMSR is not claiming to be a museum; instead they are an operating railroad, which modified their power to fit their operation and to match their local history.

Any time a discussion is started about a museum giving up a piece for restoration, or a group wanting a piece from a museum to restore, etc etc, this argument comes up. People want to see historic locomotive run again, but many people don't want to sacrifice "historical accuracy" to see them run, which sadly is necessary at times. It's nothing you did, no worries

[quote="hamsternd how, exactly, does one bring ANY RR equipment from ''artifact" status to operating status without crossing that static museum/operating (AKA TOURIST) museum line?[/quote]

About twice a year we have this same discussion.......

If you are in the historic preservation business, you set aside a certain portion of your stuff to be consumed and altered as necessary as a part of fulfilling that interpretive mission. You have the responsibility to document all changes in fabric and condition you make is you use it.

You have other stuff you preserve (or conserve) and don't use. It's to be maintained in its as acquired condition. Other stuff can be altered to represent its condition at a time of historic relevance (restoration) and then not used but preserved for posterity, again with all restorative changes documented.

You can also create a replica of a specific missing component of a series of artifacts from a similar artifact - say, a F unit from one railroad replicates an F unit from your interpreted railroad. One 57 Chevy is much like any 57 Chevy. Again, you document the changes and include the fact of replication in your interpretive media.

On VERY RARE occasions, such as the John Bull a few years back, a preserved artifact might be chosen to be carefully and gently used minimally for documentation of is behavior in operation.

So, you make decisions about which category you put different things into based on your mission and goals. Once so placed, it should be a difficult process full of good rational reasoning to move something from one category into another.....since it may imply irreversible changing of history. If you don't get this stuff you don't belong in any position of authority in a museum.

dave

Here is the citation from Recommended Practices:



Using these guidelines, the B&O Museum might reach an agreement with WMSR to use C&O 1309.

Likewise, a museum may also designate hamster's hypothetical wood coach as an object to be stored and cared for.

Wesley

I really wish to see a C&O H6 running. I help take care of sister 1308 in Huntington, WV and it's beautiful just sitting there. But to ride behind one would be neat! I hope this gets past the talking stages and turned into reality. Now, "original fabric or modified". My 2cents is this: If you are running out on a Class I, provided everything lines up, my vote is modify. Anything to help keep the spotlight off you, to a certain degree, is a help. Case in point: N&W Class A 1218. This last batch of A's were fitted with lightweight roller bearing rods exactly like the J's had, plus many other refinements of the time. Had the N&W hung onto steam longer, their plans were to do all of these mods to all of their loco's that had rollers on the main drive axles including the Y6's. It would've kept in tune with N&W history in a sense. Hmmm. 150 miles or 1,000+ miles between rod lubrication? A lot of time saved out on the "mainline road". Since the C&O did this with their Hudsons and Greenbriers (Northern), I'd love to do that treatment to a Kanawha (Berkshire). Talk about the ultimate 2-8-4! Keep the original stuff around and display it though. The old technology needs recognition for what it did as well.

https://www.facebook.com/Wmsrsteam

"Unfortunately, the internet is full rumors and we here at the Western Maryland Scenic Railroad do not support the spreading of such rumors. The facts are that we are considering a second locomotive, and one of which we are considering is the 1309. We have talked with the B&O Museum about the 1309, but don't have any other word at this time about the acquisition. I can confirm, however, that we have also looked at 3 other options for locomotives at this point. As soon as we have any facts to report, we will do so and Facebook will be one of the first places we post any news. Michael Gresham, General Superintendent"

From the Facebook page for the Western Maryland Scenic Railroad when asked about the C&O 1309.


Tim Wilson

The drawings for such a retrofit may just exist somewhere. When I worked for the N&W in the early 80's, one of the people I had the good fortune to work with was former NKP machinist Clarence Williams (then an N&W General Foreman). Clarence said when he was a young man in the 1950's, he'd gone to Terminal Tower in Cleveland to provide input on the NEXT class of NKP Berkshires and that one of the planned improvements was roller bearing rods. He said there were reps from Timken and SKF present and that drawings for the rods had already been produced.

I've never read anything else about this but I'd love to see what such a Berk would have looked like.

Not to start any internet rumors or anything, but I wonder if they looked at the 1604 while they are at the B&O Museum?

(runs for cover....)

Wouldn't that be lovely, seeing an Allegheny under power? One can only wish. So what is the final word on the 1309? Is she going to WMS? Is she being prepped by the B&O Museum?

Patience, patience, this is only in the initial stages, look how long it took a big road with a lot of money to commit to rebuilding a 4-8-8-4, and another to go with a 2-6-6-4. . .



I had dreams of that myself, as a big prop for that TV series I tried to sell. One of the themes of it would have been that steam development didn't end with Sierra No. 3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1IpkxCCro4



Now, that is interesting! What are the other three locomotives?

Considering the requirement for any engine to be able to fit on the Frostburg turntable, I would think that rules the Allegheny out. That said, if someone found that you could fit one there, things would get considerably more interesting... Still, that monstrosity would be overkill for even the WMSR.

The question becomes exactly what WMSR is looking at other than the 1309, since other engines were mentioned. While there are some good curves on the C&P into Frostburg, the turntable length is the limiting factor. Considering the 734 is a pretty good sized 2-8-0, one would think any power they are looking at has to be large Mikado or better to make it worth their time/investment. You've got 12-car passenger trains on a 1.5-3% grade, so you need something that can pull a heavy train at medium to low speeds to cut out the need for a 2nd crew for a diesel helper. That should narrow down the possibilities to an extent. Regardless of the desire, something like that WM 4-6-2 in Hagerstown doesn't really suit the railroad's needs.

Just throwing out some options, one would think they might have looked into C&O 2716 at the Kentucky Railway Museum. Big, powerful, booster-equipped, and probably wouldn't take much to turn it into a "WM Potomac cousin", if desired. The fact that the engine has been leased before (Clinchfield, SR, FWRHS) is beneficial also. Depending on the situation in New Hope, the NdeM 4-8-4 up there might be a viable candidate also, as would the T&P 610 at the Texas State Railroad (long shot, but well suited to the requirements, and presumably in decent shape being under-cover for the past 30 years).

Either way, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Kevin

I would think that they would be looking a bit closer to home than Texas, and a 2-8-4 would make perfect sense in the light of the requirements. Can anyone say NKP 759 perhaps? The 2716? Good choices but ultimately, not ours to make. The bottom line is, another boiler will do what it is designed to do, make money for its owners.

Don't pounce down my throat, but how about the last I1sa Decapod, stored in Hamburg, New York? Oh, please, tell me it's a candidate???

Good one! But of course they'd have to change the Belpaire firebox, change the cab, and move the headlight to make it resemble one of those WM 2-10-0's. :-)

Are there any other big decapods left? I know there are plenty of Russian dec's and a few of the former SAL or similar light decapods around.