Disclaimer: This was my experience, some several years ago. This subject was also discussed with my OEM parts guy. Your mileage may vary.

Dave

Those of us who have to support the equipment in service pay little mind to what 'it looks like'...or rail fan ephemera. The truth is all 'about the numbers, i.e., FLY*, shop residence time, etc.

I suspect that viewing the 59 through the lens of a museum, one might say (in a most pedantic fashion), that most of the original fabric is gone.

Once again, what is in a name, anyhow ?

Dave

* Failures per Locomotive Year

Fair enough. I was not shopping with the OEM. I doubt they provide much support on the older stuff. We've used aftermarket from long standing vendors and had good luck with it..

ETA

These arguments over 244 v 251 and 567 v 645 are one of the reasons why it sometimes is difficult to take railroad historic preservation seriously.

It has almost reached the point where if a 60-year old locomotive doesn't have every nut, bolt, drop of fuel, water, lube oil, and smears on the windshield that it left the factory with, then it's not worthy of preservation or it suddenly becomes some evil spawn.

Back up a few paces and think hard. We are supposed to be preserving, educating and interpreting, are we not? One of the important parts of those tasks is the evolution.

A GP7 built in 1953 was a lot different inside than one built in 1949. So what? Except for a few radical fundamentalist preservationists, how do you propose to make this relevant to the average museum visitor? Outside of a handful of hardcore people and even fewer scholars, NOBODY CARES, and if we try to spend an hour trying to impress them with the difference between a PA truck and an Erie-built truck or a 567 piston and a 645 piston, not only will we lose them, they will be certain to tell their
friends to stay away as the place is staffed with loony rivet counters. And well they should.

Take a look inside a warbird cockpit sometime. Mostly, it's as built or as flown in it's era, but you find all the modern Navaids, too.

One of the motorhead shows took the hulk of a '70? Dodge Challenger and installed a modern powertrain, modern brakes and suspension...reconditioning (most of the) original external and passenger compartment texture. Probably a nice daily driver...but not a museum piece.

There is another motorhead show that illustrates the opposite approach. The owner of the featured restoration shop turns out cars that appear to have come right off the assembly line, complete with the correct assembly line markings, proper surface finishes on metal components and no small detail left to chance. Many of these cars (but not all) could be museum pieces on account the respect shown for the 'original artifact.' Obviously, attention to original detail comes at a price.

I stand by my original point. The eventual output of the 59 groups efforts will not be a PA-1...as it doesn't conform to the spec. The correct component set to assemble a PA-1 is long gone. This statement isn't rivet counting-it is fact.

By extension ,a P-51D Mustang with some (unknown) engine substituted for the original Merlin engine is not a P-51D-modern avionics (which is safety equipment) not withstanding. The performance characteristics of the Merlin are an essential element of what makes a Mustang a Mustang.

There are those within the railroad museum community who do not believe that 'everything has to run.' IMHO, this is where the 'Flying Yankee' ran into trouble...designing the spec so the train could 'run on Amtrak.' Did Amtrak promise to operate the train ? Certainly, the funds that were expended toward 'Amtrak compatibility' could've been better spent on moving the project toward completion-whether it could run or not.

With that said, which approach fulfills the 'mission of preservation, interpretation and education' in a more satisfactory manner-accurately restoring the empty carbody as a static display (which can be accomplished at a manageable cost) OR committing to the concept of 'making it run'-with all the attendant issues and possible runaway expenses ?

Dave

As I understand it, the Flying Yankee ran into trouble when its caretakers insisted on attempting to revive the unsupportable original Winton engine against the advice of at least one well-respected EMD expert.

I do agree with you, in a way . . . I doubt that any self-respecting auto museum would display a Deusenberg, for example, with a Buick engine, at least with the hood open. On the other hand, if the Flying Yankee (or Santa Fe 59) were returned to service with non-original power plants, restoration of the visible parts would allow us to enjoy the sight of a PA pulling (hopefully) a string of ex-Santa Fe coaches, or the experience of riding the Flying Yankee, possibly on one of its actual routes.

I'd also assert that there are many, many more antique automobiles available for restoration (and to use as parts donors) than there are rare locomotives like the PA.

In the short term, perhaps the Texans should acquire the donor unit now but concentrate on a cosmetic, exterior restoration of the PA before attempting to bring it back to life.

The Canadian Railway Museum has two beautiful MLW FA's in its collection, and the interior of at least one (CN 9400) is open to the public, complete with a 12-244 engine and original (at the time of the unit's retirement) mechanicals. On the other hand, I don't think it's operational, so while this unit has physically been suspended in time, it can't provide the experience of seeing an FA in action.

Given the PA's present "hulk" status, keeping what remains of the "original fabric" (I dislike that term) and building on that would allow us the experience of seeing a PA in action once again. The PA's nose, cab, and roofline are possibly its most distinctive attibutes, and those parts are still present on Santa Fe 59.

No, it would not be a "pure" restoration, but it would be as good as is practicably possible. Which, IMO, is better than nothing.

There's a group here in the UK who are restoring a 1903 Petrol(Gas)/Electric railcar from the North Eastern Railway to operation.

http://www.electricautocar.co.uk/index.html

The body survived as accomodation/storage buildings and they have sourced a suitable underframe and bogies (trucks) for it. The rest of the mechanical/electrical parts are being replaced using modern, or fairly recent equipment, and will in fact, be powered by a new diesel engine, rather than a petrol one.
Externally it will look and run like it did in the 1920's, but using modern motive power equipment and as a diesel electric.

If it heads a train like a PA, and looks like a PA, and smells like a PA, it's a PA! How many PA's and FA's were repowered in the 60's and still were cherished by hobbyists? You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need.

Now it this was a Trainmaster or C-Liner and you were repowering it with the prime mover from a GP40, things might be different.

Hi,

I recall the construction article from the early 1970's for using two Athearn SW1500s(?) and a Hustler to build an HOn3 facsimilie of N4700 - the USA narrow gauge B-B diesel used on the D&RGW narrow gauge in the early 1950's.

I used a similar technique for making a PRR-like facsimilie of a Silverliner using the SW1500 and a coach.

If it is good enough for the owner, it's good enough for me.

Doug vV

Recommended Practices published by the former Association of Railway Museums offers the following suggested guidelines (italics added for emphasis):

2. Preservation and conservation practices are codified in a written document that
provides guidelines for making responsible preservation, conservation, and
restoration decisions for each of the museum's collections. These guidelines provide
for:
a. Object condition reports
b. Procedures to provide short, medium, or long-term stabilization and storage
c. An evaluation and justification for the level of each object's use for display,
operation, etc.
d. A comprehensive restoration plan, developed prior to the initiation of
restoration work, that addresses:
• The extent of restoration proposed for each object, and scope/amount of
alterations from present condition that would be necessary
• Proposed appearance/time period of restoration, including supporting
historical and interpretive justification
• Use, conservation, preservation, or replacement of original fabric
• Degree of historical accuracy to be achieved
e. Use of original versus replica material or objects
f. Documentation procedures, including photographs and written notes of all
aspects of work performed
g. Funding sources and cost estimates

Using the above guidelines, a reconstruction of Santa Fe 59 would be following Museum practice. I would venture to say this project is not a restoration as much as a reconstruction of reproduction. It would serve a valuable purpose to interpret the iconic design of the PA.

Wesley

Considering the current condition of the locomotive it also offers the opportunity for a partial restoration to try out any of a variety of unusual display concepts, for example with one side restored and the other side "visible". As far as 244 engines are concerned, with no 16-244 prime movers available, why not section a 12-244 in a zig-zag across the engine at the center cylinders and space the two sections out to 16-244 length so visitors could look into the open center of the engine. This would be like the CAT 3612 in the Peoria Training Center, as shown here:

http://tugboatenthusiastsociety.org/Pag ... es-CAT.htm

There are lots of display concepts that could be tried out with a locomotive that in this condition, most static display options would be considerably less expensive than a running restoration, and it could be done in a way that is not detrimental to completing a total restoration to allow for running the locomotive when and if the money and opportunity become available.

PC

Thank you Wesley for quoting the ARM Recommended Practices... They are one of several published museum standards, to which we need to try work to...

The other commonly used (and or miss-used) standard is the Secretary of Interior's Recommended Practices for Historic Preservation... http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm These are popular if only because they are used when naming properties or objects to the National Register...

There is a variation of the Secretary's standards for ships... http://www.maritime.org/pres/standard.htm

and a web page on using the Secretary's standards for historic aircraft... https://tighar.org/Projects/Histpres/guide.html

Within the Secretary's standards, are very specific definitions of repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction and restoration... technical terms covering specific activities... and in general, "Restoration" as uses by railroad preservationist is not the same as "restoration" as in the standards...

This may seem to be splitting hairs, but if you are asking someone for funding, they, particularly if a government agency will review your proposal using standards, likely the Secretary of Interior's standards... and using incorrect terms might sink you grant request.

There are also standards for care and preservation used in museums... Art museums etc... and their standards don't address deteriorated artifacts like a PA shell with no trucks or mechanical equipment... or the changes that occur when a complex mechanical device is used in commercial service... a Ming vase is a Ming Vase unless dropped and destroyed... there is no first livery, second livery and they are rarely reboilered or remotered...

One note, and maybe even a challenge... can anyone find a museum, preservation or "restoration" standard that included original material as a percentage as a test? It is a concept brought up on these pages that doesn't seem to be discussed in other, more "professional" preservation circles...

Randy

Randy,

Thanks for bringing up the use of the term "restoration". I recall seeing a film about Colonial Williamsburg ca. 1968 that discussed the terms restoration and reconstruction. The Raleigh Tavern was presented as a restoration and the Governor's Palace and Capitol were reconstructions. While I cannot easily find the Williamsburg citation, I would submit a project like Santa Fe 59, is a reconstruction, given what there is/was to work with in terms of surviving materials, ditto for Doyle's NKP 19. Closer to home, our museum's work on Third Avenue Railway 678 would be a restoration since we started with a complete and operating car and did major maintenance by replacing the roof canvas and backdating the car from its service Vienna, Austria.

It would would have been helpful if museum terminology had been included in Recommended Practices.

I will look further to see what else I can find on the subject or terminology.

Wesley

Not really answering Randy's question, but such standards have been a part of locomotive manufacturing for many decades, defining the difference between an LRO "replacement" locomotive and a "new" product. Similar standards are applied to the calculation of US-built content to determine if a locomotive product meets the applicable requirements for particular types of public funding in the commuter rail industry.

PC

This is an excellent discussion that touches on the dilemma of Historic preservation verses Interpretive Operation. It can be argued that one cannot explain the railroading experience without operating equipment, and I can readily understand that. Although I had a steam railroad nearby (the McCloud River Railroad) and had heard and watched branch line steam run, it wasn't until late one night in Redding California when the Royal Hudson roared past the station with its train of passenger cars on a publicity trip through the western United State that I saw the flash of train, felt the rush of air, the calophony of side rods, valve linkage and exhaust blast at speed, felt the rumble of the earth, and then the scent of cylinder oil, exhaust and condensing steam that I experienced mainline steam. As you can tell, that experience is still with me, and still remembered as a wonderus event. Sad to say, no stationary display, nor even a movie can convey the multi-sensory experience.
To that end, many time original fabric is sacrificed. SP4449 has had much replaced, both during its historic operating period and even during its current operational period. Has this diminished the historical experience? I rather think not.
On the other hand, I restore antique cars, and I try to keep them "as built"--although I might use more modern materials hidden inside the mechanism (for example, bronze washers instead of Babbitted ones, that tend to crumble). The PA, as it is now, was heavily modified over its service life, and there is very little left of its original fabric, so much so that 'restoration' may be a misnomer, even though the finished product will look very much like its former self. Spare parts, basically, do not exist, as they do for most automobile restorations. Using "in-like" components is the only viable way to bring it back to operation, given available funding (with unlimited funding one could completely recreate an original engine, etc., but in practicality, would it be worth it--would the project ever get finished? (The Flying Yankee syndrome)). In the end, I believe the final test is: will it operate and sound like an Alco? All the work will be documented--the path to its current condition IS already well-documented! As long as one "does no harm" and documents what is done for the future generations, I believe museum practices are being followed.
It won't be a "hot rod" it will be an Alco PA-5! :)