Today I found some interesting B&O Museum items at the University of Louisville Library. You might want to check your local library to see if these items are avaiable. The first is titled "The Catalog of the Centenary Exhibition of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad" which has information on all of the displays, the full scale wooden locomotive models, the historic B&O locomotives, and the visitors such as the General, and the Great Western's King George V. The second one is entitled "Editorials on the Centenary Exhibition and Pagent of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad" which contains newspaper articles about the pagent. Both are interesting and worth checking out.

david.wilkins@inisightbb.com

> Today I found some interesting B&O
> Museum items at the University of Louisville
> Library. You might want to check your local
> library to see if these items are avaiable.
> The first is titled "The Catalog of the
> Centenary Exhibition of the Baltimore and
> Ohio Railroad" which has information on
> all of the displays, the full scale wooden
> locomotive models, the historic B&O
> locomotives, and the visitors such as the
> General, and the Great Western's King George
> V. The second one is entitled
> "Editorials on the Centenary Exhibition
> and Pagent of the Baltimore and Ohio
> Railroad" which contains newspaper
> articles about the pagent. Both are
> interesting and worth checking out.

The "Catalogue" is well-known in the Baltimore area; in fact, in my RR library work it seems like I'm literally tripping over a copy every time I turn around (even though it sells at train shows from $50 up). It was printed in both paperback and hardback. It includes a comprehensive listing of EVERY item on display at the 1927 Fair; you'd be surprised at the breadth and depth of the exhibition, with plenty of examples of everything from technical displays of brake and coupler technology to whimsical historical artifacts.

On the other hand, it only tells you what the B&O wanted to tell the public. It portrayed several replicas and modifications as original equipment, including calling the CNJ wooden cars "1860s Civil War era cars".

If one wants to investigate inter-library loan, a lot of historical-society and public libraries in central Maryland have this book available, although not freely circulating.


lner4472@bcpl.net

Yeah, I did notice that some stuff wasn't portrayed as it really was. However, I was interested to find out that the coal pot hoppers were reproductions, and that the Layfayette carried the name "William Galloway" and the 4-6-0 Camelback carried the name "Ross Winans." UofL has two copies of each, both donated by Justice Louis D. Brandeis who was originally from Louisville and evidently were part of the "Albert Fink and Milton Smith Railroad Library." Smith and Fink where both executives of the L&N, Smith was the President for many years, I can't think what Fink did, but he was instrumental in developing modern accounting methods to scientifically charge rates based on what it actually cost the railroad to haul freight. It was an interesting development that was undone by the intervention of the ICC.

david.wilkins@inisightbb.com

I was
> interested to find out that the coal pot
> hoppers were reproductions,

I've always had the impression from Museum publications, etc., that the pot hoppers are original, just very late examples of the breed, with a build date ca. 1884.


B&O museum Web updates 3/5/03
eledbetter@rypn.org

To correct a term, the 4-6-0 at the B&O Museum is a "Camel" not a "Camelback."

The Camels began with Winans 0-8-0's in the 1840's (although the two surviving Camels are 4-6-0's and are not Winans engines)and got the name from the huge steam dome that resembled a camel's hump. The cab is forward, on top of the boiler.

Camelbacks are the wide-firebox center-cab engines developed by the Philadelphia and Reading in the 1870's. Wootten Camelbacks are not directly descended from the Winans Camels but the P&R had a large fleet of Camels and the name probably is derived from the Camels. A Camelback's cab is wrapped around the boiler.

Curiously, each of the two museums that has a Camel also has a Camelback.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

> Curiously, each of the two museums that has
> a Camel also has a Camelback.

Which other museum has a Camel?

btrue@vt.edu

Museum of Transportation in St. Louis County, MO. I believe the B&O gave it to Purdue Univ. way back when, and that collection went to MOT. Both Camels are 4-6-0's from the 1870's.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

The Museum of Transportation in St. Louis has B&O "Camel" 4-6-0 #173, built in 1873 and DL&W "Camelback" 4-4-0 #952 built in 1905. The B&O engine ran to Purdue University under its own power and came to the museum with the rest of that collection in 1951.


Museum of Transportation
rdgoldfede@aol.com

I just checked Jack White's American Railroad Freight Car re. the Port Hoppers.

Based on a physical inspection of the cars at Mt. Clare and a comparison to contemporary drawings, White positively refutes the description in the B&O Centenary Catalog identifying the pot hoppers as reproductions of Civil War era prototypes, and confidently asserts that they are instead 1880s originals, B&O class Q-1, with only minor repairs to wooden components. They are the real deal, just of a later era than the catalog alleges.

Saving Time
eledbetter@rypn.org

Some debate has ensued in the past about outside groups "reclaiming" various pieces from MOT. Here's an idea: why not just loan the interested parties the desired engines without giving up ownership? B&O Hayes camel No. 173 could be loaned to B&O Museum and DL&W 952 could be loaned to Steamtown. Both institutions are responsbile parties who could care for the display of both engines in appropriate interpretive settings (under cover of course with security), and the engines could be returned to MOT after the loan expires (providing the loans are not extended). Loans of artifacts between museums happens all the time--look at the Pennsylvania Railroad Museum, where the Smithsonian has various pieces of equipment on loan. If managed correctly, the arrangement could work out very well. No fights, no lawsuits, no taking of property, just responsible loan management between two good museums, and MOT retains owenrship of the locos. It's a win-win for all--each of the parties receive priceless examples appropos to the interpretive missions of their historic sites and MOT gets their engines back at the end of the loan period. Good publicity for MOT, Steamtown and B&O, and everybody is happy in the end.

That's the kind of rational thinking railway preservation needs to think consider, instead of groups of zealots going for the jugular with the threat of a lawsuit to reclaim what they think is rightfully theirs. Compromise and friendly relations always works best. Steve

> The Museum of Transportation in St. Louis
> has B&O "Camel" 4-6-0 #173,
> built in 1873 and DL&W
> "Camelback" 4-4-0 #952 built in
> 1905. The B&O engine ran to Purdue
> University under its own power and came to
> the museum with the rest of that collection
> in 1951.

I certainly agree that more loans throughout our movement would be a good thing; we could learn a lot from Britain's heritage railways in this connection, and the Smithsonian's recent loans are also an excellent step. Loans can be an excellent way for museums to enrich their programming and interpretation.

Some practical considerations--generally in a loan, the recipient pays the cost of moving, insurance, and everything else for the duration of the loan. Given how strapped most of our organizations are, you need a darned good justification for spending that money on a loan rather than working on your own collection. Since MOT and the danged Camelback have been mentioned (I am SO tired of that topic) I will note that I for one would prefer Steamtown to invest any surplus diniero in restoring its own DL&W engine before thinking about funding any loan from elsewhere, be it MOT or otherwise. And B&O certainly has other things on their mind than borrowing a duplicate Hayes Camel.

More to the point, I hate to see MOT singled out as the poster child for this topic. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; if it applies to MOT it applies to (to pick some names out of my hat at random) IRM, or New Freedom, or CSRM, etc. There's no need to make this an MOT-specific issue, and we might do better discussing the loan idea on its own abstract merits.

One last thought--when loans do happen they have to be carefully arranged and the terms very clear. I can think of a few such efforts within railway preservation that for one reason or another have lead to controversy and hard feelings.

Saving Time
eledbetter@rypn.org

A lot of what you said is verbally clever articulation, however a lot of logistics of handling loans is obvious. It is part of the price of doing business in the museum field. I cite MOT because of the historic richness of their core collection extends to dozens of related rail museum collections around the country since they started collecting earlier than most. Practically speaking, museums can offset the costs of transportation through obtaining grant monies, as has been done at my museum. When you have a rare opportunity to borrow an important engine or car, you find a way of coming up with the money to do it, one way or another. You might be SO tired of talking about 952 but it is a classic example of how a loan of a key interpretive piece could enrich Steamtown's interpreation since it is only one of two DL&W engines remaining, and assigned to that very roundhouse at one time. Telling the important stories of your facility or historic site is the reason why you have a collection in the first place--it is an educational tool to be used. If it means going out of the way to borrow a very important piece from another museum, the effort should be made to do so. It is worth it.

Out of curiosity, Erik, have you ever worked for a railway museum? A year or two of real experience in the trenches on the administrative/curatorial side of the house (and not just volunteering as a weekend warrior) would likely change your perspective on things a bit. I've been there and some of the rhetoric that I read on these chat pages and what actually goes on in the real world is surprisingly different. Just something to think about.

> I certainly agree that more loans throughout
> our movement would be a good thing; we could
> learn a lot from Britain's heritage railways
> in this connection, and the Smithsonian's
> recent loans are also an excellent step.
> Loans can be an excellent way for museums to
> enrich their programming and interpretation.

> Some practical considerations--generally in
> a loan, the recipient pays the cost of
> moving, insurance, and everything else for
> the duration of the loan. Given how strapped
> most of our organizations are, you need a
> darned good justification for spending that
> money on a loan rather than working on your
> own collection. Since MOT and the danged
> Camelback have been mentioned (I am SO tired
> of that topic) I will note that I for one
> would prefer Steamtown to invest any surplus
> diniero in restoring its own DL&W engine
> before thinking about funding any loan from
> elsewhere, be it MOT or otherwise. And
> B&O certainly has other things on their
> mind than borrowing a duplicate Hayes Camel.

> More to the point, I hate to see MOT singled
> out as the poster child for this topic.
> What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the
> gander; if it applies to MOT it applies to
> (to pick some names out of my hat at random)
> IRM, or New Freedom, or CSRM, etc. There's
> no need to make this an MOT-specific issue,
> and we might do better discussing the loan
> idea on its own abstract merits.

> One last thought--when loans do happen they
> have to be carefully arranged and the terms
> very clear. I can think of a few such
> efforts within railway preservation that for
> one reason or another have lead to
> controversy and hard feelings.

> Out of curiosity, Erik, have you ever worked
> for a railway museum?

If you e-mail me back channel, I'd be glad to continue the conversation with you and explain my background.

eledbetter@rypn.org

> If you e-mail me back channel, I'd be glad
> to continue the conversation with you and
> explain my background.

Erik-

Very nicely handled. I too, would love to see a certain SW-1 back in Michigan on a loan basis, but I have no qualms with how she has been handled
where she as at. There are literarly hundreds of cases like this, and while I think its healthy to discuss an objects importance to a given collection, I also think its equally important to be respectful of our fellow museums, both staff and volunteers. B&O has done a wonderful job (yes, even with the roof cave-in) of preserving and maintaining their collections, period. Suggesting anything else is nothing more than backbiting. Now, if I could just get my hands on a certain BL-2 from the Monhardt estate......

TJG

Port Huron Museum
tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

> Very nicely handled. I too, would love to
> see a certain SW-1 back in Michigan on a
> loan basis, but I have no qualms with how
> she has been handled
> where she as at.

Well, thanks TJ but actually my first response to Steve was pretty contentious, for which I apologize to him and everybody. I seem to get very hot under the collar about this issue and as Steve rightly pointed out it showed in my post.

eledbetter@rypn.org