Umm, it was built as a 4-4-0 in 1879 and is now a piston valve 2-8-0. How much of this locomotive is original?

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/09/13-former-santa-fe-locomotive-on-display-at-oklahoma-museum

The tender might be original, but the addition of an oil bunker obviously isn't, the smokestack isn't, most of the firebox isn't, the running gear of course, and probably the addition of a power reverse from what I can see. You'd be amazed how little of the "original" locomotive is actually left after 100+ years...

There doesn't seem to be much in the way of material used in the construction of a 1879 4-4-0 that could be re-used in an 1890's era 2-8-0, other than the bell and whistle, so I'm going to hazard a guess that this is an error, either in the interpretation of the railroad's roster, or indeed incorporated in the railroad's records. It has been known to happen.

According to this link, she was indeed a Hinckley 4-4-0 with the name "Hardon." I kid you not. http://atsf.railfan.net/atsfstea.html

Rob

I don't know about other states, but New Jersey made railroads liable for sales tax on all "new" locomotives. But not on "rebuilt" locomotives. I remember when I was running on Conrail and the GP-15's arrived. They were for all intents and purposes "new" locomotives. But the basic truck frame was re-cycled from traded in locomotives so they were technically rebuilt locomotives and not "new" for sales tax purposes.

I still suspect an error, but I will grant that the definition of "rebuilt" for tax purposes can be a slippery slope.

I've had this discussion before concerning Soo Line caboose 99085 at Mid-Continent. Their information has it as former WC car built by Hakell & Barker in 1909, and "rebuilt" by the Soo Line to match the cars built by AC&F for the Soo, and also later similar cars built by that road following the AC&F design. That's the same information the Soo Line Historical & Technical Society has. The problem is, all the body dimensions changed at the time of the "rebuilding", which leads me to believe it was what I call a "paper rebuilding", where salvage from the old car (in this case likely limited to the trucks and the stove) was installed in a brand new body. From a carbuilder's perspective, it hardly seems correct to consider a brand new body to be a "rebuilding", but I guess from an accountant's perspective, if it saves taxes, and you can get away with it, that is what you call it.

The new "McMansion" down the street from me is a so-called "one wall wonder." All but one wall of the original 1 story house was demolished, so for tax purposes the new 2-story was a remodel and is less taxed.

In the 1830-50's the US Navy was prohibited by Congress from buying new ships, so some of the wooden vessels that went into dry dock came out as entirely new ships, but with the same name. The USS Constellation in Baltimore is an example; it isn't the Revolutionary warship it was once claimed to be. Bureaucrats will find a way and hey, it made the sailors/engineers/operations folks happy.

Bob

Reminds me of the San Francisco Muni carpenter who (according to legend) told a visitor to the workshop where they used to build cable cars, "sometimes we have to jack up the gong and build a new car under it." The official term is "retention of historic fabric" which can vary all over the map when it comes to railway preservation.

Classic 1970's. Your daughter is even carrying flowers.

Yeah, but they even admit it will be a "new car"... says so right on the frame.

I realize there are multiple reasons why the bean counters would want to classify newly built equipment as a "rebuild", but it makes it confusing to us mechanical types.

Worley's Iron Horses of the Santa Fe Trail confirms she was rebuilt from an 1879 Hinkley 4-4-0, but I'm having trouble finding anything about the original 4-4-0 design. It looks highly unlikely that the boiler could have been original 1879 Hinkley. At best, I'd guess the Hinkley got a new, larger boiler which was used on the 2-8-0 rebuild. However, it seems more likely that the engine was essentially new after the rebuild, using a few minor parts from the engine and tender. This is speculation of course, so I'd be interested in hearing something more definitive.

Tom