B&O Museum's damage assessment for the 100-year-old "Pangborn" models. Not good, but nowhere near as bad as I feared:

"Of the 23 wooden replica locomotives, known as the “Pangborn Collection,” 14 were displayed in the Roundhouse at the time of the collapse and nine suffered severe damage. These one of a kind exhibit models came about due to the creative genius of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad’s first Public Relations Director, Joseph G. Pangborn. They first appeared in the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair, also known as the Columbian Exposition. The remaining nine models (not in the Roundhouse at the time of the collapse) are on loan or in storage.

In addition, the MuseumÂ’s Curatorial Department has begun surgically removing rubble and artifacts from the interior of the No. 20 passenger coach and No. 10 baggage car. Images of their work will be available in the near future."

B&O 3/27 status report--Pangborn
eledbetter@rypn.org

>What a shame. Those were truly works of art and great historical artifacts.

fitzrr@pioneer.net

Okay, let's stop a minute and reconsider.

These things were built for an exposition 110 years ago, so they were undeniably historic if only for the age (lead paint a possibility?). But to be honest, they were wooden fabrications made to resemble what were by and large "also-rans" of early railroading--the equivalent of replicating autogyro aircraft, Amphicar floating cars, the "flying disc", flying cars, the one-man rocket jetpack, or, if you insist on railroad analogies, the steam turbine locomotives.

Does anyone else believe, as I do, that any funds that would be directed to restoring these piles of kindling could be put to better use restoring actual historic railroad artifacts, and not old fabrications of half-baked rail ideas? In addition, the space previously occupied by these models could hold additional interpretive or artifact displays.

[Disclaimer: We don't know the terms of their insurance coverage--it's possible they may have no choice but to restore these models.]

lner4472@bcpl.net

> Does anyone else believe, as I do, that any
> funds that would be directed to restoring
> these piles of kindling could be put to
> better use restoring actual historic
> railroad artifacts, and not old fabrications
> of half-baked rail ideas?

They are important to the history of railroad advertising and promotion, not to the history of rolling stock. It's an equally valid field of preservation, and one under-represented in most railroad and transit museums (though I grant you they could be more clearly interpreted as such).

eledbetter@rypn.org

I disagree. They were one of the things that I enjoyed most on my visit. They are one of a kind items, IMO It would be short sighted to consign them to the rubbish bin after 110 years just because there is some more glamorous piece in need of refurbishing.

Besides, doesn't having been displayed at a world's fair give them some legitimate "history" of their own?

Why wouldn't we want to know what didn't work in 1830? Save us having to try the failed designs again.

Besides, it isn't and either / or situation, Sandy. No reason everything damaged can't be restored. All it takes is money.

Dave

> Why wouldn't we want to know what didn't
> work in 1830? Save us having to try the
> failed designs again.

As if anyone's going to be designing single-flue steam locomotives again. The failures can be documented adequately in books, photos, etc. and the space these models occupied (considerable, mind you) given over to railroad technology that worked.

> Besides, it isn't and either / or situation,
> Sandy. No reason everything damaged can't be
> restored. All it takes is money.

Show mw any railroad museum that has "enough" money. They already have such a quantity of stuff not under cover that they might never be able to catch up with the peeling paint (and that's the thoughts of others besides me as well).

Again, this may be irrelevant--insurance might cover the repair only, and not be transferrable to other projects. I'm only bringing up what I consider to be a valid philosophical question.


lner4472@bcpl.net

I think you're overlooking the simple, but elegant fact that these are one of a kind, and purpose build to show people some of the early history of railroading. They also have the provenance of being purpose built for the Columbia exposition.

What better items could there really be to "take up space" in a railroad museum? Diner dishes bore me, should I use the sad occurance of their destruction to push for something I do like to take their place? To other people the story of the railroads can't be properly told without them. Too many museums are crammed to the rafters with stuff the members like, but doesn't do anything to help tell the story. Mt Clare not just another railroad museum, it is also about the earliest beginnings of railroading on this continent, those models help so much better than a crummy picture in a book to tell that story.

"Failed prototypes"? perhaps, but all the more interesting for it.

> Okay, let's stop a minute and reconsider.

Frankly, the Pangborn models were one of the first things I thought about. I knew that the locomotives were fairly robust, had already been extensively rebuilt/modlified in 1926 or thereabouts, and for the most part will be a low order of magnitude restoration effort. But the Pangborns were already fragile before the accident, and are for the most part 100% of the fabric of 110 years ago. (Of course, soon after we realised the utter destruction of the CNJ wooden coaches, but I am speaking of my immediate impression after the accident)

I think the recent post of the seating exhibit falls in a similar catagory. I can go back up to my storehouse at Martin State Airport and get the Museum another 1991 commuter coach seat from a wrecked coach (that is where the blue/orange seat in the exhibit came from), but how do you replicate the 100 year old mohair Buntin seat, with that patina that may only be acquired by age? To me (within the context of the Exhibitions they were displayed in) the Pangborns, while whimsical and sometimes crude, told an important story.

SZuidervee@aol.com

Given the preliminary cost estimates for restoring the damaged exhibits and what I understand will be a significant shortfall on the insurance coverage of the exhibits (we're not talking about the building itself here or other things insurance will cover), the argument over the Pangborn models may be academic. Some were badly damaged, some not, and I'd guess that those that were damaged will not be restored or replicated.

This is doubtless a heretical opinion, but I never thought much of the Pangborn models except (as someone noted above) as antiques in their own right. Not only were they quickly and crudely built, but in many cases they were inaccurate and, in one or two cases, purely speculative. But it sure would be nice if somebody with deep pockets would finance a new generation of such models that would serve to teach what those pioneering machines really looked like.

herbhar@yahoo.com

Also, in a thought developed during an on-the-street discussion with Sandy this morning (!), I came to discover another thesis. I think one can argue a direct relationship between the Pangborn models (and the Columbian Exposition) and the fact that we even have a B&O Railroad Museum today. Kind of the crown jewels(even if they are paste!), or even the first "seed" of what is now the Museum.

Steve

SZuidervee@aol.com

Let me be a real heretic ... does rebuilding the models require anything like rebuilding the wooden cars or a locomotive overhaul ... just suppose the offer was made to some of the premier modelers in the country to undertake the restoration of one piece per volunteer ??

If it ain't a Stradivarius it don't have to go to Cremona!


lamontdc@adelphia.net

> Let me be a real heretic ... does rebuilding
> the models require anything like rebuilding
> the wooden cars or a locomotive overhaul ...
> just suppose the offer was made to some of
> the premier modelers in the country to
> undertake the restoration of one piece per
> volunteer ??

Oh, heresy! How DARE you suggest tampering with the historic fabric (literally?) of the original historic artifacts! Dear me, do you suppose such a project would jeopardize their Smithsonian partnership? <:-o

In a serious vein, I do believe that if we were to approach the project realistically, we could ask someone to replicate the smashed models from scratch, only with an eye towards durability and accuracy. Such replicas of replicas may be more accurate and cheaper than the 1890s models--but then they wouldn't be the 1890s models, would they?

My fear is that somehow the restoration of these models may cost, say (numbers plucked out of thin air) $100,000 or more per model to restore when a totally new model from scratch might cost $10,000 or less. And to me, that's wasted money when there's so much going unrestored and unpainted outside. So you say the locos need to be represented? A few thousand will get you a nice interactive display and several scale models, taking up the space of one Pangborn.

And remember--there are still a few unscathed original Pangborns that weren't in the roundhouse.

lner4472@bcpl.net

Seems to me that there are two issues here -- the value of the Pangborns as antiques in themselves, and their value as educational tools. In my own opinion, an institution like the B&O Museum should be stressing the latter, and these models really aren't much good for that -- nor has anyone apparently tried very hard to use them for that purpose. They've always been treated mostly as curiosities decorating the museum's wall.

The basic idea of using models, either full-scale or smaller, to show railroading's primeval days, is a very good one -- but these things just don't cut it. So I'd agree with Sandy -- the money is better spent either on the mass of decomposing "real" stuff or starting from new oeducational reproductions. As Sandy says, there are some surviving Pangborns to revere, for those who want to do so.

herbhar@yahoo.com

> Seems to me that there are two issues here
> -- the value of the Pangborns as antiques in
> themselves, and their value as educational
> tools. In my own opinion, an institution
> like the B&O Museum should be stressing
> the latter, and these models really aren't
> much good for that -- nor has anyone
> apparently tried very hard to use them for
> that purpose. They've always been treated
> mostly as curiosities decorating the
> museum's wall.

That's a very good point. I think the Pangborns are extremely valuable, but in the context of an exhibit that interprets railroading promotion, or the birth of modern public relations, or the history of railroad fairs. The B&O has taken stabs at interpreting these topics but due to space and resource limitations has never done a full-up exhibit on one of these topics with the Pangborns as an integral part.

That said, I still assert that in my view it's a false dichotomoy between repairing the Pangborns and repairing rolling stock. They are both important artifacts. They are different artifacts, just like dining car china and advertising posters and telegraph keys are different from rolling stock.

If soemone wants to store the damaged Pangborns for later repair that's fine with me--there are undamaged ones. But I see value in a careful reconstruction of the damaged ones. They are part of railroad advertising history, and as someone pointed out, a special part of the B&O's culture of promoting and even "inventing" heritage--a culture which gave us the museum in the first place.

> The basic idea of using models, either
> full-scale or smaller, to show railroading's
> primeval days, is a very good one -- but
> these things just don't cut it. So I'd agree
> with Sandy -- the money is better spent
> either on the mass of decomposing
> "real" stuff or starting from new
> oeducational reproductions. As Sandy says,
> there are some surviving Pangborns to
> revere, for those who want to do so.

I guess I don't see any connection today between the Pangborns and interpreting early locomotives. Sure, they were built to do that--sort of--in the 1890s, but their value today is in other areas entirely. The case for restoring them would rest in their value as advertising memorabilia, not their fidelity to prototype or their usefulness for accurately representing early engines.

If the museum truly wants accuate models of early engines for some reason it should indeed get new ones and not use the Pangborns. But that's a different interpretive mission than the one I am arguing that the Pangborns serve.


eledbetter@rypn.org