I just got this and I am so upset that I'd best not make any comments at this time. this is a copy of the minutes of the latest meeting of the "friends of the Locomotive 1727". I do want to point out that 4 people constituted this meeting, last meeting they had 3. And ONE of those 4 should know better. Oops, I wasn't going to comment.
-- David Dewey (who was the sole caretaker of 1727 from 1971 to 1980)

"The Friends of Locomotive 1727 is an informally organized group of people involved in the first steps of planning the restoration of the historic engine. All ideas, suggestions, challenges are welcome. We respect the input of the members and the community to create the best project. Funds are being collected for the project in memory of Bruce Petty.
* * *
The meeting was held on Feb 2 at 8:30 at the Shasta Archives 5723 Shasta Ave. Those attending: John Signor, Cheryl Petty, Julie Signor and Jerry Porter.
Announcements: Next meeting Feb 21 at 8:30 at the Shasta Archives.
Discussion: The controversial topics of fence and sandblasting were reviewed considering input from D Dewey. Current consensus is that the UP will never allow historic equipment onto their track, better specimens are sitting out at the Sacramento RR Museum not allowed on the UP track, no point in trying to get the #1727 in condition to run, so we are in agreement about using the sandblasting method.
Each member was in favor of no fence with various qualifications such as: with city approval, utilizing landscaping to direct visitors to points of access and not 100% accessible although viewable, and providing the numerous artifacts attached to the locomotive can be tacked down securely.
The speeder inside the enclosure was discussed further and suggested it be donated to a railroad themed nonprofit such as the Black Butte Center for Railroad Culture.
Cheryl met with Ernie Wassen from the park and Cameron Marsala from Camelot Landscaping about the site prep including removing the old fence, stumps, replacing the retaining wall at the back, and ideas for what to do around the locomotive to make it fun for people to enjoy such as picnic tables, benches, water fountain. The plan should be ready to see by the next meeting.
Contractor estimates: Julie and Cheryl met with a fabric person who indicated it would be simple to recover the engineers’ seat and we received a modest estimate for that work.
Painting: Other paint finishes, more modern in formulation and simpler to apply were discussed.
Continue to look for manufacturers of the silver, white, seafoam green and primer.
Organizational docs: Still waiting
Next steps: Continue to contact prospective contractors for painting."

Despite their good intentions, this group has just condemned the locomotive to a long slow process of tagging, vandalism, theft, and destruction. If the little mogul ever had a chance for operational restoration on a dedicated short line or tourist railroad, everything described in the article has prescribed disaster. This is anything but preservation.

This is part of "How Not To Restore A Steam Locomotive"... as I tried to memorialize in my tag line.

Did "Julie and Cheryl" vomit the words "best practice" at some point?

Why are fences (and walls) "controversial"? I hope they don't have ANY fences or walls on THEIR properties...

Remind them about battery powered saws that can cut off most of the nice things on a steam engine in a just a few minutes.

Plus the hazards to the general public of LOTS of things for people to hit and cut themselves on. Plus the fall hazards of stupid people climbing on these things.

Dave Dewey - When I read your post, "Another One Bites the Dust" by John Deacon of Queen came to mind. Perhaps it would be more productive if you take your concerns to the owner of the locomotive. It may be helpful to put together a presentation of how similar park engines have faired when similar failed stewardship was implemented. There is plenty of supporting documentation here searchable on RYPN. If the owner is not concerned about proper preservation, and you still have concerns, consider going to their insurer and/or risk manager with a list of risks and hazards as enumerated by joe6167, with illustrative photos. Good luck.

I have emailed the city manager and the mayor informing them of the potential liability issue removing the fence presents the city. I also included links to the two threads here on the subject.
That this group chooses to ignore and go against all the collective advice from respected preservationists astounds me. I also cannot understand how John Signor could vote for removal; he's been around railway preservation for decades.
The vandalism and outright theft of parts on this locomotive in the past ten years, and especially the past three years has been disheartening. Some of the theft appears to be parts hunting, sorry to say (An air powered swinging bell ringer mechanism has little scrap value). Back in 1978 the locomotive was basically intact, with all appliances functioning even (and lubricated). The advent of the battery powered saws-all and a lack of any security has resulted in many artifact losses. There is no longer any way to "securely fasten" parts to prevent thefts. Removal of the fence is just an invitation for wholesale harvesting of anything and everything that is left.

the city might as well have a "Vandalise The Locomotive Day" and sell hot dogs and cotton candy

Oh yes, because a simple fence would cause anyone to stand on the correct side of the fence in slaw-jawed befuddlement, cursing how they were foiled by simple chain link...

Well, it WOULD stop many the casual teen or other person to not climb upon or other activity, and maybe the homeless guy looking for a place to sleep or hide. Yes, it would not stop the determined thief.

Why exactly is there opposition to a fence? Is it felt that a fence degrades the appearance of the locomotive? Or is there some other more philosophical reason such as fences being divisive? Certainly the people opposing a fence must have stated a reason.

Appearance & accessibility
Same reasons twenty some years ago the offer of a roof over the locomotive was turned down.