It is not the amount of "Origional Fabric" that is important here. The RGS was a dirt poor railroad and by replacing such pieces you destoryed the evidence on 20 to that fact. The boiler deflection under hydro from the accident is both impressive and telling. Railroads are not trains ooerating from point a to point b but complex business structures that struggle with many issues including capital investment and revenue. The RGS was a great example of many western short lines who struggled with financial jssues. 20 condition was a legendary part of that story. By removing those pieces you eliminate its ability to tell that story.

Robby Peartree

Oh sure with that idea we can also just bring back former CP/Gettysburg #1278 and leave the buckled crown sheet in place because it "tells a story" too!

That’s a fair point that Mr. Peartree is bringing up.

But it all comes to what’s better: having an operable engine being able to tell a story, or one sitting and rotting not being able to tell one as well

The Rio Grande Southern was a dirt poor railroad. And the Rio Grande Southern did have poor maintenance for its locomotives especially later in its lifespan. But in order for 20 to be best preserved for the future, it’s better for it to have some character removed and reversed, and for it to be in better condition for future generations, than for it to be kept in its decaying state. Same logic goes for restoring a really old rusty automobile. While the dents and rust would be removed in restoration, the car tells its story better when it’s operable.

"Oh sure with that idea we can also just bring back former CP/Gettysburg #1278 and leave the buckled crown sheet in place because it "tells a story" too![/quote]

Many would argue that the damaged crown woke many people up in the industry and is an important artifact in itself. If one decides to replace the crown just scrapping the old crown removes the evidence of that event occuring. Yes such items were consumed but the poor condition of 20 is particularly noted in history. Further in the 1278 case there are other locomotives of the same class in existance. Dp you have to "restore" that particular locomotive. And in the CRRM case there are other locomotives operating of tthe same era. It seems the standard of preservation is can I get a photograph of it operating. Never mind the history of something before I knew about it.


Robby Peartree

All the repairs/replacements were documented; the history is not "lost" but it is no longer in metal form, but now in paper (or bytes).
This is actually a valid debate when it comes to preservation; what is best for the long-term interpretation and longevity of the artifact? Careful recording of all work done is critical to preserving the entire story. There is great validity to having an operational artifact. An operating artifact can tell you many things that you cannot find with a still nonfunctional artifact. As I recall when they started moving the John Bull, they discovered that the pilot wheels were not fixed to the axle, an important part of the design not before observed.

I think it comes down to a simple would you rather:

Have a fully restored, functioning locomotive that attracts visitors, with some kind of companion interpretative display of its former neglect in photo/video format to tell its story for those interested?

Or have what appears to be a beaten-up boiler sitting idle with the hopes people understand the historical context but can just as easily be misinterpreted by the casual tourist as "this museum/operation really can't afford to keep its equipment nice"?

.

Jack White of the Smithsonian long ago postulated what became known as "White's Law," aimed primarily at transportation history but increasingly applicable to almost all popular technical and cultural history:

"Scholarship is inversely proportional to importance."

I believe the TWELVE-volume (so far?), 5,416-page Sundance Publishing series on the RGS would be submitted into evidence as Exhibit A, shortly followed by the seemingly countless books on the Maine two-footers as Exhibit B.

And most of said tomes were authored and published long before printers could offer short press runs.

[double-checks to see if the Md. Rail Heritage Library has all twelve volumes...... and knows which member would still have Vol. 12 if needed.... yep, got all twelve....]

I would venture that RGS #20 will be a much more accurate representation of it's history (read that as #20's life story) as an operational piece of equipment, than as a dead, silent, rotting piece of equipment.

None of this equipment (locomotives, passenger cars, cabooses, freight cars, etc.) was ever meant to just sit and do nothing. They were all built to be active. To do work.

It is a misrepresentation of history to try and interpret the active history of this equipment by having it sit static.
This is my opinion, and probably worth 2 cents, if that.

Regards,
Shane Schabow

There is no definitive right or wrong in operation/preservation. In some cases you may want to restore or preserve a piece in the condition in which it was retired. In other cases, you may want to repair equipment to operation much as the railroads did to use an asset as it was intended. Depends on the piece, practicality and the money. Both scenarios tell a story much better than a hulk rotting into the ground which depicts a history of neglect. But these points have been flogged many times here.

We now have four cents total.

Shane - welcome to the Interchange.

It isn't unusual for us to have a 40' container's full of original fabric after a restoration. The fact that the original fabric is no longer on the locomotive or car doesn't mean that it hasn't been preserved.

Robby I agree with everything you are saying. I would rather preserve as much historical integrity as possible. As you know even a cosmetic restoration would require the removal of historic fabric.

While in Alamosa at the narrow gauge motel the Rocky Mountain Railroad club removed parts from 20. Parts I now have to replicate by painstaking research and hours looking through photos. Again after being moved to the Museums current location, more parts and historic fabric were removed. Again I am now replicating some of those parts. This all done as a means of keeping her intact as an artifact.

This by no means makes it ok for us to continue the same and through out original parts. If we remove something and it can be reused then it gets put back. If it can't be reused we replace it with original parts when we can or replicate it. I am a stickler for copying things just as they were, even though it takes more time, or looks crooked or seems wrong. Example: We had to replicate the electrical conduit over 20s smoke box(Rocky club had removed it in the 50s) all I had was photos as a reference. I spent 3 full days yes 3 bending, tweaking, cutting, cursing(ask my crew they thought I was losing it) just to get the conduit to match photos. I could have easily made the conduit in a few hours and just ran it how ever I felt. But I didn't, all to get the conduit to be crooked, asymmetrical and just as goofy as the RGS had it.

Another thing to consider. This project was started with a donation and a request to make her operational. LONG before I worked at the museum. Honestly if I had been in my position at the time I would have advised the board to consider a cosmetic restoration because of the amount of work it was going to take. Don't get me wrong I'm glad she will be operational. When I hired on with CRRM in 2016 my job was to finish 20, not complain about all that had been replaced. Further more, once she came back to the museum it was my responsibility to retain as must historic fabric as I could. That I have done. like Kelly said we still have the dented boiler section, and the bad frame sections. I had those shipped back. That wasn't cheap by the way. Just so we can display them to help tell the story. I had several other small parts shipped back. Including a rod brass with a tin shim outside and inside the brass.

I could go on and on about how we are working so hard to finish 20 as accurately as possible. Instead I will stop. I'v spoke my mind.

The factor that I believe is most important of all is what is most likely to engage the next generations who will carry whatever is left forward.

The last of those who actually saw the Rio Grande Southern "alive" will in the not too distant future be history themselves. And those of us who knew them and heard them tell their stories will follow them not so long after.

Someday soon the #20 and a few other odds and ends plus whatever is written down someone cares to pick up and look at will be the stories. What connection will those next generations have with the Rio Grande Southern?

I think a good case was made for telling a story with the old broken down remnants as they were. I think a good case can be made for telling a story with a living breathing locomotive. But one of them is a much more engaging story to tell to someone has as yet no connection to the RGS, and if the story is going to carry forward they will have to get connected.

Timothy

I do not know how to break this to you Mr. Anderson, but I was not planning to travel to see it or make any effort to watch a video of it. Having worked enough railfan events I have seen enough of the self importance that go on at these events to know to stay away from them. These events typically produce great examples of people behaving badly. Many an episode of "Late Night Dateless Dude Theaters" have been inspired by these events.

I find the idea that the best preservation mode is operation because of the sensory experience amusing. In particular I find the role of sight interesting as an operating experience. Many operations today use modern construction and maintenance techniques the create changes to how daily operations are accomplished. These improvements alter daily activities and change procedures. For example one expert insisted that the best lubrication was not oil but grease. So the museum railroad converted practically everything to grease. Unfortunately several things were over looked. One the threading of 3/8 button heads was irreversible. Second it eliminated the scene of the daily use of the oil can which had been a standard practice on this RR since its start. Third, the bearings were not remachined for grease lubrication. And finally, the wicking material was not removed from the now grease lubricated locations. So you had changes visually because the engineer was no longer oiling around. This changed his duties and what an engineer does for operations on this line. The oil left the bearing in a different pattern than the grease causing a different appearance The button heads did create a different detail look on the valve gear as they amount and type of road grime collected was different . And not the least important to the sensory experience was the lubricating materials have different smells. So even the littlest improvements can have an impact on the experience that does not necessarily accurately past or historical practice.

Robby Peartree

I always get a chuckle when we talk about how much of the original locomotive is left after a restoration. Unless you are documenting the rebuild process week by week on the Internet how many people are really going to know what has been replaced? I remember Ed Dickens said that over 60% of the Big Boy was replaced with new parts. I have looked good and hard at the Big Boy and I will be dammed if I can tell the difference of what was replaced. The only noticeable thing I found was the oil valve controls in the cab.

So really does it matter? How different would the Big Boy experience be if all those new parts were never replaced? It wouldn't be any different. I know from my experience overhauling diesel locomotives that as time goes on, much of the original locomotive has been replaced anyways. Engines, power packs, generators, air compressors, radiators, cooling fans, traction motors, wheels, etc will all wear out at some point and be replaced. Before painting we replaced all the glass, seats, number boards, and both doors.

For me it doesn't matter if it is a replica or the real thing. I want the experience.