Is cosmetic restoration simply a coat of paint and new lettering? Is it cutting off bent locomotive bits? Removal of asbestos? Is it new jacketing? Restoration of gauges, valves, and glass? Is cosmetic restoration any effort to merely improve the appearence of a locomotive, or is it deeper than that?
Cases in point, from recent postings: GG1 4876, sitting unprotected and wide open at Baltimore. This loco should be preserved simply for it's extremely interesting operational history. Is somebody ready to jump in for her sake? What would constitute cosmetic restoration?

MEC Pacific #470, just about stripped to a steel tube on wheels. What constitutes cosmetic restoration?

glueck@maine.edu

Oh Boy, another thread worth thought and response.

I have seen the term used for anything from a coat of paint to a very intensive and costly job of conservation, replication of lost components, and return to an accurately researched representation of a particular thing at a particular place at a particular time.

In more practical terms, it refers to some restoration planned to affect the appearance of an object without intent to make the object operable.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

Dave I think you have answered the question wery well. Operation is very different for a steam engine than say a flat car. So the ampunt of work varies.

But mostly cosmetic means putting paint on something that does not operate.

In contrast at the maritime park in addition painting everything, cosmetic work which preserves what is underneath, we treat things like rigging like it is going to sea again. Thus a higher level of work required even though we never plan to send a 125 year old ship to sea again.

Getting back to railroading, one production EMD Diesel can be much like another and several groups have made extinct locomotives come to life again. Such as the Anthricite Historical Society. Cosmetic restoration and then some.

ted_miles@nps.gov

Greetings,

In any restoration work, one must be able to ask a large number of questions about the goals for the exhibit.

Will the exhibit merely be a standing display ?
Will customers be allowed to walk through it ?
Will it be in any revenue service?

And if it is in revenue service, what is the demand going to be on this piece of equipment?
Do you have the skilled labor available to do the job and complete it (plus the shop space, tools, ect...) ?

Funding ? have you made any estimated on both the labor required and the funds you'll need to accomplish the tasks ahead?

If you are just trying to protect it from the elements, you might be ahead by just purchasing a large, good quality tarp and maintain it.

Planning, and good planning is the key to any resoration. Determining what you and your organizations goals are, you may not want to "repair" the vehicle at all.

Currently, one of my tasks here at my employer is determing the same. We are planning on placing some equipment back into service for the public, and our own specifications require fare collection, radios, ADA accomidations, new paint, minor body work, ect... Plus the bufdgeting and working out the contracting end of this. This is a large task in itself.

Hope this has been of help.

Karl Johnson

I believe the goal of a quality cosmetic restoration is to preserve piece of equipment and to make the exterior look like it is ready to operate. Excellent examples are the locomotives and cars at the California Railroad Museum or the N&W 1218 at Roanoke.

On steam locomotives boiler lagging should be replaced with blocking to prevent damage to the boiler but the boiler jacket should be reinstalled. A good paint job, all other sheet metal in good shape and glass in the headlights and indicators will do the trick. If the equipment is in a secure area all cab appliances should also be there, but in an unsecured area it would be an unnessary expense since they would quickly disappear.


http://www.ncry.org
jmann@asyst.com

> Getting back to railroading, one production
> EMD Diesel can be much like another and
> several groups have made extinct locomotives
> come to life again. Such as the Anthricite
> Historical Society. Cosmetic restoration and
> then some.

Say that your museum would like to have a particular steam locomotive in your collection. The locomotive is well documented through various images as being from your community and is an ideal fit with your museum's objectives. Unfortunately, the particular locomotive is owned by another entity far from your community and is not available for acquisition or trade. In the meantime, another member of the same production class for the same railroad is now available to your organization. Basically, the only difference would be the engine/builder numbers. Other than the numbering, visitors would not be able to tell the difference between the two.

Would you renumber the second locomotive and cosmetically present it as the first? If no, why a different standard for the diesels referenced above?


kamiddle@rockwellcollins.com

> Would you renumber the second locomotive and
> cosmetically present it as the first? If no,
> why a different standard for the diesels
> referenced above?

Both would be flatly dishonest. Museums are educational institutions, not purveyors of information that is convenient.

> Cases in point, from recent postings: GG1
> 4876, sitting unprotected and wide open at
> Baltimore. This loco should be preserved
> simply for it's extremely interesting
> operational history. Is somebody ready to
> jump in for her sake? What would constitute
> cosmetic restoration?

Actually if somebody were ready to jump in, I personally would recommend that they work on the Q-1 (original USRA light 2-8-2), the EA, or any of a number of other more critical projects at the B&O. The 4876, alas, has several sisters around, many in the hands of organizations that will take the best possible care of them. By contrast, some other endangered artifacts in the B&O Museum collection are one-of-a-kind and have prior call on avialable conservation resources.

Of course, if someone loves GG-1s and wants to make the Museum an offer for 4876 (including a viable plan for getting it out of Mount Claire "A" Yard) I'm sure the Museum would listen with an open mind.

eledbetter@rypn.org

You are probably correct in your logic, Eric, but I think it is likely that 4876 was saved from scrap in the first place due to it's wreck history. I would hate to see some far-sighted individual's best layed plans go amuck due to expedience. Even if the GG1 is merely held under cover until funds or materials become available, that's better than no GG1 at all.


glueck@maine.edu

Good point! I agree.
Nor should museums be dabblers in 1:1 scale model railroading.

> Both would be flatly dishonest. Museums are
> educational institutions, not purveyors of
> information that is convenient.

What is unethical about replicating a specific missing piece which allows a story to be told which would be incomplete without that piece providing it is interpreted honestly as a replication?

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

There's nothing unethical unless you completely deny or hide the true history of the piece of equipment in question. At least tell the true history in addition to representing the item in its fictitious role.
That said, I think some historical groups come very close to modifying (usually by painting) equipment to the point of being modelers in 1:1 scale simply to satisfy a fantasy. Call me a purist in that regard.

> What is unethical about replicating a
> specific missing piece which allows a story
> to be told which would be incomplete without
> that piece providing it is interpreted
> honestly as a replication?

> Dave

But there is nothing wrong, in my view, of replacing a missing linkage of pipe or other structure on a historical locomotive, provided it is painted a flat grey, or similar color, to indicate it is not an original part. The locomotive looks much more in keeping with it's historic appearence if it is complete.

glueck@maine.edu

I commented above but I have to again. Some organizations his the history business are less cereful than others. And as I pointed out above it is possible to do some kinds of replication notablely with Diesels.

But I say again replications are often overlooked by visitors who do not see or read the sign that theis engine really was such and such.

Our visitors should not have to ferret out the history we are trying to teach them.

There are so many steam engines still in this country that are sadly being scrapped or else just rusting away, I think there is little reason to justify replica building.

Ted Miles

ted_miles@nps.gov

The last time I was in a class 1 working steam roundhouse there were about 15 locomotives undergoing inspection and repair. There were a zillion spare parts in inventory and the gang was busily replacing stuff that needed replacing. They did not change the road number or name but there was a significant number of pieces/parts changing going on as I watched. Now, If you received your steam locomotive fresh from the railroad ...stuck it in a corner ...noted the date of the last inspection and/or repair ...you would have a genuine museum display to be preserved intact.[that keeps half the board happy] If you were the operating type and put your locomotive to work, you immediately began to use up the consumables and started replacing them as they wore out. [that is the other half of the board]
NKP765 will still be NKP765 when she emerges from her latest rebuild ...paint her up as NYC6000 and the world will laugh, but underneath all that she is still NKP765.

Now if you want to talk mass-produced Dismal gypsies or bringing chicken coops back from the dead that is a whole different ballgame.

Product Disclaimer: IMHO every static display contains the potential to come to life!



lamontdc@adelphia.net