Agreed. Far more people know her as AFT 1 than RDG 2101. Maybe in a few years once we're gone who remember that (I was a kid when the Freedom Train ran and I'm only in my mid 50s), then maybe...

A pity she isn't being repainted into Chessie System colors. 2101 may be the most-photographed engine in their collection but I'd wager more people saw/photographed it as Chessie 2101 vs. AFT-1.

Thousands of railfans (and some civilians) saw and photographed her as Chessie 2101.

HUNDREDS of thousands of civilians photographed AFT 1 as part of their "once in a lifetime" Bicentennial event visiting the AFT.......... if not millions.

I believe that it was RDG 2102, on lease from Steam Tours, Inc., that ran that trip to DC in the early 1970s.

Obviously, I am not going to win this argument for historical authenticity.
Pity.

Buy or trade for your own Reading T1 of the FOUR now out there, and paint it any damn way you wish.

As a start, the B&O Museum won't want a substitute T1 (no B&O/Chessie history), and they don't want that GG1............ C&O 614's no longer "available"....... I don't think they want C&O 1309 back, or WM 202..........

As a PRR fan who has been waiting THIRTY-SIX FREAKIN' YEARS to see and ride behind K4s 1361 in steam again while a "nearby" Reading T1 repeatedly stirs remarks of "is that the loudest steam engine running today?" month after month, I'm inclined to propose that you do the anatomically impossible.............

If it were up to me, I'd paint one three-quarter view of the locomotive as AFT 1, and the other half in Chessie Steam Special -- the latter being far, far more relevant to the current museum's purview.

But that isn't up to me; it's up to Ross, who was the real victim of that roundhouse fire all those years ago. And he has ALL the say about what gets painted how... unless we want to start talking about breaching agreements, something I would personally dislike.

In keeping with the terms of my gift of the AFT 1 to the B&O museum the locomotive will remain as she was seen pulling the AFT in 1976.

I am very grateful to the B&O museum for undertaking her badly needed cosmetic restoration.

Ross Rowland

You have vastly under-estimated just how many people came out to see the American Freedom Train. It was a huge deal, front page news in most cities. The crowds along the way were huge, and when we were on display the lines were long from the time we opened until closing, which was sometimes hours late.

The Chessie Steam Special was certainly popular, lots rode it, and many more people came to see it trackside. But AFT *1* roamed much further on the AFT and it wasn't just a railfan event. It was a mobile museum with treasures from around the nation that showed up in your city or town for a few days. The response was incredible.

I think everyone on this thread is also vastly over-estimating just how many people saw the American Freedom Train pulled by 2101. It was not the sole steam locomotive hauling the train around the country so its apples and oranges to use the attendance records for the train while on display across the country as the amount of people that have seen 2101 in its AFT 1 scheme.

As much as Ross can stand there and say "my agreement says this!", it's unenforceable. The museum can do what they want with it. What would Ross do, sue the museum for breach of contract becasue its not painted how he wanted? Whether he's right or wrong, the court of public opinion would not be in his favor. [It's funny how fast people on this forum forget that this is the same guy that had 614 painted and remain painted in a gaudy green monster scheme for a train that never happened and cried about it the whole time!] It's not like he could trade back 614 for 2101 since he doesn't own 614 anymore.

"I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell!" - Harry Truman

It seems to me that requiring that the recipient of a donated item maintain a paint scheme it wore only briefly during the Nixon-pardon disco-era 1970s is like offering to sell your house to a family with the proviso that they never replace the 1970s solid avocado green, or marigold, or harvest yellow countertops, sinks and appliances in it. They might be happy to have landed it, but will always feel resentful and controlled.

They can just do what they've done before:

Wait for the donor to pass on. Then you can just get rid of it. (And tick off the volunteers that restored it to its past appearance.)

Note that a comparable situation would be if you were offered a free house if you kept the colors/surfaces/etc. intact. You could always say no, but it is a free house. The unrestricted gift of the house was never on the table. In reality we rarely get anything unrestricted; I once bought a rural acreage and lived on it for a decade or two where the BNSF owned the mineral rights. We all knew that there were almost certainly no minerals worth ever exercising them, but just in case something turned up the railroad kept them. If I had found gold it would not have been mine. That was the agreement offered. If I couldn't live with it there were other properties.



I do not think I am overestimating the attendance numbers for the AFT (I saw it with the 4449) and I am on this forum, but that is another matter. I will add that I was astonished at how many turned out in the town near me and that the locomotive didn't seem to be much of the draw.

But to agreements; a wise old businessman advised me never to do business with anyone that would not keep their word ("with a handshake" was the way he said it). If it takes lawyers and courts to keep someone doing what they said they would you do not want to go anywhere near them. (He used written contracts, too, but not for enforcement.)

Many years ago in my knowledge an organization to which I belonged abrogated a similar agreement because they could. It, too, concerned property left to them with provisions for management, provisions which were "unenforceable". They lost me that day; my contributions and my good will. I am sure it was not the only agreement on which they reneged, when we break our own word we will find it impossible to keep it again. Apparently there were enough of the ignorant and dishonest to have kept them going, they still exist. But an association of the ignorant and dishonest cannot be expected to excel very much. And those committed to excellence will seek elsewhere.

Timothy

As I said the AFT 1 will remain in the livery as seen pulling the AFT in 1976.

End of debate.

The AP sent a cub reporter to ride with us and he estimated that approx. 40 million Americans came to track side or to one of the 138 display sites to see the AFT during its 21 month epic journey. 7.6 million of those folks bought a ticket to go through the 10 display cars ( 4.0 school kids, 3.6 adults ) on the moving walkway journey that took 22 minutes.

IMHO the main draw ( by far ) were the 512 ORIGINAL artifacts on loan from 285 museums across America, many of which were truly priceless and they were " must sees" when in your hometown.

The steam locomotives certainly added to the appeal and helped a lot with our advertising graphics. As Walt Disney said when a reporter asked him why he insisted on having steam power his railroads he said " with a diesel it's a train...with a steam engine it's a happening ". The AFT was certainly a " happening".

Thanks for your interest.

Ross Rowland, AFT part time hogger & Founder

> But an association of the ignorant and dishonest cannot be expected to excel very much. And those committed to excellence will seek elsewhere.

Heatermason's comments struck a nerve with me, making a good point where I stumbled across a similar, but broader issue here in NJ at a location that I won’t bother mentioning. It’s a struggling museum with some active younger members who are doing their best versus the current out of touch leadership, and I use that term "leadership" loosely. What I found when talking to them is the total lack of interest in the work of members that came before them. Not long ago, they cut up a key piece of rolling stock, built by an earlier generation, in order to build something else that was more appealing to them. When I brought this up it became apparent that they had a total lack of respect for anyone that came before them and the work done by those older, now departed members. The discussion turned to the by-laws and the voting process where the vote has been stripped from many key figures in the life of the organization, many of whom were financial supporters. Nope, don’t care. Old people should have no vote. I was shocked. When I offered a complete set of organization newsletters so they could see the history of the equipment in the collection, there was no interest, saying "We don’t care what the old guys did." The place hangs by a thread today as a result of this kind of mindset. Those "committed to excellence" have already gone elsewhere.