Well, I take Mr. Levin up on his invitation to offer some thoughts.

About Bennett's initial points: I concur with and endorse pretty much all of his numbered list, in toto. As preservationists, we should attempt to forge close relationships with the Class 1 carriers, but we are not in a position to dictate to them. NS or CSX's managers have only one legal and fiduciary responsibility: their responsibility to their shareholders. To the extent that we can help the Class 1s, we may earn "moral credit" which may be returned in the form of grants and donations. But we should never leave ourselves in a position in which we are dependent on the Class 1s or any other corporate entities. Nor should we ever assume that we have the right to dictate to them, on the disposal of equipment or any other subject. If we keep our own house in order, put our institutions on a solid footing in terms of funding and management, and maintain a positive image in our communities, we will make ourselves partners with whom the Class 1s will find it in their own interests to cooperate. The burden is on us to get ourselves ready, and to come up with creative proposals which help the Class 1s as well as ourselves.

Now on to the Es!

Bennett asks, "What are the responsibilities of private ownership? What are the perks of private ownership? Some would claim that the “golden rule” applies, for not only has the acquisition cost been borne by the current ownership, but they solely assume the responsibility of upkeep, restoration, insurance, compliance, etc.,etc.,etc. No ISTEA money and no state grants. But yet, as any of us are only the temporal custodian of artifacts such as these locomotives, the questions are open to all of us."

Well, here are some thoughts: In our society one cannot dictate to the holder of private property how he should manage his assets. As a matter of fact and law the owner has the freedom to do as he will with the engine.

However, if the owner feels a sense of trusteeship as well as proprietorship, as Bennett and his son clearly do, then one might advise and suggest. I care little if the engine is painted PRR, ERIE, or Juniata terminal. Paint can be reversed. What is of much greater interest to me is tracking the condition of the artifact and conserving its physical fabric.

I would encourage Bennett and his sons to document their locomotives as a Museum would. Every Museum artifact has an "accession file." This file incorporates pretty much everything known about the artifact prior to its joining the collection, it documents the condition of the artifact at the time it joined the collection, and it monitors the status, condition, and alterations to the artifact during its time in the collection.

Juniata Terminal is not a museum, but there's nothing in the world which would prevent it from taking a Museum's approach to documenting its rolling stock. Take 4022 as a test case. I would encourage Bennett and his colleagues to make a detailed photo survey of the artifact as it came to them, and make as many notes as they have the energy for on its physical configuration. Then, I would encourage them to photograph and document any changes they make, noting what materials were removed, and what materials were used to replace them. Replacing consumable modular parts like power assemblies wouldn't count here, but if some original sheet metal is carved out and new metal put in that would be good to know. Where possible, the preference would be to conserve the original fabric rather than replace.

Then, restore and paint as you will. As long as the changes are documented, they can most likely be reversed should it become necessary or desirable later on.

The final matter is disposition. At the time that the engine is no longer of use to Juniata, it would be nice if the owner would arrange, in his estate or through corporate donation or sale, that the engine be transferred to equally conscientious hands. However, I can no more enforce this stipulation on Juniata than I could on NS or CSX.

I'm "conferring" a lot of freedom on Mr. Levin and sons (not that they they need my permission). But then again, who is in a position to second guess? Even when professional museums do restoration and conservation, there are difficult choices involved. In a sense all restoration is misrepresentation. Authenticity begins eroding the minute an artifact passes out of daily use as a thing and passes into conservation as a treasure. Conservation can extend the life of the artifact, but often only at the cost of altering its condition. Restoration is even trickier--especially backdating. Mr. Levin's PRR 4020 isn't "really" PRR 4020 in a sense--it's wired for head-end power just to being with. This is not a criticism-- 4020 today gives us the best impression will ever have of a PRR E in its glory. The point is simply to say that there are no entirely right decisions, only a series of choices and compromises.

The key to me is to document the process, rather than dictate the choice.

eledbetter@rypn.org

I commend Mr. Levin for asking the preservation community for their views on the restoration of ex-CR#4022, nee Erie 833. As I said in a previous post, the Levin family is a class act and deserves our heartiest thanks and commendations. I only wish there had been a few more Levin families when steam was being retired 50 years ago.

My suggestion is that she be painted in a way that will keep her on the road as much as possible. That probably means PRR. An operating engine that is run on a regular basis is better than a static display that will slowly go downhill as seals go bad etc.

Yes, I would love to see her in Erie, or even Erie Lackawanna. If Juniata Terminal can figure out a way to utilize her in one of her historic paint schemes that would be wonderful. However, keeping her running as long as is practical will be the best thing for the engine, and that is my first concern.

That CSX and Norfolk Southern chose to sell the engines rather than donate them is their prerogative as Eric said. The market and the business climate today in not conducive to companies being able to make the donations they may have made in the past. We can be thankful that all three of the Conrail Executive E's have found such a wonderful home.

kevingillespie@usa.net

Erik is right. Paint is cheap and will need to be replaced at regular intervals anyhow. Mr Levin and Sons have stepped up to the plate and comitted their personal resources to preserving some locomotives that no museum offered adequate resources to do and whatever livery they choose is their privilege.

It would be fine with me if the chose Central of Georgia and wanted to store them between runs in the Savannah roundhouse, but I wouldn't try to twist their arms.

Anyhow, so long as they don't use fake diamond stacks or box headlights and wooden pilots, they are doing us all a valuable service.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

Points well taken.

I had the privilege of working on a preserved set of E8s for about a year. By now I can tell you quite a few things that EMD did wrong in their design work, and what changes places such as Paducah, Morrison Knudsen, NJ Transit, etc. made to their E8's in an effort to rectify these problems--such things as drain holes in the truss frame joints.

Frankly, if you want a mint, out-of-box E8 today, you'd probably have to build it from scratch. Anything Levin and his gang want to do to keep their fleet rolling at the century mark (speed or age) is fine with me!

LNER4472@gateway.net

I'm a huge fan of both the PRR and the EL and predecessors. I was overjoyed to find that CR 4020 was restored to PRR 5809 despite the fact that CR 4020 (an old friend) had to vanish to make it happen.

When I learned of CSX' intentions to auction their E's I had a feeling Mr. Levin would pick up the 4021 to restore as a single-stripe PRR 5711 and run a matched set vintage PRR E's. A great choice of scheme and I look forward to chasing the pair down.

The big surprise was his aquisition of the 4022. I had no clue who might pick up that unit. As an EL (and CR in its later years) fan I have also followed its travels during the sunset years of Conrail.

It makes sense to paint it PRR to match the other two for occasional excursion use, or does it?

Granted, a matched set of grand old ladies looks wonderful on the head end of any passenger train, but to be realistic, what do/will the rest of those trains look like? What is their actual purpose?

PV excursions rarely if ever take plave with a matched consist. If anything, they look like an unusually elegant early 70's Amtrak long distance train with a dogs breakfast of car types and paint schemes. While the individual cars are historically relevant for the most part, as a train they bespeak more far more in elegance than in historical passenger railroading purism. Would a mismatched paint scheme on an E unit detract from its appeal or possibly broaden it for some?

Personally, I would like to see the 4022 emerge from the paint shop as EL 833, as an EL E unit does not currently exist. I have no right to expect it to happen or to impress my desires upon those who have expended their time, effort and money to aquire and maintain the locomotive. The fact that a sizable contingent of EL fans share my sentiment really doesn't carry any weight in the real world, we aren't the ones paying the freight here. As I have been told, Mr. Levin has a soft spot for the Erie. If that's true, does it also extend to the EL?

There will now be a matched set of single stripe PRR E's and there's also a set of Erie painted E's, the 834 and 835. To me it would make sense to do EL 833 or CR 4022 for a historical appearance. I really don't expect that will happen.

It's ok if it ends up as a PRR E unit, paint is only skin deep and it will need another paint job in the near future. I'm happy it won't end up in some hokey looking BlahBlah Scenic Rwy paint job. It's just great that the 4022/833 has ended up somewhere it will be loved, taken care of and run.

If 4022 doesn't initially receive the paint job _you_ would like to see, don't fret, that doesn't mean it won't ever wear it.

My congratulations to Mr. Levin and family on the aquisition of the all around nicest three E units in existence, UP not withstanding!

Henry


Conrail OCS-203 with CR4022 Leading, 07-22-98

henry_posting_to_rypn@railfan.net

I'm very glad to see the three former Conrail E8s in such good hands. Absolutely, it would be a fine sight to have the 4022 painted to match Mr. Levin's two other E8s. It wouldn't even bother me to see it in tuscan red with Juniata Terminal lettering, as long as the paint and striping was the same for all three units. With cab signals, the 4022 is ready to go anywhere and could always be painted Erie ot Erie Lackawanna later, perhaps when its high-speed running days are over. No harsh feelings toward the many historical or preservation groups that had coveted the Es, but I feel they belong where they can really run and be properly cared for. Thank you, Mr. Levin.

arveecee@hotmail.com

I grew up along the former Erie main line and, from my childhood, I vaguely recall the two-tone Erie E-8 scheme. I readily recall, however, the 833 in its EL scheme, and even rode behind it on the Youngstown-Cleveland commuter run as the EL breathed its last. I also have fond memories of being in her cab as CR 4022 on the Northeast Corridor at 85 m.p.h. when I worked for Conrail.

So, would any of these paint schemes 'suit' me, if 'suiting me' was at all an issue? The answer is certainly, "Yes", but the truly important point here NOT to be lost in all the waves of nostalgia is this: thanks to Mr. Levin, this E-8 will continue to BE. Regardless of the dress she wears, there's still most of what once was Erie/EL #833 and CR #4022 still 'in there'. I have been up close and personal to watch engines from GP7s to DDA40Xs fall in jagged pieces under a hissing cutting torch. I am glad that Mr. Levin has spared this Grand Old Lady that possible outcome. With his family and staff to tend to the care and feeding of this and the other Es, I am just relieved that it (and they) will continue to...BE!

INTERNATE1@prodigy.net