The thread below about losing of the “old steam hands” (and the need to bring younger folks on board) got me thinking the last few days. I’d like to recall an afternoon I spent at a tourist railroad late last year. I’m going to throw out a few thoughts for discussion, to see what some f you might think. I won’t mention the railroad as its not pertinent and I don’t want this to go off in a different direction.

To my point, late last year several friends and I visited a tourist railroad here in the east. My friends and I are all involved in railway preservation in one way or another and all under the age of 35. We had occasion to talk to another friend of ours who was the engineer on the day we made our visit. He’s maybe a generation older than I am, but certainly “young” by comparison to some of the “old hands” we’ve been talking about. We got to talking in the cab of the engine, a steam engine being a nice place to chat on a cold November day. The conversation went from this engine, to that engine and eventually we started fondly recalling some of the older folks who worked steam and became involved with different tourist lines or museums in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Our engineer friend then brought up an interesting point, in having some of the older railroaders involved years ago may have actually done some unintentional harm in the long run.

His opinion was that alot of these older railroaders had the run/fired locomotives without much thought towards long term conservation or preservation. In this I mean they came from railroads where, if the machine broke, there was always another in the roundhouse to use. This mentality my friend said was particularly acute after World War II where engines were run into the ground without much care, then discarded as diesels were purchased. Yes I’m sure it was different in the depression and during the war where you had to get every mile you could out a machine as money or materials were hard to come by, but consider this: A large portion of the qualified steam guys in the 1960’s/1970’s (and even today) hired on the railroads during the war or soon after. You could see where the “run them till they give up” mentality could develop.

Now think about the generation of steam railroaders that came after, the kids who might have stood trackside in the 1960Â’s or 197oÂ’s watching some of these old-time hoggers roll buy on some fan trip. I for one believe that the people who operate steam equipment have a greater sense of conservation than their predecessors did 20 years ago. Certainly much more thought is given to keeping engines economically viable over the coming decades. Decisions are often made with the realities of a consumable artifact as part of the picture. This all leads me to a few questions.

Do we in fact have a more conscientious breed of steam railroaders today than we did 20 years ago?

Did a larger percentage of engineers/fireman run the first generation of steam perhaps harder than they should have?

Is the equipment we'll be running in the next 20 years perhaps better off with this new generation?

IÂ’m certainly not intending to slight the railroaders of the past, the old hands who in essence kept our craft alive. Without this generation of railroaders, we wouldnÂ’t have much of what we have today. They are an invaluable source and in no way would I attempt to diminish their contributions.

Now-a-days every tourist railroad I visit, the staff seems to be getting younger, or at least there are more and more younger people. The discussions I have or over hear tend to be about keeping their engine (or the railroad) going for future generations. I’ve heard more and more “kids” talk about taking care of equipment, and not running it into the ground. I even overheard a preservation vs. operation debate between two 16 years olds last year.

Just bringing this all up because maybe weÂ’re a little better off better than we think.

Dave Crosby


bing@epix.net

> Do we in fact have a more conscientious
> breed of steam railroaders today than we did
> 20 years ago?
While taking my first Steamtown train ride in 1984, a similar question came to my mind. Were these people planning to keep these locomoitves and tracks in running shape in perpetuity? Or were they just using the last few years left in the resource? At that time, I didn't know who to ask, and even now, am not sure. There seems to be no "master plan" for RR preservation. Each project is so local in its scope, that people on the far side of the same town of a preservation project are rather unaware that it even exists. The ones on the near side may think it's an eyesore, or be fiercely loyal to it. Hardly any middle ground exists. Each project is so budget driven, that there can't be a long view of what to plan.

> Did a larger percentage of engineers/fireman
> run the first generation of steam perhaps
> harder than they should have?

> Is the equipment we'll be running in the
> next 20 years perhaps better off with this
> new generation?
I guess that if we keep asking this type of question, we may get a better breed, knowing there won't be anything to run, if we beat up what we have.

> Now-a-days every tourist railroad I visit,
> the staff seems to be getting younger, or at
> least there are more and more younger
> people. The discussions I have or over hear
> tend to be about keeping their engine (or
> the railroad) going for future generations.
> I’ve heard more and more “kids” talk about
> taking care of equipment, and not running it
> into the ground. I even overheard a
> preservation vs. operation debate between
> two 16 years olds last year.

> Just bringing this all up because maybe
> weÂ’re a little better off better than we
> think.

> Dave Crosby


http://www.nps.gov/stea/

> The thread below about losing of the “old
> steam hands” (and the need to bring younger
> folks on board) got me thinking the last few
> days. IÂ’d like to recall an afternoon I
> spent at a tourist railroad late last year.
> IÂ’m going to throw out a few thoughts for
> discussion, to see what some f you might
> think. I wonÂ’t mention the railroad as its
> not pertinent and I donÂ’t want this to go
> off in a different direction.

> To my point, late last year several friends
> and I visited a tourist railroad here in the
> east. My friends and I are all involved in
> railway preservation in one way or another
> and all under the age of 35. We had occasion
> to talk to another friend of ours who was
> the engineer on the day we made our visit.
> HeÂ’s maybe a generation older than I am, but
> certainly “young” by comparison to some of
> the “old hands” we’ve been talking about. We
> got to talking in the cab of the engine, a
> steam engine being a nice place to chat on a
> cold November day. The conversation went
> from this engine, to that engine and
> eventually we started fondly recalling some
> of the older folks who worked steam and
> became involved with different tourist lines
> or museums in the 1960Â’s and 1970Â’s. Our
> engineer friend then brought up an
> interesting point, in having some of the
> older railroaders involved years ago may
> have actually done some unintentional harm
> in the long run.

> His opinion was that alot of these older
> railroaders had the run/fired locomotives
> without much thought towards long term
> conservation or preservation. In this I mean
> they came from railroads where, if the
> machine broke, there was always another in
> the roundhouse to use. This mentality my
> friend said was particularly acute after
> World War II where engines were run into the
> ground without much care, then discarded as
> diesels were purchased. Yes IÂ’m sure it was
> different in the depression and during the
> war where you had to get every mile you
> could out a machine as money or materials
> were hard to come by, but consider this: A
> large portion of the qualified steam guys in
> the 1960Â’s/1970Â’s (and even today) hired on
> the railroads during the war or soon after.
> You could see where the “run them till they
> give up” mentality could develop.

> Now think about the generation of steam
> railroaders that came after, the kids who
> might have stood trackside in the 1960Â’s or
> 197oÂ’s watching some of these old-time
> hoggers roll buy on some fan trip. I for one
> believe that the people who operate steam
> equipment have a greater sense of
> conservation than their predecessors did 20
> years ago. Certainly much more thought is
> given to keeping engines economically viable
> over the coming decades. Decisions are often
> made with the realities of a consumable
> artifact as part of the picture. This all
> leads me to a few questions.

> Do we in fact have a more conscientious
> breed of steam railroaders today than we did
> 20 years ago?

> Did a larger percentage of engineers/fireman
> run the first generation of steam perhaps
> harder than they should have?

> Is the equipment we'll be running in the
> next 20 years perhaps better off with this
> new generation?

> IÂ’m certainly not intending to slight the
> railroaders of the past, the old hands who
> in essence kept our craft alive. Without
> this generation of railroaders, we wouldnÂ’t
> have much of what we have today. They are an
> invaluable source and in no way would I
> attempt to diminish their contributions.

> Now-a-days every tourist railroad I visit,
> the staff seems to be getting younger, or at
> least there are more and more younger
> people. The discussions I have or over hear
> tend to be about keeping their engine (or
> the railroad) going for future generations.
> I’ve heard more and more “kids” talk about
> taking care of equipment, and not running it
> into the ground. I even overheard a
> preservation vs. operation debate between
> two 16 years olds last year.

> Just bringing this all up because maybe
> weÂ’re a little better off better than we
> think.

> Dave Crosby
Good points!I have wondered this same thought myself. I do work for a railroad museum in the South and I am young myself, and if the younger help is tought the right way to operate the locomotives, and they are mature enough to handle the responsibility of operating them, let them! They need to be taught the right way!
I am a student engineer and I have been a fireman for several years, and the guys that I work with are excellent about drifting the engine, and not working it more than they need to, and real good about making sure that everything is the way that it needs to be before they move the steam locomotive off the ready track!
We have several younger folks, and some older folks, that are working their way up the ranks, and when they work under me, I make sure that they are doing the right thing for the locomotive (steam or diesel)! I do believe that the older folks(but are new to railroading) need to be taught just like they were a "younger" crew member! My reason is that if I can avoid having to replace something, then great! This would only be more money that we would have to put twards the repairs, and not twards getting another locomotive/passenger car in operating condition.
Thanks alot

southern630@hotmail.com

A thought that comes to mind with the approach to keeping locos, etc. running:

Past generations have grown up with mechanical devices that can be readily "sledgehammered" back into submission; if you understand the basic mechanics, one can make something work one way or another--a stocking for the fan belt, a leaky pipe welded, a new piston fabricated, etc.

Not so with increasing numbers of devices. From the modem in the computer to the circuitry module in a modern diesel, it's a case of replace the defective part/item or devise a workaround. Like the old joke, if they made advances in cars like they made in copmputers, your car would go 5,000 mph, get 25,000 mpg, and cost seventeen dollars, and no one could fix one older than March 2002--and who would care, because you'd just throw out the old car and buy a new one for fifteen!

It's likely that the "disposable" mentality may be the first thing that has to be tackled.

LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

With the prospect of restoring another steam locomotive, LIRR G5s #39, to working condition, I hope Dave has made a good observation. I would like to think that our journeymen steam members/operators (of any age) will take a cautious approach to operating and maintaining the limited resources we have. Here's to the Future! Salude!

de Don, n2qhvRMLI


http://rmli.org
n2qhv@arrl.net

> The thread below about losing of the “old
> steam hands” (and the need to bring younger
> folks on board) got me thinking the last few
> days. IÂ’d like to recall an afternoon I
> spent at a tourist railroad late last year.
> IÂ’m going to throw out a few thoughts for
> discussion, to see what some f you might
> think. I wonÂ’t mention the railroad as its
> not pertinent and I donÂ’t want this to go
> off in a different direction.

> To my point, late last year several friends
> and I visited a tourist railroad here in the
> east. My friends and I are all involved in
> railway preservation in one way or another
> and all under the age of 35. We had occasion
> to talk to another friend of ours who was
> the engineer on the day we made our visit.
> HeÂ’s maybe a generation older than I am, but
> certainly “young” by comparison to some of
> the “old hands” we’ve been talking about. We
> got to talking in the cab of the engine, a
> steam engine being a nice place to chat on a
> cold November day. The conversation went
> from this engine, to that engine and
> eventually we started fondly recalling some
> of the older folks who worked steam and
> became involved with different tourist lines
> or museums in the 1960Â’s and 1970Â’s. Our
> engineer friend then brought up an
> interesting point, in having some of the
> older railroaders involved years ago may
> have actually done some unintentional harm
> in the long run.

> His opinion was that alot of these older
> railroaders had the run/fired locomotives
> without much thought towards long term
> conservation or preservation. In this I mean
> they came from railroads where, if the
> machine broke, there was always another in
> the roundhouse to use. This mentality my
> friend said was particularly acute after
> World War II where engines were run into the
> ground without much care, then discarded as
> diesels were purchased. Yes IÂ’m sure it was
> different in the depression and during the
> war where you had to get every mile you
> could out a machine as money or materials
> were hard to come by, but consider this: A
> large portion of the qualified steam guys in
> the 1960Â’s/1970Â’s (and even today) hired on
> the railroads during the war or soon after.
> You could see where the “run them till they
> give up” mentality could develop.

> Now think about the generation of steam
> railroaders that came after, the kids who
> might have stood trackside in the 1960Â’s or
> 197oÂ’s watching some of these old-time
> hoggers roll buy on some fan trip. I for one
> believe that the people who operate steam
> equipment have a greater sense of
> conservation than their predecessors did 20
> years ago. Certainly much more thought is
> given to keeping engines economically viable
> over the coming decades. Decisions are often
> made with the realities of a consumable
> artifact as part of the picture. This all
> leads me to a few questions.

> Do we in fact have a more conscientious
> breed of steam railroaders today than we did
> 20 years ago?

> Did a larger percentage of engineers/fireman
> run the first generation of steam perhaps
> harder than they should have?

> Is the equipment we'll be running in the
> next 20 years perhaps better off with this
> new generation?

> IÂ’m certainly not intending to slight the
> railroaders of the past, the old hands who
> in essence kept our craft alive. Without
> this generation of railroaders, we wouldnÂ’t
> have much of what we have today. They are an
> invaluable source and in no way would I
> attempt to diminish their contributions.

> Now-a-days every tourist railroad I visit,
> the staff seems to be getting younger, or at
> least there are more and more younger
> people. The discussions I have or over hear
> tend to be about keeping their engine (or
> the railroad) going for future generations.
> I’ve heard more and more “kids” talk about
> taking care of equipment, and not running it
> into the ground. I even overheard a
> preservation vs. operation debate between
> two 16 years olds last year.

> Just bringing this all up because maybe
> weÂ’re a little better off better than we
> think.

> Dave Crosby

I would like to comment about the "Old Heads".
I guess I am one.
I don't think that you can generalize about the old heads that have been involved with museums and other aspects of railroad preservation.
I have been a volunteer at a certain operation for 57 years and am an ex railroad man.
I've found that the old heads reflect the same
work ethic that they had when they were active railroaders.
Some were really adament about doing the best job they could and some had the attitude that "that's good enough for here."
Just like any walk of life, some just "get by" and some want things right.
I've found the younger people that are coming along to fit that mold too.
Most of the old time steam men I've been in contact with have been very careful about handling locomotives with "kid gloves" because they realize that they're dealing with a survivor.


john_nansen@yahoo.com

> Do we in fact have a more conscientious
> breed of steam railroaders today than we did
> 20 years ago?
I would say the general level of steam railroaders today is better than 20 years ago. However, I have known some real pros over the last 30 years of working with steam. Two who stand out are Charlie Barrett from the Morris County Central and George Atchison from the Huckleberry RR. I'm sure there were lots more around the country, gentlemen of the old school with a gift for running steam locomotives. On the other hand I've seen some of the old timers beat the snot out of a locomotive.

> Did a larger percentage of engineers/fireman
> run the first generation of steam perhaps
> harder than they should have?

No Question - especially the guy from that "Tall Rail" outfit.

> Is the equipment we'll be running in the
> next 20 years perhaps better off with this
> new generation?

As much as I hate to say it, everyone, the public, steam railroaders, and steam locomotives themselves are better off with the new rules. The marginal outfits are gone - no more yanking a locomotive out of a park, slapping some tubes in it and running it.

> Just bringing this all up because maybe
> weÂ’re a little better off better than we
> think.

Personnel wise we are better off than even ten years ago. The supply side is another story. No longer can you stumble across a stash of staybolts or headlight reflectors in a railroad storeroom. You can't just call up Hennessy when you need journal pads. The valves you buy today are junk. Pick one up - they weigh half of what the same size and type valve weighed ten years ago. If you're lucky you can rebuild it before you put it on the locomotive. Yes, suppliers like Bernie Watts are trying to fill the gaps, but it costs them more so it costs us more. Is the cup half empty or half full? I actually am surprised there are as many steam locomotives running today as there are. I guess I'm an optimist - I think we're a lot better off today than ten years ago.

Martyhuck@aol.com

What Marty said.....

Early days at Large Southern Public Railroad Museum. Volunteer rank of retired rails from the end of steam era proud of their ability to effect the least marginal repairs necessary to get the train through the day probably. Vocal about Southern Steam Legend who was "notorious" for his inability to get marginal repairs through the shop on his shiftleaving it for the next shift to finish - was trying to do too well.

A near disaster was created one day thanks to vry marginal firebox work. End of story.

Yes, the newer generations have a broader view of conservation as a responsibility and take it much more seriously. We are evolving to a smaller but better industry as Marty suggests. It will probably strengthen us once we get past the painful attrition phase.

BTW, beating up a steam locomotive on a tourist line which can't be run without beating up engines provides the one true repesentation of what railroading was like in "the old days". D&SNGRR will teach more about it than 100 Smithsonians. But it is a good thing we have both.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> Why are we limiting this thread to steam? This discussion encompasses the entire spectrum of rail preservation. In many respects it will be possible to maintain steam powerin operating condition far longer than vintage diesel power. To some extent steam maintenance and repair requires fabrication skills and technology. With diesels it's all parts and as time goes by those parts are becoming scarcer and scarcer. Break a crankshaft or toast a main generator on an ALCO or Baldwin it more than likely the unit will be parked permanently as a static display.

In my experience working at a diesel powered operation the same situation has occurred. In the early operating days some of our crews were older railroaders who over the course of their careers had developed the attitude that there was always someone else who's job it was to fix'em so there was no need to worry about how your train handling affected the condition of the equipment. I can understand how such attitudes like that developed as it usally was more important to get the train over the road so as not to annoy the dispatcher or the road foreman.

At most museums and toursit operations such concerns are usually not present. In most cases the same people who run the trains are the same people who fix them and after the operating day is done it's time to go to work trying to keep up with the repairs(not only engines but the cars as well). In a situation like that you learn very quickly that the easier you treat the equipment the less work you make for yourself and in the long run preserve equipment.
Hal Reiser

Hal2415@aol.com

> Most of the old time steam men I've been in
> contact with have been very careful about
> handling locomotives with "kid
> gloves" because they realize that
> they're dealing with a survivor.

I even overheard a
> preservation vs. operation debate between
> two 16 years olds last year.

These two comments are great, and reflect what I'm beginning to feel is becoming a much more balanced approach. In the meeting that Marty Knox hosted back about a year ago at Huckleberry, one of, if I remember correctly, Marty's comments indicated that steam has great potential: the potential to bring in visitors and maybe even people who spend cash: and it also has the great potential to KILL you. I like to think that those type of comments I, and from what I'm hearing, others just behind me, LISTENED to with pretty opinion ears, and it sunk in. There is definitely a "fear of god" element that I have developed with steam, in part from getting to know guys who know a lot about it. Its healthy, and important, and I found it goes beyond the obvious of the "potential death" aspect, but the "virtual death" aspect of finances. You just don't go into a major restoration of rail equipment of ANY kind these days without SERIOUSLy looking at as much of the pitfalls that you can, or at the very least talking to others who have done it before you. Its just plain suicide not to.

When coming to work for our museum, one of the big pushes was to get our 2-4-0 Porter in operation. I have to admit that when I helped the museum acquire it back in 1992 (I was all of 17 then) I was among this group. By the time I returned 8 years later however, I found, much to my own surprise, that I was the one saying "wait a minute: we need to think this through." I guess mentally it was my own defense of the locomotive, the knowledge of everything it takes to even get a 3-foot gauge Porter back in operation, that had changed. I had learned and listened and formed an opinion based on other's knowledge (and just a little of my own), and decided that I needed to get guys who could dissect the reality of what we had, instead of going into another hair brained scheme loco resto like so many others had done, only to be left with a pile of parts on a florr somewhere.

The other difference is this website, frankly. When my director asked to check it out, I went to guys I had met through this site: Marty Knox and Dave Lathrop. O.K., I probably leaned on Marty a little more because we had a mutual friend and well, he's only an hour away, but I listened to both, and Marty came out to inspect it. Right now, in part because of those two guys recommendations, we are moving down the road to eventual comsetic restoration of that engine (the third oldest Porter). This site (and the magazine that came before it) gave us me that chance. When we did our combine rehab, it was members of this site who gave me the insights that saved us time and money. You just can't put a price on it. Period. It, quite literally, is as close to a rail preservation encyclopedia of knowledge as there is. I think all of us wish the RYPN would have been available twenty, thirty, or even forty years ago. Imagine what mistakes, misspent money, and amazing discussions could have been had on an RYPN in, say, 1970?

TJ

tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

>>In most cases the same people who run the trains are the same people who fix them and after the operating day is done it's time to go to
work trying to keep up with the repairs(not
only engines but the cars as well). In a
situation like that you learn very quickly
that the easier you treat the equipment the
less work you make for yourself and in the
long run preserve equipment.<<

It's better this way, for those running the train tend to care a lot more about the equipment and it's not just because they know they'll have to fix it if they break it. More than that, they respect the equipment and respect the work they've done long into the many nights keeping it in safe operating condition. In a "throw-away" world where most of us think nothing of getting a new fax/PC/VCR/phone or whatever rather than taking it into the shop (what shop?), train crews who head for the shop at the end of day with wrenches in their hands are a breath of fresh air and give the rest of us hope that 261 (or pick your favorite) will be operable next year and the year after that.

--Malcolm

malcolmrcampbell@cs.com

The best way to instill "respect" for equipment within the ranks of the operating folks is to mandate their participation in the maintenance process. Granted, this is not an easy thing to do within the context of a volunteer organization-but
there needs to be some discipline exercised on the part of management.

I find the concept of "conservation" to be somewhat nebulous within the context of railroad preservation. Fact is-all equipment is "born" with a certain practical lifespan-in addition to an economic or operational one.

As the rail industry (indeed the world) becomes more and more regulated, the bar will get raised higher and higher. For exaple, the effects of EPA emissions regulations have made many, many diesel locomotives effectively obsolete in both the economic and practical sense. The economics of upgrade generally do not exist, nor do the capabilities exist to perform this work on a large scale. It is simpler (and cheaper) to purchase new.

What does this mean to "our" world ? Well, much of the equipment that arrives at the gates of railroad museums is prety well "spent."

So, I suppose the operative question is-in leiu of the issue of "conservation" is-does it really have to run-or can a better case be made for static display ?
> work trying to keep up with the repairs(not
> only engines but the cars as well). In a
> situation like that you learn very quickly
> that the easier you treat the equipment the
> less work you make for yourself and in the
> long run preserve equipment. It's better this way, for those running the
> train tend to care a lot more about the
> equipment and it's not just because they
> know they'll have to fix it if they break
> it. More than that, they respect the
> equipment and respect the work they've done
> long into the many nights keeping it in safe
> operating condition. In a
> "throw-away" world where most of
> us think nothing of getting a new
> fax/PC/VCR/phone or whatever rather than
> taking it into the shop (what shop?), train
> crews who head for the shop at the end of
> day with wrenches in their hands are a
> breath of fresh air and give the rest of us
> hope that 261 (or pick your favorite) will
> be operable next year and the year after
> that.

> --Malcolm


newhaven0401-NOSPAM-@verizon.net

> I would say the general level of steam
> railroaders today is better than 20 years
> ago. However, I have known some real pros
> over the last 30 years of working with
> steam. Two who stand out are Charlie Barrett
> from the Morris County Central and George
> Atchison from the Huckleberry RR. I'm sure
> there were lots more around the country,
> gentlemen of the old school with a gift for
> running steam locomotives. On the other hand
> I've seen some of the old timers beat the
> snot out of a locomotive.

> No Question - especially the guy from that
> "Tall Rail" outfit.

> As much as I hate to say it, everyone, the
> public, steam railroaders, and steam
> locomotives themselves are better off with
> the new rules. The marginal outfits are gone
> - no more yanking a locomotive out of a
> park, slapping some tubes in it and running
> it.

> Personnel wise we are better off than even
> ten years ago. The supply side is another
> story. No longer can you stumble across a
> stash of staybolts or headlight reflectors
> in a railroad storeroom. You can't just call
> up Hennessy when you need journal pads. The
> valves you buy today are junk. Pick one up -
> they weigh half of what the same size and
> type valve weighed ten years ago. If you're
> lucky you can rebuild it before you put it
> on the locomotive. Yes, suppliers like
> Bernie Watts are trying to fill the gaps,
> but it costs them more so it costs us more.
> Is the cup half empty or half full? I
> actually am surprised there are as many
> steam locomotives running today as there
> are. I guess I'm an optimist - I think we're
> a lot better off today than ten years ago.
I don't agree with the statement that all of the pros have to be of the "old school"! I know plenty of guys, that I work with, that have the magic touch with the throttle of a steam locomotive! I think its just a matter of being around them, knowing what to do and what not to do with them!

southern630@hotmail.com

> The best way to instill "respect"
> for equipment within the ranks of the
> operating folks is to mandate their
> participation in the maintenance process.
> Granted, this is not an easy thing to do
> within the context of a volunteer
> organization-but
> there needs to be some discipline exercised
> on the part of management.
I agree with your first point! What I think that needs to happen is that some of the guys that run the locomotives, come in and fix what they break, or it might just happen to break at the time that they were in charge of the locomotive, but they do need to do that!
I am a student, and over Christmas Break, I went out to the organization that I belong to, and I started taking apart all of the valves in the cab, removing jacket and lagging so that the regular paid guys didn't have to do that and slow them up from what they have on their "to do" list!

> I find the concept of
> "conservation" to be somewhat
> nebulous within the context of railroad
> preservation. Fact is-all equipment is
> "born" with a certain practical
> lifespan-in addition to an economic or
> operational one.

> As the rail industry (indeed the world)
> becomes more and more regulated, the bar
> will get raised higher and higher. For
> exaple, the effects of EPA emissions
> regulations have made many, many diesel
> locomotives effectively obsolete in both the
> economic and practical sense. The economics
> of upgrade generally do not exist, nor do
> the capabilities exist to perform this work
> on a large scale. It is simpler (and
> cheaper) to purchase new.

> What does this mean to "our" world
> ? Well, much of the equipment that arrives
> at the gates of railroad museums is prety
> well "spent."

> So, I suppose the operative question is-in
> leiu of the issue of
> "conservation" is-does it really
> have to run-or can a better case be made for
> static display ?


southern630@hotmail.com

Clearly it is good to operate priceless relics in a way that minimizes wear and tear, if you focus only on the hard assets. But in doing so are we ignoring that HOW those assets were used might be just as important as the assets themselves. Working machines to their limits was part of the how the work actually got done. If you baby the machines it is a pale and misleading recreation of historic reality. Museum "railroads" that make every move slowly and hesitantly are not a particularly realistic recreation of how railroading really was. Folks worked fast to get early quits, and so on. In my mind the interpretation of the (hard working and occasionally unsafe) culture is no less important that preserving the metal. In the end only people really matter. Which is not to say that inexperienced volunteers should risk their lives, only that we need to think about how we "preserve" and interprete some of the human aspects of railroad history.

jbwest@att.net