A while back, when WMSR was getting new rods fabricated by Strasburg, for the 734, there was brief which indicated how SRR staff used a special CAD/CAM application to design the replacement part that could calculate the weight of the designed item, by indicating what type of metal was being used in the new fabrication.Many operations are now using oxygen scavengers/chemical treatments to reduce the effects of waterborne impurities on boiler components.What other new technologies, chemicals, processes are being used in the cause of restoration, maintenance or operation.

Supe - check out Hugh Odom's ULTIMATE STEAM PAGE to find out what is going on with modern steam (and older steam) around the world. The work of Dante Porta and others is being carried on by Nigel Day, Shaun McMahon and others who frequently contribute to that site. I am working on retrofitting modern bearing materials to crosshead liners and a retrofit Lempor exhaust to a 1913 Baldwin 2-6-0 (to fit within the confines of the shell of the original style stack). Brainstorming on some proposed replica trolleys that would be built on new running gear with solid state control systems in a replica K or A controller box, completely new 1920s looking trucks but with real railroad roller bearings inside old style journal boxes, possibly disc brakes. Self propelled option with hydrostatic drive also potentially in the works. Interesting to see what might come of it. Such running gear could work well under any number of chicken coops now in trolley museums. dave

A question like this always get the hair on the back of my neck to stand up! We who are in the preservation business are here to preserve what went before!If you want to put something new into your locomotive, street car or whatever go spend your time at a modern railroad , electric line with Light Rail Vehicles and whatever!It is the accepted way of operation that replacement in kind of materiels if not labor, is the desired goal in the field.Sure there are ways to put roller bearings into one time friction bearing housings. But it is not what we are about.Now someone else can have the soapbox.Ted Miles

It depends on what goal one is after-restoration/preservation, interpretation, "restification" (a term borrowed from the muscle-car world), etc. This has been debated several times in the past, including within the pages of L&RP. Think about an aviation example-getting a DC-3 to fly. Would it be acceptable to use old-style avionics? Or, for safety etc purposes is one better off with new equipment, while preserving the old body, engines, etc? Similar thought has been discussed about what it would take to get a Pennsy GG-1 back and operating on the rails.

An essential question to be asked is what are you trying to preserve, the artifact itself, or the function of the artifact. Obviously, it is desirable to conserve extremely rare or fragile pieces, minimizing operation, or keeping them stictly as displays, so that they may last for future generations. On the other hand, if the mission is to provide the public with an impression of the experience provided by the the operation of the train, car, aircraft, etc, then there is a place for new technology and compromises. Current FRA, FAA, or DMV regulations must be met, as well as modern standards of safety, and to some degree, comfort. (i e, hot coaches on an excursion are a no-no, hence a retrofit to modern AC systems) Personally, I feel that if an application of modern technology can prolong both the servicability and the original fabric of car or locomotive (such as Dave's use of a modern bearing material on a crosshead), then it is a good thing, so long as you don't make modifications that aren't reversible. The other question in the equation is how much original fabric is left. Many years ago I asked Bill Purdie how much "original 1903" there was in SR 630. At that point in time, he thought that about 70% of the locomotive had been replaced over the years. Food for thought...................

Well, the other thing is that the work I described isn't being done for museums but for private individuals, tourist and transit operators who are not in the preservation business, and deal with replication mostly anyhow. The suggestion that trolley museums might find new trucks, better made to be more reliable at lower cost than old trucks of similar appearance, when originals no longer exist anyhow presents something of a gray area. Why not replicate to a more rational standard for operating stuff if original is impossible anyhow? Railroad stuff wears out in service so the decision to operate an artifact is in fact the decision to use it up piece by piece and acccept the compromises in replacement of original fabric as a result. So we divide our collections into stuff we conserve and suff we use to interpret and apply rational standards differently to each. Ted showed me around his steamships last month in San Francisco - i just submitted the first draft of a brief about it, and I make mention in it of the very high standard of repair work done there as evidenced on EUREKA - like materials and craftsmanship replacing deteriorated original fabric seamlessly. Timely that I got him riled on this subject today.......and provocative of some thought. Rest assured he and I see things more similarly than differently, and I hold him and his work in very high regard. dave

What is being neglected is the importance of looking at the artifact as something that was in many ways a living object - something that the railroad(s) modified many times over its life in order to use it in different roles or to improve operating efficiency. The highly modified condition that something leaves service is much more important than its original factory condition - as it reflects what elements of the original technology were successful in the service in which it was used - and which elements were unsuccessful or the railroad found cost effective to replace with new technology. Therefore, applying new technology is very dangerous for objects that are meant to be preserved indefinitely as it rewrites the history of the object. It no longer represents something that evolved in a set time period in regular service - but instead reflects something that is partially old and partially very new. How will future generations who study these pieces interpret these new modifications? Many people on this board decry preserving equipment in non-operational settings. However, keeping something out of regular service is the best way to preserve the story of the object – by keeping intact the physical record of the evolution of an object’s technology, form and function.That is not to say that there is not room for operation of many pieces - but we have to pay more attention to the importance of the history contained in the objects that we restoreTom Cornillie

I love this kind of thread. The subject is really a contraversial one that I feel people need to get straight. In my eyes the question {which was mentioned above} is what do you plan on doing with the artifact? Is it a steam locomotive that you plan on operating in the USA? If so there will no doubt be compromise. Operating and total preservation seem to be at odds more then most relize. As mentioned above, most steam engines {and rolling stock} have been rebuilt on a regular basis during there active careers, including new fireboxes, superheating conversions, new driver wheels, couplers, air pumps, cabs, and on and on. So........ do we want to look at them? Or do we run them? If the CN&W #1385s original boiler has a safety factor of 3 1/2 and the FRA calls for a safety factor of 4, do you modify the boiler or park it?There is no right or wrong {in my not so humble opinion}, just choices. With choices there are of course consequenses. Static displays alone will not keep a RR musuem alive for long, but destroying an original artifact is not right either. I liked what Mid Continent did many years ago with the wood fleet. They were retired to display and rare outings. Just to fagile for everyday use. If one wanted to be anal about it, you could say they shouldn't use the steel Lackawana coaches because they are historical too. Where do we draw the line? Guess it is up to the individual or musuem/tourist line what they do with there equipment.Great thread, John Risley.

This is where documentation come in. In reality - any piece of equipment that is preserved will need some repairs to, at the very least, remedy and arrest existing decay. The challenge is to document the piece to show what existed before, what was done, and what the state was post-repair. Photographs are important, but so is taking notes, making measurements, collecting paint samples and even retaining some items that will be replaced (such as worn parts or portions of wood siding). Why is this important - practical terms it helps any museum increase the educational value of its institution which is important in attracting outside funding.Also, if anyone here is interested in documentation standards - I have as a back burner project an idea to develop a website presenting documentation standards and techniques derived from both established US and European practices and how they can be applied to railroad preservation. If you would be interested in working on this project - contact me off list.Tom Cornillie

I think the condition of the item in question has to be the primary driver of the decision process. By way of example, I can cite two examples of d/e locomotives at either end of the spectrum. The alpha and omega of this argument...The first item is a 1939 EMD switcher locomotive that was found to be pretty much 'unmolested'-authentic down the window glass, A-C electrical gear and a whole host of other features. A two-owner locomotive. The only obvious external mod was an exhaust stack extension-which was easily remedied. While the loco could be made to run, operation was almost beside the point. So, it was given a 'cheap and dirty' restoration-and was able to stand on its own as a very pristine example of New England d/e motive power-whether or not it operated.The second is a 1947 Alco road-freight locomotive originally purchased by a different carrier. This unit was a three owner locomotive that was 'rebuilt' by the factory when it was 12 years old and ultimately converted to non-locomotive use. As a consequence of both events, a good deal of as-built equipment was discarded/replaced. In any event, the item that was preserved not only bore little relation to the original iteration-it was battered and worn beyond belief.For a number of reasons, it was decided that this locomotive should be restored both cosmetically and to operational status. Given the inherent limitations in terms of resources and the condition of the object itself, the decision was made to develop a mechanical/electrical configuration that would enable the locomotive to operate-period. Fidelity to any previous configuration was viewed to be essentially unimportant. Besides, a much better example of the as-built locomotive already existed elsewhere.So, when all is said and done, the cosmetic (external) part of the restoration will be completed to suit an existing high standard of fidelity and workmanship. In contrast, the goal of installing the electrical/mechanical configuration is to make the thing operable and maintainable. Fidelity to some unknown past was deemed to be immaterial.

Dave,I realize that you posted your thought as a starting place for discussion. but I had to chime in on the side of preservation rather than some other kind of other version of history.It was fun having you visit and I extend the invitation to other members oif the group.Ted Miles

Another consideration worth keeping in mind:There are interpretive advantages to selective removal and replacement of components from a larger object, as could be done in an operating restoration say. On the one hand, the subcomponents of a larger system might be better displayed and interpreted apart from that system. For example, it could be much easier to explain a partially disassembled injector to the public.Second some very useful and interesting information can only be learned through the destruction of a small amount of original fabric. When Mr. Ballard found the wreckage of (S. S.?) Titanic the decision of preservation (or interpretation, really) in place was something of a foregone conclusion. Yet selected artifacts were retrieved from the site. One such artifact was a piece of steel from the hull of the ship. By cutting a sliver (I believe called a cookie) from the steel, and comparing it to a souvenir made from the same steel that hadn't been underwater for a century, and subjecting both to intense and destructive tensile and metallurgical analysis, it was possible to learn that the ship sank in part because of exceptionally brittle low quality steel. That's a piece of information you couldn't get without destroying a small piece of the original fabric, yet it makes the story of the fateful voyage that much more complete and thus compelling. In a railroad application, how neat would it be to learn a bit about the metallurgy of an early twentieth century locomotive by analyzing a piece cut from a section of firebox or boiler shell being replaced?Any decision would of course be very case specific.

In the related maritime preservation area, consider many modifications to the Steamer Delta Queen: New stack, new welded hull, addition of diesel power for hotel use (cabins, etc.), addition of a bow thruster.The new hull was necessary because of the age of the old riveted hull and because so much stuff had been added to the boat over the years that the boat was lower in the water. The resultant low riding hull caused the paddlewheel to "lift" more water than necessary to move the boat along. The new hull has improved the efficiency of the wheel.The "lines" of the new hull, and the design of the new stack have generated much controversy amongst fans of the Delta Queen. In addition, the new stack clogged the whistle with soot, so the whistle has been moved to a mount on the pilot house.And then there are the many modifications to the cabins over the years.All on an operating National Historic Landmark, well on her way to her 80th birthday.Wesley

Can you tell us more on your report about the Delta Queen?i can imagine a lot of welded repairs gfoing into that hull, but do you really mean a whole new welded hull?That hull was built in Stockton, California in 1926 for service on the Sacramento River. It was only in the late 1940s that she took the trip East for her amazingly successful career on the Mississippi.Ted Miles

Yes, the Delta Queen sits in a new hull! This was done in the early 1990s for reasons explained above. Part of the old hull sits within the new hull. I am not sure how the hull was installed. Here is an excerpt from a post by Capt. Gabe on www.steamboats.org:With regards to the new hull of the DQ....By 1990 the original hull was not in what I would call 'bad' shape, as over the years a lot of the hull had been replaced in her five-year U.S. Coast Guard drydockings.However, in the layup of l990-1991 the company felt that some changes were in order.It's true that by that time the boat was drawing a lot more water than was necessary for efficiency. In her Sacramento River Days the boat drew 6 1/2 ft. empty-seven feet full of freight and automobiles. By 1990 the draft was nine feet resulting from additional equipment added to the boat over the years.The idea was to put a new hull over the old and lift the boat's paddlewheel out of the water to the height of the original Callifornia draft. The boat now still draws nine feet, but the wheel is in great trim. Thehull is 12 feet wider and almost three feet deeper in the water. Although the boat's tonnage doubled with the new hull, she is not burning any addition fuel to move. A few of the void spaces between the old and new hull were used for additional fluid spaces. For instance, potable water storage capacity increased from 15,000 to about 82,000 gallons. We can go up to four days now without taking drinking water.The potable water is now available to the sinks in all rooms compared to years ago where you relied on a maid to bring you pitchers of drinking water to your room. Fuel capacity increased from 1200bbls of bunker C to 2100 bbls. We can easily go over two weeks now before refueling.Wesley