One of the aspects I look for at other types of non-rail museums is how they present their artifacts. What works and what does not work is often transferable to railway preservation. The photo below is a good example of something that works. The Patton Museum of Calvary and Armor is located about 25 miles from my hometown. Located at Ft. Knox, the museum has a large collection of artifacts which relate to the history of armor and Calvary in the U.S. Army. One of the true gems of the collection is this piece of German armor. It was literally dug out of a bog outside of Stalingrad where it sunk during World War II. The piece of equipment is in very good condition. The paint on the outside is the original anti-magnetic coating that the Germans painted their tanks with. The bent fender is bent from being hit with a mortar round. It is rare that a museum is able to present a historic artifact as big as a locomotive or tank in "original condition" as it is usually too dilapidated or rusted to be presentable. Here is an example of one of those rare opportunities when such presentation is possible. Granted, it isn't shiny or new-looking as much o the rest of the collection, but nonetheless it has a good story to tell.One of the negative aspects of the Patton Museum is that it is very dark inside. It makes it hard for even someone like me with good eyesight to read the signs about the equipment.

You have a great point and I think you find this in very few places in railroading. Maybe the EBT or B&O Museum which have stored equipment indoors for 50 or more years have railroad equipment with paint and lettering applied in the golden age of steam. The sad thig is there is just way too much that has been lost to the weather in so many places.

Prior to the fire, Our Museum had decided to take this approach with DCTS 0509, a work car with a body that traced its origins to an 1899 center aisle open car. We used it for many years as a work car on the line. As the carbody began to really creak and sway we set the car aside on restricted operation and cleaned out all the gear (tools and equipment) that was not part of the car. The idea was to display it as-is to illustrate how the car had been adapted over the years. Wesley

You are right, it is rare to find any artifact in "original condition." Two exceptions come to mind.-A Ford Model T that had 26 original miles on it, which spent most of its life in a barn. I saw this in a book on the Model T. The photos and text were educational in the sense that it showed original construction methods, including Ford's "flow on" paint method which left less than spectacular results.-A Kentucky long rifle on display at Colonial Williamsburg. The rifle was found in a private collection in England, and had probably never been fired. The rifle yielded many clues to early American riflemaking. Such artifacts are rare, and are worth noting. I remember reading about a Corvette restoration specialist who spent time restoring his Corvettes to "factory new" condition. His main complaint was that many auto restorations were not accurate reflections of how the cars looked when new. The 1965 Corvette that was the subject of the article was painstakingly restored to how it looked when it came from the factory. I believe GM used about 12 different shades of black for the various frame and suspension components. Bits of carpet were left in the car, from where they would have been trimmed during assembly. The paint job was bad, as it was on most Corvettes, thin in places.

Of course, the trick with our stuff is to actually keep it like it is and not allow further deterioration. Not always easy, especially if it lives outside or visitors interact with it. I think there is much to be learned from artefacts in the artifacts - which parts wore how, what was repaired and what was not - that can tell us much about the operation of the railroads when the equipment was in service. These clues disappear in restoration.dave

A perservationist from Australia on my "Steam Lizards" group on Yahoo has a different tack from the majority of preservationists.He argues that whenever possible, equipment should literally be left "as is where is". For example, there are several steam powered logging winches that were abandoned in the woods of Victoria, Australia. He feels that rather than being moved to a museum and cleaned up; they should be given heritage status and left where they are in the woods.Either the East Broad Top or the Lumber Mill at Long Leaf, LA are probably an example of what he is thinking of. By leaving everything as is in place, each item can be interpreted in the environment it was used it. If, as an example, we moved an East Broad Top locomotive to a railroad museum somewhere, you would lose the ability to understand what kind of railroad it was used on and what that railroad did and looked like.It is not always possible to do so; especially if the site is in danger of vandelism or redevelopment, but I can see where he is coming from. As dirty and gritty as it was, it the Solvay Coke Plant compressor house in it's intact state was far better than scattering some of the stationary steam engines to the four winds; especially since some were incomplete. It would have been a fairly rare example of a fairly intact turn-of-century steam engine house; with it's impressive rows of vertical and horizontal engines all piped up and in place. I know that this is also the crux of Bob Yarger's arguement that steam locomotives such be preserved and displayed in preserved roundhouses; not in a museum setting. As mentioned before, we tend to make preserved things more "sterile" than they ever were while being used.But he was also quick to state that many such projects, like the Solvay Coke Plant compressor house, more often failed than succeeded; with the current owner decided to destroy what was there and redeveloping the site rather than preserve it. The recent posting about the developments in Chicago are facinating; they seem to have far more local support than we could ever dream up, and I hope they succeed big time.Enough rambling for now; this thread just happened to bring that to mind.-James Hefner Hebrews 10:20a Surviving World Steam Project

Preservation organizations will always have the desire to restore artifacts. While we all enjoy seeing items of interest returned to a more complete (or even operating) state, it certainly holds true that much information is lost in the restoration process. Even railcars and locomotives that were preserved complete can often times change substatintially over the years as numerous small "concessions" to operating practicality are applied. No single change by itself may amount to much, but over a period of years, the changes can be significant.Another way to think about classifying artifacts is to include a "study piece" category. As with the example of the tank, a study piece is something that you leave "as is" within the collection. It is stabilized, but it never gets restored. It serves as an example of construction techniques, finishes, joinery, fasteners, and all of the myriad details that of necessity tend to get replaced during restoration. No matter how much documentation is done during a restoration, there is still no substitute for looking at the original (although it may be weathered, damaged, etc.)At Orange Empire Railway Museum, LA Railway Huntington Standard carbody 836 is an excellent example. It was stripped of equipment and became part of a dwelling after its streetcar career ended, and although weathered, no one ever really "messed with it". It got painted a few times, had some things nailed to it, etc., but in general it's all there. Today, some might see the 836 as a "duplicate" (given that there are two similar complete cars in the collection) but in 50 years, will we look at it with a different perspective?

I visited a wonderful air museum in Britain (Duxbury, I think) where several of the exhibits include planes as recovered. The main body of the museum is several hundred restored and perfect planes of every vintage. Several exhibits are charred, twisted, remains of aircraft displayed exactly as they were located at the impact sites. In at least one case, skeletal remains were removed from the plane and properly interred before recovery began. Perhaps the finest display is a B-24 in fragments, set on the floor in a simulated lake bottom. This explains so much about aircraft, it's fate, and the fates of the young men who defended freedom in them. Without restoring the plane, it is preserved and interpreted in perfection.

The Kentucky Railway Museum has a Brill Model 55 motorcar that operated on a Kentucky Shortline. Several years ago, a decision was made to not, for the time being, restore the car to operation. One of the obstacles to full operation was a still-mangled front truck frame which makes the car appear to lean to one side. Evidently, when in service on the Frankfort and Cincinnati, it rolled into the turntable pit one day. This was the best the railroad could afford to repair it. In a way, it tells a lot about shortline railroads, repairs were often made the cheapest way possible.

This is something the antique airplane community goes through all the time. Someone recovers a WW2 fighter from some swamp with it's original paint on it, and they often strip it down and completely rebuild it. To me, there are some items that should be left, "as is," and this Sturngeschutz is a good example of this. Actually, a lot of WW2 armor has come out of Europe and Russia in recent years, found in lakes, rivers and bogs, in decent states of preservation. To me, something like that really should stay as-is, if it's in decent shape and won't deteriorate and restoring it would destroy or modify a historical item, such as a good paint job on an important airplane.But I strongly doubt that if someone found some previously thought extinct locomotive in a barn somewhere, that it'd stay in it's original paint. There'd be too strong a cry to restore it. The USAF museum is like this as well. You just can't get a photo of the VERY rare P-61 black widow they have in there at all. The last time I was at the RR Museum of Pennsylvania, I heard people complain of poor lighting there as well. I found getting photos at Sacramento difficult for the same reason. I understand low lighting for light-sensitive items such as art, but track lighting couldn't possibly harm something as durable as a locomotive, airplane or a tank. I think the W&A # 3, better known as "The General" is a classic example of just that. Look at all the changes she's undegone over her lifetime, and it's final appearance has bee a sutdy in concessions to people who'd handled it before. Note the L&N style engine number on the headlight lens, for example!

I assume that most have heard about the two ancient locomotives found submerged about 60 feet deep off of the coast of New Jersey by the New Jersey Historical Divers Association. I understand that the locomotives are going to be recovered. Since they have been underwater for possibly as long as 150 years, they are quite deteriorated, however, as historical artifacts, I would think they would be extremely significant. If you were in charge of this endeavor, what would be your plan once the locomotives were recovered?

I'd leave them as-is, once they were stabilized against exposure to the air, as there's NO way to restore them into anything other than something that's spent a long time under water...

I would leave the two locomotives as is too. However, I wonder how they could be stabilized and displayed in air. How much cleaning should be done to the iron? To me, the most controversial matter would be what to do with the several brass details that probably are intact. Would a competent, professional restorer consider polishing these brass items?

That old tank is better off than 80 percent of the stuff we're involved with, as it's out of the weather. Most of the "preserved" rail equipment today should be so lucky.

Richard,I think you are speaking of the Royal Air Force Museum at Hendon, on the north side of London. They have the remains of a Handley-Page Halifax that was recovered from a fjord in Norway. They have chosen to leave it in its "as recovered" state. At the time, it was the only "intact" Halifax. Another has since been put together from bits and pieces of several other aircraft, and is displayed at Elvington. The Royal Canadian Air Force Museum at Trenton, Ontario is restoring another Halifax that was recovered from different fjord. Now, if the RAF Museum could only get enough pieces of a Short Stirling to create an intact example......The Imperial War Museum at Duxford (near Cambridge), is an interesting case of preservation vs. operation. While the IWM's aircraft will never fly again, there are a number of privately owned warbirds based there which do fly on a regular basis. I spent a full day there in 1998, and only got through three of the seven hangars.Sorry guys, I digressed from my iron mistress to my aluminum mistress.