> Yes, this would be changing an artifact, but
> how ... is this much different than putting a
> pantograph or trolley pole on an S-motor?

That's a good point. Sometime in the past - around 1990, I think - IRM mounted a large South Shore pantograph on the roof of our S-motor, Penn Central #4715. This allowed it to operate on our trackage a few times, until a traction motor failed. This unit still has the huge South Shore pantograph on it, but - as far as I know - the plan is to eventually remove the big pan and restore the S-motor to its original, authentic configuration. While it was neat to see that thing run, it just isn't worth much effort when it means that operation has the side effect of historical inauthenticity. I would propose that the same goes for the GG1.

Frank@gats.com

> . . .
> eventually remove the big pan and restore
> the S-motor to its original, authentic
> configuration. While it was neat to see that
> thing run, it just isn't worth much effort
> when it means that operation has the side
> effect of historical inauthenticity. I would
> propose that the same goes for the GG1.

Does this also mean eventually you're going to remove the trolley poles from all those el and subway cars which never had them?

> Does this also mean eventually you're going
> to remove the trolley poles from all those
> el and subway cars which never had them?

Ouch! You really know how to hurt a guy, don't you?

Actually, you must have been thinking of some other museum. There's only one el or subway car at IRM which has been falsely equipped with poles. Other than that, there's the Com Ed steeple cab, and the South Shore pans on the S motor (which are "easily" removable). So our record is better than most. I hope.

> Ouch! You really know how to hurt a guy,
> don't you?

> Actually, you must have been thinking of
> some other museum. There's only one el or
> subway car at IRM which has been falsely
> equipped with poles. Other than that,
> there's the Com Ed steeple cab, and the
> South Shore pans on the S motor (which are
> "easily" removable). So our record
> is better than most. I hope.

As far as I'm concerned your record is better than many places.

My point is that our railway museums were founded with the specific idea of *operation*. That is the magic and appeal of these places. If the stuff doesn't run, it's like caring for a rock on a pedestal. All you can really do with something like that are sweep up the dead leaves each week and clean it and paint it once and a while. Who wants to be a mere janitor when you can be electrician, mechanic, machinst, painter, track layer, and/or engineer?

Certain pieces of equipment aren't practical to operate without some minor modifications. These include: adding poles (or a pantograph) to third rail equipment and regauging narrow or broad gauge cars (with the exception of OET).

As long as the changes are kept to the minimum, very carefully executed, and fully documented, there's absolutely nothing wrong with them.

So, don't take the pan off the S-motor, fix the traction motor. Wherelse can anybody ever see and experience an S-motor running again? Certainly not on the former NYC nor at St. Louis.

And don't abitrarily reject out of hand a minimally invasive scheme to make a GG1 operate on DC, paticularly with the rather lame excuse that it "makes too many changes" to a historic artifact.

What about all those AAR tread wheels you've been putting on your streetcars--like the Chicago Pullman which now has CJ-33 wheels instead of the MW wrought, narrow-tired steel wheels it used to have? It no longer *sounds* like a Chicago Pullman but a freight railroad box car.

I've looked around inside your GG1 in great detail because it's the only one which has the faintest prayer of ever running again. I've never even bothered to look at even the exterior of any of the other "preserved" ones (except for the one at St. Louis). The only other GG1s I've looked inside of were the ones I rode on the NE corridor.

Pete, the mission of IRM is to preserve rolling stock/railroad artifacts, educate the public about railroads and the role they played in the development of our country, and restore and operate equipment when it is feasible to do so. We will never be able to return all of our equipment to operating condition; with some pieces the most we can hope for is stabilization. IRM's GG1 is cosmetically restored and considered a static display.

beast@mc.net

> Pete, the mission of IRM is to preserve
> rolling stock/railroad artifacts, educate
> the public about railroads and the role they
> played in the development of our country,
> and restore and operate equipment when it is
> feasible to do so. We will never be able to
> return all of our equipment to operating
> condition; with some pieces the most we can
> hope for is stabilization.

I don't disagree with any of that. IRM's record for stabilization (those immense carbarns) is better than all the other museums put together.

What I do disagree with is the attitude that "it's OK to add a pole or pantograph to the equipment I like--even change the wheels so the car is less likely to derail, but you can't do it to equipment that I'm not particularly interested in". Anyone who is even peripherally involved in museum politics can see this lurking around behind people's motiviations and pronouncements.

> IRM's GG1 is
> cosmetically restored and considered a
> static display.

As long as that statement isn't cast in concrete, which isn't a practical thing to do anyway, IRM hasn't lost its edge. The "feasiblity" part revolves around designing drop-in power supplies to fit in the transformer's empty space and funding but not around the "degree of modification" because it's fundamentally no different that the changes mention before.

IRM has made a descision, for now, to place its return to operation very low on the list of priorities. With this I have no quarrel whatsoever. However, let's not have a lot of double-standard, double-talk justifications bandied about instead.

Also never forget that IRM, along with all the other railway museums, is our *hobby*, not the Smithsonian or the Guggenheim.

Pete,

Your statement reflects the attitude that makes it very difficult for railway museums to achieve credibility in the Museum community: "Also never forget that IRM, along with all the other railway museums, is our *hobby*, not the Smithsonian or the Guggenheim."

Even though IRM is volunteer run, the days of passing the hat to put gas in the museum truck are far behind us. The museum is a hobby for some, a passion for others, BUT it is something that must be taken very seriously from an organizational, operational and financial standpoint. Some of us are retired, some are considerably younger--working, raising families, but all united by one thing: we are museum volunteers. IRM is not just a collection of cars that people come to "play" with; we maintain two libraries (one of which is open to the public), provide speakers on rail history for community groups, provide docents (even on non-operating days) to escort groups of students and/or adults around the property and introduce them to the history of the equipment and rail travel, plus significant restoration that goes on in our shops. IRM is one of the sites chosen to house a significant portion of the Pullman Collection [original car drawings]; that DOES put us on a level with the Smithsonian and the California museum in Sacramento [they both have Pullman photographs] and the Newberry Library in Chicago [Pullman documents]....and several other sites [there is a published directory that refers researchers to the appropriate resource]. IRM has grown from a desire to save 1 car [Indiana #65] that led 10 people to establish the Museum in 1953 to a collection of over 400 streetcars, interurbans, steam and diesel locomotives, passenger and freight cars, trolley and motor buses, plus the libraries. There is a great deal of professionalism present; it is truly more than just a "hobby".



beast@mc.net

> Your statement reflects the attitude that
> makes it very difficult for railway museums
> to achieve credibility in the Museum
> community: "Also never forget that IRM,
> along with all the other railway museums, is
> our *hobby*, not the Smithsonian or the
> Guggenheim."

This assertion is based on the assumption that recognition by the museology world is *the* sine qua non for our railway museums, and IRM of all places has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to generate sufficient revenue to be essentially independent of this [alledged] necessity.

Whether we like it or not, Museology categorizes our railway museums as "dish and plate museums" because our technological orientation doesn't preseve anything that's part of the 7 Liberal Arts. "Liberal" comes from days of ancient Rome, when only the free citizens had the leisure time to pursue the intellectual divertisments of the Septivium. Carriage and chariot building (carbuilding), road building (track construction), the labor necessary for constructing things like the huge water powered mill at Barbegal in France (stone masons, bricklayers, carpenters, machinists), and so forth were the the lot of workingmen and slaves--menial labor. Still to this day, carbuilding, track construction, and machining are beneath the consideration of "the educated classes"--not part of the 7 Liberal Arts--over 2,000 years of prejudice against the very things dear to our hearts. Much as we might like to be, we are *not* considered to be on a par with things like the Smithsonian, Guggenheim, Lourve, etc., etc. As early as the 1880s, William Sellers, inventor of our US screw thread standards, decried this situation, this prejudice against the peservation of technology, to no avail.

The system which built our museums (the "hobby-volunteerism") has withstood the test of time rather drammatically: it created the museums and made them what they are. The alternative system (grants, paid professionals, etc.) hasn't proven its viability nor productivity as a replacement. We all know the original system worked; why trash it for something unproven? Why try to make "hobby" such a dirty word?

> Even though IRM is volunteer run, the days
> of passing the hat to put gas in the museum
> truck are far behind us.

When you get right down to it, running Thomas the Tank Engine and other things like operating the Frisco decapod in order to draw the paying public are actually "passing the hat". The organization is just putting on a good show and jumping through a few hoops in return for the money (how many hundred thousand dollars in two weekends?). The most beneficial, yet mostly ingored, side effect of this hat-passing is that it gives the volunteers a clear-cut opportunity to come to their museum and work on a very easily identifiable, short-term project which has immediately tangible benefits, something car restorations and trackwork can never do. The volunteers come away with warm feelings of team spirit, satisfaction of a job well done, and how much better off *their* Museum is because of their team's efforts. Their pride in and attitudes toward *their* Museum are greatly reinforced.

Grants, when they do appear, aren't much different than money falling out of the sky, "Whoopieee free money" (with very little team effort visibly connected). With the grant mentality, the phrase "paid professionals" begins to be bandied about, starting the process of leaving the volunteers out of the loop. The governing body doesn't have to pay as much attention to the members' opinions because of becoming less dependent upon them for the generation of funds and other work. This is the beginning of the alienation of the volunteers from their own museum--"alienation" in the political sense here, meaning "made less and less a part of than before". Enter the privileged elite and "smoke-filled back room dealing". I know of one museum which has become so fixated on grants and in-crowd self-hype that the average member no longer feels he/she is part of their own organization.

>The museum is a
> hobby for some,

Yes.

>a passion for others,

Yes, and there are many who take it too seriously and personally.

> BUT it
> is something that must be taken very
> seriously from an organizational,
> operational and financial standpoint.

Quite agree.

> IRM is not just a collection of
> cars that people come to "play"
> with;

Yes, it is, although "the layman" will get very confused by putting it this way.

> we maintain two libraries (one of
> which is open to the public), provide
> speakers on rail history for community
> groups, provide docents (even on
> non-operating days) to escort groups of
> students and/or adults around the property
> and introduce them to the history of the
> equipment and rail travel, plus significant
> restoration that goes on in our shops. IRM
> is one of the sites chosen to house a
> significant portion of the Pullman
> Collection [original car drawings]; that
> DOES put us on a level with the Smithsonian

All very good and commendable efforts which must be continued, but they don't put IRM on a par with the Smithsonian. All the railways museums in the US added together wouldn't make something on a par with the Smithsonian. This sounds negative, but what it really means is that comparisons with serious Liberal Arts museums are self-delusional. They dilute what should be the main focus of the organization: the livelyhood and well being of the organization and its Museum.

> and the California museum in Sacramento
> [they both have Pullman photographs]

Pesonally, I think you're better than that place because you don't have the same elitist mentaility. With "professional Museums", like the Calif State one, there is a glass curtain between you and the collection. It's like watching an opera: you, the individual, are provided with entertainment, look but not participate, a passive situation. Unless you get on as paid staff (not very likley), you can never really penetrate the glass curtain. This isn't the case at the volunteer museums, like IRM, which don't provide entertainment; they *take* a lot of hard work, dedication, and personal money--definitely not passive. It's possible to learn how to be entertained by doing this, but it isn't the same type of "entertainment" as going to the Met or Sacramento.

> IRM has grown from a desire to save 1 car
> [Indiana #65] that led 10 people to
> establish the Museum in 1953 to a collection
> of over 400 streetcars, interurbans, steam
> and diesel locomotives, passenger and
> freight cars, trolley and motor buses, plus
> the libraries.

This makes the railway museum movement a unique happening of the Wetsern world: a People's Museum. Something us common ordinary everyday folks can be involved in to try to preserve aspects of our own history as best we can--no noblesse oblige involved. It started in the US right before WWII and has now spread to former Bloc countries, which to me is the best indication that the Cold War is over: the common people are well off enough now to start saving their trains, on their own, without the "help" and direction of the Central Committee.

>There is a great deal of
> professionalism present;

"Professionalism" because of someone being paid? or "professionalism" in terms of attitude, self-discipline, workmanship, and skill? Form some 15-20 years now I've seen the two concepts, which are about the same as a monkey and a cow, become completely confused and mixed up to the point of unrecognizability. Sometimes it's done deliberately, and others unknowingly.

>it is truly more
> than just a "hobby".

It's still a hobby, although a heavy industrial one and not for the faint of heart (the IMS was much more unflattering towards a different Museum).

At this point, I think we're beginning to beat a dead horse. You are quite proud of IRM and what you're doing, which is more than justifiable--I'm not taking issue with that. I admire IRM and what it has done and continues to accomplish more than any other railway museum. What got me a little wound up was this expoused attitude that "we don't permit changing artifacts" when you do it all the time (and I might add, I completely agree with the justifications for each "modification").

Perhaps it came across unintentionally, but the person(s) exspousing the viewpoint has/have to be careful of the subtleties of and differences between inference and implication.

> Pete, the mission of IRM is to preserve
> rolling stock/railroad artifacts, educate
> the public about railroads and the role they
> played in the development of our country,
> and restore and operate equipment when it is
> feasible to do so. We will never be able to
> return all of our equipment to operating
> condition; with some pieces the most we can
> hope for is stabilization. IRM's GG1 is
> cosmetically restored and considered a
> static display.

Geez, with 16 GG1s in existance in the U.S. and with a couple of those much more complete and in the case of 4935, immaculately restored, don't you think we have sufficiently preserved this type of locomotive to allow ONE of the 16 to be modified to return to operation?

I do not feel that the "modification of the artifact is bad" argument holds much water, especially with so many units preserved. However, it is your engine and you are free to do with it as you please. I am still looking on my maps to find WHERE in ILLINOIS a GG1 originally ran, so that it could be a relevant addition to the ILLIONIS Railway Museum. :-)



rickrailrd@aol.com

My turn again, I think:

> Geez, with 16 GG1s in existance in the U.S.
> and with a couple of those much more
> complete and in the case of 4935,
> immaculately restored, don't you think we
> have sufficiently preserved this type of
> locomotive to allow ONE of the 16 to be
> modified to return to operation?

If you insist. But if so, it ought to be one of the ones out east, where it could operate in the correct environment. Our main line is designed for interurban and rapid transit cars, not mainline electric operations. I still say it wouldn't work very well.

> I do not feel that the "modification of
> the artifact is bad" argument holds
> much water,

It does so. We don't modify the artifacts without a good reason, such as changing the wheels on the CSL cars, and then only as little as we can. We just can't justify the HUGE amount of time and money to modify the GG1 when we couldn't make good use of it if it did operate.

> I
> am still looking on my maps to find WHERE in
> ILLINOIS a GG1 originally ran, so that it
> could be a relevant addition to the ILLIONIS
> Railway Museum. :-)

While you're at it, try finding the Parthenon on a map of England. And unlike the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum, our GG1 isn't unique, as you have pointed out. But the attitude is the same: we've got it, we're going to keep it. So that's one thing we have in common with the most prestigious museums.

And Hume, I think maybe Dave LeCount now deserves a prize for starting the longest-running thread....

> My turn again, I think:

> If you insist. But if so, it ought to be one
> of the ones out east, where it could operate
> in the correct environment. Our main line is
> designed for interurban and rapid transit
> cars, not mainline electric operations. I
> still say it wouldn't work very well.

> It does so. We don't modify the artifacts
> without a good reason, such as changing the
> wheels on the CSL cars, and then only as
> little as we can. We just can't justify the
> HUGE amount of time and money to modify the
> GG1 when we couldn't make good use of it if
> it did operate.

> While you're at it, try finding the
> Parthenon on a map of England. And unlike
> the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum, our
> GG1 isn't unique, as you have pointed out.
> But the attitude is the same: we've got it,
> we're going to keep it. So that's one thing
> we have in common with the most prestigious
> museums.

Randall: CAREFUL....you may not be able to find the Parthenon on a map of England but you could on a map of Nashville, Tennessee! An exact replica exists there (of all places) and in the same park as NC&StL 4-8-4 #576.

> And Hume, I think maybe Dave LeCount now
> deserves a prize for starting the
> longest-running thread....


midlandblb@cs.com

> And Hume, I think maybe Dave LeCount now
> deserves a prize for starting the
> longest-running thread....

Now there's an idea!


Railway Preservation News
hkading@rypn.org

>you could on a map of Nashville, Tennessee! An exact replica exists there (of all places) and in the same park as NC&StL 4-8-4 #576.

Is this NC&StL #576 also made out of concrete? The real parthenon blew up in 1840(or thereabouts) because the Turks were using it as a powder magazine and the British, bombarding Athens that day, scored a direct hit.

The one in Nashville is a concrete recreation, replica Elgin marbles and all. The real one was made out of 25 cycle marble, the "fake" out of 600 v DC concrete--at least it shows us how the original was supposed to run----I mean----look, in all its magnificence.

Stir a little, agitate a little, stir a little, agitate a little, stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir.

With apologies to Merideth Wilson.