If it is of any help I think I can speak for most involved with modern steam/Porta type work when I say we do what we do for the love of steam and to help further the cause. None of us are looking to get rich off the back of it - a living is more than sufficient! So travel and subsistence at bargain levels is more than acceptable. We would come at our own expense but (and now speaking personally) that is not currently an option.

This is an interesting thread. Certainly worthy of discussion at the TRAIN/ARM conference, but it seems to me that the topic of preservation, not only of stuff, but of knowledge and essence, might be helpful in guiding us as we tinker with things. In our quest to build a better mousetrap, where do we cease to preserve history and begin to make our own history?

Is history better served by an operating steam locomotive or a static display? Does the “real” preserved artifact trump the “real” recreated experience. Do we substantially alter our existing antique locomotives or do we build new ones? Do we stop making smoke because it is politically correct? If we scramble to appease a minority of wrong-headed nimbys what do we sacrifice and what is the next “bad” thing about steam locomotives that even a “Porta–fix” can’t cure? Where do we draw the line? Is preservation important or should we have steam at any cost?

History is a record of what happened, according to my dictionary. It doesn’t say that history is what happened. What happened is what happened – whether we know about it or not. To me, preservation is about telling what really happened, how “they” really did things. Does putting an all-welded boiler on an existing locomotive cross the line. I think it does. Is it important in explaining how they did things? Maybe. Does a stainless steel tender tank cross the line? I think it does. Is it important? Maybe. The list goes on and on and where I say “maybe” someone else would say “yes” or “no”.

We all draw a line. For me, modifying a locomotive to make less smoke and work more efficiently is not preservation, and in that context it has less value than a locomotive that works the same way as it always has. Of course, I have no problem putting a stainless tank or Teflon seats in the mix. Hypocrisy at its best. I think, in the end, we just need to be clear about what we are doing. Creating a better mousetrap under the guise of mousetrap preservation, in my opinion, is not preservation.

Is it survival that we are worried about? If we don’t make all our engines conform to the perception du jour, will we be forced out of existence? I think we, as an industry, must make a stand at some point. If we don’t, there will come a day when the funds will exist to make exact replicas that will look, feel, sound, and be just like the original – and we won’t be allowed to use them.

I am not suggesting that we clear the way to replicate the radioactive switch lamp as pictured in an old Railroad Man’s magazine. There are things that were created that are best left as memories. Bad ideas were as prevalent in “the day” as they are now, but those things that can be recreated with reasonable safety must have a place now and in the future.

Improving the steam locomotive is certainly a worthy endeavor. Whether it will be an academic exercise remains to be seen, but I do not believe it should be done as a panacea to the whims of 21st century political correctness. It should be done for its own merits and not by sacrificing “what was” bit by bit.

Linn,

Glad to see your post on this thread. You raise some very good points, all of which bear careful thought by anyone in the preservation "business".

OTOH, your comments don't address Dave's original question "Should we try to get these guys to speak at a TRAIN convention about their work in other parts of the world?" Before you draw that line that you won't cross, wouldn't it be good to know what's possible? I'd bet they could add a lot to the steam corporate knowledge base here, and hopefully you, Mark, Dave, et al could teach them a few tricks.

I agree with what you say Lynn. I think that as we tinker with these things we need to do it with a deliberate plan, and understand the ramifications as well as we can prior to lighting the torch.

For the sake of conversation -

When we do get the 722 back together, which would be worse in the sense of preservation - 1. Painting the loco Southern Green with the origninal exhaust or 2. Installing a Lempor Exhaust system within the original stack and painting it black? Unfortunitly, I may be forced to convert the loco from coal to oil either way, so perhaps that throws the whole preservation arguement out the door from the get go. From an economical stand point, the exhaust modifications could be completed without significantly altering the exterior apperance, and also significantly lower operating cost. Aruably, the sound of the locomotive will be different, and could possibly be a turn off for our guests. Then again, perhaps most of the guests can't even tell a diesel from a steam locomotive, so the arguement has gone full circle once again. Don't get me started on the 6 versus the 26L conversions.

I think in some repects one must look past the locomotive to see which side of the line a group should stand. If the locomotive is operating on a for profit tourist railroad, perhaps economy should win out over preservation. How something is modified will greatly affect how different the loco will appear for any given modification. If the loco is operating within a true museum environment, then the modifications should probably be passed over. Or perhaps the decision should be based on what the visiting public is expecting to see?

Right now I'm leaning toward the 722 being original in black with the standard exhaust (the original was replaced in the '20's I believe), and the 1702, already no where close to "preserved," will get the Lempor Exhaust. Perhaps the two will then be a bit closer performance wise.

We could also extend this conversation to the cars. Steam heat or Head End Power. Rollers versus Friction. Oil or Grease in the cellars. Sharon or E type couplers. Chop nose hood or high hood. I would gladly change the 24RL brakes in the GP9's to 26L so I could buy a few extra gallons of #4 to burn in the 1702.

At any rate, I would make the trip to any of the conferences where I could learn something, old or new. I'm going to end up putting these two locos back together sooner or later. I vote yes for the conference.

Ryan

No disagreement with anything Linn said, and very thankful to Hugh for bringing the focus back on track.

There is no "pure" preservation of the artifact that allows for preserving the experience - the experience requires destruction of the fabric of the artifact through use, hence Linn's need to find a balance. Fair enough.

Not all of us view all steam locomotives as artifacts. Some are seen as interpretive tools, some as revenue generating tools. Being a really good tourist railroad that makes a profit and makes lots of riders happy is an honorable ideal, as is being a really good repository of preserved stuff. It's a big universe with room for all approaches.

It may be an irony that the best representations of the experience do the most destruction of historic fabric in use - or simply a reflection of the different purposes that the same objects can serve.

That being said, as Hugh mentioned, it isn't the question in this thread. I don't think knowledge is harmful to preservation. If we want to remain ignorant, we can until forced to learn under pressure, or go out of business. Or, do we wish to preserve our current narrower understanding of the state of the art for historic purposes? I don't understand - just because we know how to do something doesn't mean we HAVE to do it without a really good reason.

Simply put - if you don't think it is worth TRAIN buying a couple airline tickets to learn about this stuff, do nothing. If you do think it is valuable information, a posting here and an email to TRAIN could give you access to this information and to people who are developing even more. If you don't care, why are you on this list?

dave

Linn has some valid points. This very discussion was a large portion of the World Congress on Steam in Brienz, Switzerland in 2002. I believe that every organization must find their own answer to the question of what is preservation and what is compromise. To me, it is preserving the Stephensonian locomotive design, and the ability to operate it we are talking about.

I would like to include Mr. Porta's view on this:

“A philosophical question comes to the fore: all preserved locomotives have suffered many changes along their lives, of which perhaps the most frequent one was fitting a superheater. What should be the state selected for preservation? The last one? Has that process ended? A steam locomotive is more than the cold hardware: it is a live being; all the alterations introduced along its life are the proof of this. In fact, it is a modernization process. Figs. 2a/b show an Argentine locomotive built in 1888 the valve gear of which was altered by the author in order to improve her performance. This was necessary because of cars added to the historical train which she pulled. Retrofitting the GPCS is now being considered to avoid the sparks resulting from wood firing. To appease pure preservationists, No. 10, a sister engine, has also been put in service in its original condition as a 0-6-0. The moral is that each museum should offer the general public and locomotive students an example of a full modernization showing that the steam locomotive is far from being dead: this is more important than putting fossils on exhibition!”

Taken from: "Fundamental Principles of Steam Locomotive Modernization and Their Application to Museum And Tourist Railway Locomotives"
Ing. Livio D. Porta, Consulting Engineer

One thing to think about. Smoking cigarettes was very popular in the Victorian age, yet now smokers are confined to their houses and cars as the public finds smoking offensive and dirty. The most powerful corporations were subdued. Can we overcome?

“All argument is set at the level of the least informed.” – L.D. Porta

I would like to include another great man who should be invited to this as a speaker should it occur. Roger Waller, of DLM, hosted the 2002 World Congress on Steam. His company has built numerous examples of modern steam both for rails and water. He has worked with Mr. Porta directly, and published his advances. I would be happy to talk to him about it if others are interested.


DLM's site:
http://www.dlm-ag.ch/index2_nonjava-en.htm

Mr. Waller's Paper:
http://www.dlm-ag.ch/prospekte/modern_steam.pdf[/url]

I heartily endorse the exchange of information that will lead to making better steam locomotives. That is the exciting part of this business. My concern is the focus. TRAIN/ARM, in my opinion, need to be in the vanguard of the preservation community to identify and deal with threats and opportunities.

In this case we have both a threat and an opportunity. The opportunity, in the form of technical advancement in steam locomotion, may be a factor in countering the threat, which for the moment, is manifesting itself in an outcry about smoke by a vocal minority. This opportunity should, absolutely, be explored but not without consideration of two points.

First, I believe the smoke issue could turn into a wildfire if not handled correctly. As Matt pointed out, who would have thought in 1950 that cigarette smokers would be banished from public places to the extent seen in 2006? It would not be wise to underestimate the power of people with too much time on their hands. All avenues should be discussed, industry wide, as to how to deal with this issue. We don’t have a problem with smoke at Strasburg, for the most part, and we use fairly smoky coal. We are lucky but that luck could change in an instant as “civilization” oozes across the landscape. I would be just as interested to hear how other outfits, like J. David’s, have dealt with the issue. While I would not be as excited about the subject as I would about technical improvements, I feel on balance, it is an equally important topic.

Second, what are the preservation ramifications of converting our locomotives? I think this is a very significant topic that may well be based upon Mr. Porta’s words as quoted by Matt Janssen in one of his posts. While Porta obviously seems to lean toward modernization over preservation, he clearly gives a nod to the need for preservation. Just having a quantification of what we are doing would, in my opinion, help us make better decisions, now and in the future.

So then Linn, for the record, do you think it would be good for TRAIN to bring these guys in or not?

Even absent the threat, I believe that an exchange of information about the developments in the industry is what our professional organizations ought to be about. The threat to D&S rearing its ugly and irratioinal head again was just the catalyst that brought it to the fore in my mind, so I pestered you guys about it.

TRAIN isn't just for preservationists, but also for those who operate nostalgically marketed tourist entertainment venues using steam locomotives (or not, actually, but it includes a lot of them). While this isn't exclusive of preservation of both hardware and experiences, concerns about preservation are not the primary motivating factor in their decision - making process, although it certainly does figure into the equasion somewhere in all but the least enlightened venues, who don't care enough to be members anyhow.

Case in point - given the choice of hollowing out a couple hundred staybolts to line a firebox with firebrick which won't have to be torn out monthly to burn oil, or convert to coal, to conform with monthly inspecton regulations, neither of which is economically feasable, any information on the centrally mounted burners that do not require a firebrick lining would be extremely valuable, even though the style of burner isn't historic.

dave

Sorry, I have been out of the loop for a bit. Taking a break from sewer lines to do some serious foaming.

For the record, I think it would be great to hear what these fellows have to say. I think it would have to be very focused because, I imagine they could spend many days sharing all their knowledge.

I think it is the focus that prompted me to tie the issues of preservation, survival, modernization, etc., together. If they were to discuss mechanical issues and there were other seminars on the other issues that would be complementary to the mechanical stuff, I think we could plant some seeds. If people walk away from the convention thinking about all these issues in their proper context, and on a more gobal scale, I think we will see some pretty neat ideas pop up.

Thank you, Linn, for making your position clear, and for zapping this thread up the list again.

If guys like you and Mark Ray think it is a good idea, I know my hounding us about it isn't too far out of bounds.

BTW, I have since heard from Nigel and he is very willing to participate, as is Martyn, who has reiterated his desire.

dave

Thanks, all, for one of the best and most fascinating threads
I have ever read here - or anywhere!

I myself really enjoy learning new things - just for the sake
of learning more about how things work and why.

I am not an expert on things technical at all, but, rather, a
very interested bystander who very much wants steam
locomotives - and diesels! - to be preserved and to run.

I very much hope that those 3 gentlemen will be invited to the
TRAIN convention in Sacramento and will have their basic
expenses subsidized. Not to do so would be a great loss to
all of us in the preservation/tourist RR field.

One general thought: organizations that are run by people
who are very practical and realistic survive and prosper much
longer than do organizations run by impractical people. The
passion we all have for these wonderful machines is essential,
for without passion we would not get much done, nor would
we be able to weather the problems we have to face, but we
must be practical as well. People skills are also absolutely
essential. Conflict resoplution skills can also be used to help
opposing sides work towards mutually-acceptable solutions.
Treating people we disagree with with respect is absolutely
essential if we are ever to resolve problems, no matter what
those problems are. We must deal with the world as it is, not
as we wish it to be. Please do not assume that everyone who
opposes you is so firmly set in his or her opinion that he or she
will never be able to understand your point of view, nor you
theirs.

Thanks, again, to all who have contributed to this most
fascinating and informative discussion!

Margaret (SP fan)

Based on the positive responses in this thead, Martyn has taken the initiave of contacting Shaun, and has relayed his continued interest in presenting to me. Shaun is instrumental in operating very updated, clean and efficient steam down towards the bottom of the American continents, and can speak from practical experience about many technological advances which have not detracted from the steam experience on his railroad.

dave