I have been doing a little bit of surfing tonight, and came acrossed the website for the Mid Continent Railway Museum. I started looking over their collection of 13 steam locomotives, and was mildly shocked to see that almost half of their fleet of locomotives are presently dismantled, disassembled, or otherwise missing parts. Then I started thinking about other locomotives that I have seen in museums. I would have to say that for every display steamer that is complete, there are two or three that have been reduced to kit form.

I wonder, is our desire to restore locomotives to operation overall more harmful than helpful? If one out of every ten (to pick a number)restoration attempts succeed, does that mean that the other nine locomotives are doomed to rust away at the end of a siding, with all of the piping and appliances off, and with each passing year the knowlege of how that locomotive goes together disappears? In my opinion I wouldn't care if 1385 ever runs again if it means that Louisiana Cypress number 2 has to linger with boiler off the frame, missing the smokebox and parts strewn about.

It would be ok if this was an isolated thing, but I can think of at least a dozen steamers that I have seen personally that are nothing but huge Bowser kits. From little 0-4-0s to mighty 2-8-4s, this tendency is slowly destroying the locomotives that we have left.

Perhaps a listing of the 11 most endangered locomotives would be a good thing to start, but I am afraid the list would have to be much larger than 11.



rickrailrd@aol.com

I don't think it is the desire to steam again that is destructive, but the desire to begin a project without a plan or adequate resources to reassemble should a survey reveal too much work necessary to reactivate.

Somebody from MC should probably jump in here, but I recall being told some years back that they don't actually own all the stuff that is scattered around up there. Much of it belongs to members who were allowed to bring it and work on it without any written contractual obligation to retain it in a reasonable condition. Having a privately owned caboose with a recalcitrant owner about to collapse on my hands I can sympathize with their problem. Probably many museums fell into this trap in their earlier stages of development.

I kind of relate this problem to the related one of collections aquisition diarrhea which plagued a lot of old line museums too - taking in anything and everything whether there was an interpretive or operating need or adequate resources to properly care for it. Kudos to those museums like Snoqualamie that have begun to rationalize and deaccession to responsible new owners.

Dave



irondave@bellsouth.net

Good point, Rick; I've been amazed how many museums are content with a restoration then fail to perform some final rebuilding to make the engines complete; my favorite expample is failure to connect the main rods on engines that are not moving anywhere or any time.

At NCTM, we are just now getting an 0-6-0T put back together cosmetically that was apart when I made my first visit... in April 1982! The lesson here is that it is relatively easy to disassemble, but without a plan or finances, it's best to leave these engines alone. The doctor's old adage "do no harm" should apply to steam engines as well.

Jim

http://nctrans.org
Wrinnbo@aol.com

> I have been doing a little bit of surfing
> tonight, and came acrossed the website for
> the Mid Continent Railway Museum. I started
> looking over their collection of 13 steam
> locomotives, and was mildly shocked to see
> that almost half of their fleet of
> locomotives are presently dismantled,
> disassembled, or otherwise missing parts.
> Then I started thinking about other
> locomotives that I have seen in museums. I
> would have to say that for every display
> steamer that is complete, there are two or
> three that have been reduced to kit form.

> I wonder, is our desire to restore
> locomotives to operation overall more
> harmful than helpful? If one out of every
> ten (to pick a number)restoration attempts
> succeed, does that mean that the other nine
> locomotives are doomed to rust away at the
> end of a siding, with all of the piping and
> appliances off, and with each passing year
> the knowlege of how that locomotive goes
> together disappears? In my opinion I
> wouldn't care if 1385 ever runs again if it
> means that Louisiana Cypress number 2 has to
> linger with boiler off the frame, missing
> the smokebox and parts strewn about.

> It would be ok if this was an isolated
> thing, but I can think of at least a dozen
> steamers that I have seen personally that
> are nothing but huge Bowser kits. From
> little 0-4-0s to mighty 2-8-4s, this
> tendency is slowly destroying the
> locomotives that we have left.

> Perhaps a listing of the 11 most endangered
> locomotives would be a good thing to start,
> but I am afraid the list would have to be
> much larger than 11.
I have been to the Mid Continent museum many times, and have also been a donor to their projects, and you have hit the nail on the head. You can't imagine how dissapointed that I was to visit there a last year only to see another 2-8-0 (LS&I #33?) stripped to the bare boiler in the process of a rebuild while the UP 2-8-0 that had been torn down 12 years earlier sat just behind it still in an exploded view. As was stated here, the LS&I engine is privatly owned, and I did view progress on the project on my last visit over Labor Day weekend. The U.P. 2-8-0 has been pushed to the back of the lot to decay away from view, but as you state, there are several locomotives in pieces laying around the property that had all steamed at one time at the museum. I hate to see that boiler and frame laying in the mud, and that's why I donate to them what I can. I don't want to beat them up, their wood car collection and display barn are FANTASTIC! They do have an excellent website, and I applaud them for being willing to show their challenges as well as successes. They have a paid curator now, and I would like to think that they are headed in the right direction. The point of your note that serious thought must be made before you tear one engine up is right on target. They made the mistake that many museums did that they ran units till they needed major overhauls, and in the process of overhaul, they discovered that the needed repairs were major and instead of doing them, they would turn to another locomotive in the collection that needed less work to steam. After 20 years, they ended up with a collection of used up locomotives that all needed major work and a repair bill that no museum can handle. These are just my opinions, I do not work for them.
Steve
Steve


Lead_Sled7@hotmail.com

I had to cut my post short, but even with all the issues, they have a very nice place, and I highly recommend a trip to their museum. They try to replacate a turn of the century branch line and do a great job of it. If you like wood cars, they have members who can only be described as artisans. I have had the pleasure to be invited into their wood restoration building, and was really floored by their work. Put some greenbacks in their donation jar when you leave, and perhaps things can only improve.

Steve

Lead_Sled7@hotmail.com

To echo others, the "desire" is a creative force, and not in and of itself harmful, it is starting the project with a lack of foresight, planning, resources, and expertise, that gets them into trouble.

It is also in the nature of the way steam engine are constructed that quite often you don't know how far in the soup (regarding repairs) you are until you get the beast apart. Then, when you run into an "Oh, $#![", you put off buttoning it all back up "until tomorrow", hoping a solution (more money, etc) will materialise...and that tomorrow rarely comes. After a while inertia sets in and the project slowly drfts towards the point of no return.
I suppose the only real lasting solution is require the project people to budget for, and place in escrow, the money for reassembly and cosmetic costs (using paid labor) FIRST. Then require periodic progress reviews...no tangible progress for say 6 months, and back together it goes, period.

Interesting discussion here.

It would seem as though the last of the old time train museums are beginning to change. In the "good old days" all many engines needed were a good going over and maybe new tubes. Much has changed now. Forty years worth of deterioration and more recently regulation have changed this forever.

It would seem that the museums and railroads that are truly "making it" in the steam sense today are setting about rationalizing their collections and taking a good hard look at their operations as well. Those that are taking all factors into account before plunging into a restoration are the ones who tend to succeed. It's the organizations that do not formulate a plan for restoration, operation, and post re-build maintenance that are having the most difficulties. The decisions made before a restoration begins are often the hardest ones, particularly considering that many members do not want to hear of the potential hurtles.

Some of the mistakes I've seen well intentioned organizations make include:

1. Publishing un-realistic completion dates. I can think of at least 20 engines that were, if I believed the organization's flyers, to have been running a decade ago. But for a wide variety of reasons remain in pieces Would it not be more beneficial to say something to the affect of "When its ready, its ready" in more professional terms? It would seem to me that advertising un attainable completion dates serves only to weaken the credibility of the organization in the eyes of its members, its benefactors and the public in general. Some of the most notable steam restorations in recent years, like the 261, the Ohio Central Engine or Strasburg's 475 were completed without the encumberment of unrealistic expectations. They were done right and on a realistic schedule without making the mistake of advertising trips they KNEW the engine would not make.

2. The second problem I've seen is what to do with the engine after it is bought or restored to operation. Not to decry organizations or individuals out there, but I'm sure many reading this can think of the same engines I am. It would seem to me that restoring an engine can actually put it in harm's way in the sense that it can bankrupt the very organization or individual that funded its purchase or restoration. Many museums, like TVRM, take a realistic approach to the engine's they restore. Instead of pouring a ton of money into the 4501 which would not be suited to their current runs, they have chosen to take a look at the much more practical 630 or 5288.

3. The third issue I've noticed is that many organizations do not have a "back-up" plan. That is, what if the restoration is not completed? That brings up the issue of half torn apart engines lying around. When raising capital to restore an engine, should some of that not be ear-marked for putting the thing back together if the effort fails? So many unforseen mechanical problems can occur with a restoration that only reveal themselves when the beast is taken apart. Other issues such as aborted projects or lost capital can curtail a restoration. I applaud the Age of Steam Museum in Texas. If it were not for their realistic approach to the Big Boy project and having requirements that had to be met before work began, there would be a 4-8-8-4 in pieces in Dallas now. Thanks to their sound decision making, the engine is intact today.

In short I would say it is not the desire to steam that is the problem. Rather it is the tunnel vision that some organizations get when beginning such a project. The museums that are taking a good hard look at their collections today are the one's that will have locomotives running tomorrow and will avoid the stigma of having a museum that looks like a locomotive grave yard.

The bottom line is that the organization that is willing to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions before, during and after the restoration are the one's the eventually succeed. The ones that wear rose colored glasses and do not listen to those that bring up the specter of possible difficulties are the ones that stumble, and eventually, (even if they seem to succeed at first) will fail in the end.

Dave Crosby


bing@epix.net

That raises the question, when is a dead project really dead? I suppose that's another thing that has to be planned for at the outset of the project, how long does it sit before it's really time to put it back together and move on to something else. I think that's a major factor in a lot of stalled restoration efforts, that despite the fact that there hasn't been any tangible progress for x number of years, the people behind it still consider it an "ongoing" restoration project. And once in a while, things do turn around. Soo Line 1003 and Northern Pacific 2156 come to mind. Both of them sat outside and partially stripped for a good few years after discovering one of those "Oh, $#![" situations. 1003 is operational now. 2156 is still a few years away, but the project is moving again after a hiatus of nearly 20 years. Of course those are the exceptions, and there were times when I saw them sitting that I wished somebody would just put them back together too.

> To echo others, the "desire" is a
> creative force, and not in and of itself
> harmful, it is starting the project with a
> lack of foresight, planning, resources, and
> expertise, that gets them into trouble.

> It is also in the nature of the way steam
> engine are constructed that quite often you
> don't know how far in the soup (regarding
> repairs) you are until you get the beast
> apart. Then, when you run into an "Oh,
> $#![", you put off buttoning it all
> back up "until tomorrow", hoping a
> solution (more money, etc) will
> materialise...and that tomorrow rarely
> comes. After a while inertia sets in and the
> project slowly drfts towards the point of no
> return.
> I suppose the only real lasting solution is
> require the project people to budget for,
> and place in escrow, the money for
> reassembly and cosmetic costs (using paid
> labor) FIRST. Then require periodic progress
> reviews...no tangible progress for say 6
> months, and back together it goes, period.


rjenkins@railfan.net

Thanks for the insights everyone! I suppose the sight of a locomotive dismantled is a pet peeve of mine, I have seen it a few too many times in the past.

If things go right in a few months I hope to be part of the solution, and take over the task of reassembling a steamer that was dismantled over a decade ago.

Of course, I also have a 300 ton stationary steam engine that is sitting dismantled waiting to be put back together, but that is another story!!!

rickrailrd@aol.com