Unless my eyes deceive me, I'd swear in an earlier thread a poster described operating historical equipment as doing "violence" to it?

Violence? Really? Are we so morally confused in the land of cloning that we've elevated mechanical objects to the status of the animate?

Degrading or altering yes, but violence? The very nature of use of the word connotes moral illegitimacy in operation and of of course the need for enlightened third-party intervention.

As I see it, stuffing and mounting is just as much doing violence to the "artifact" because it static. It is a fossil at this point. Stone replaced the bone and its DEAD! A static display is an APPROXIMATION of what was, not perfect preservation. Railroads didn't let operating assets sit around!! There were creditors and owners and labor who needed a return on those assets.

Too often, I read threads that decry operating equipment as a lesser form of preservation-that satisfies our current sensate needs at the expense of a longer-term "pure" approach. The static guys somehow always get into a lather when operating is considered as a legitimate approach. Sometimes I feel like they are declaring a jihad.

Certainly, there's ample room for concern. Some might point to how older cars are turned from antiques to "street rods", with small-block 1990 chevy's in 1940 Fords. I think that is foolish if preservation is your goal and useful to point out what we want to avoid, but not what is done by operating lines and museums.

The danger here is that some on one side takes the position that one method of preservation (e.g. static vs. operating) is the only solution to a problem.

However either way involves tradeoffs. Perfect preservation would be retaining all original fabric and total functionality and is IMPOSSIBLE!Even if you could seal up something it probably isn't original-Take a look @ the drivers on the 3713 @ steamtown clearly stamped "3710" & "3711". Even static display requires alteration of the original fabric. Will you bring asbestos and lead paint indoors? I hope not.

Finally, lets remember something. Curatorial folks have a perspective that is born both of practical as well as professional reasons. It would be a hell of a lot easier to put theatre ropes and "do not touch" signs around everything than to catalog the replacement parts and work being done on a historic structures report. As a practical matter it won't adequately fund the preservation organization in an increasing dynamic, tactile and interactive world.

There's innate predisposition against operation. Now this is not to say that the entire consideration is born of this fact, but I think its important to understand our biases!

> Even if you could seal up
> something it probably isn't original-Take a
> look @ the drivers on the 3713 @ steamtown
> clearly stamped "3710" &
> "3711". Even static display
> requires alteration of the original fabric.

Duuuuude,

The point is that changing drivers in her service life was part of #3713's history.

Whether she runs or not, that's part of her story. You seem to assume that the B&M swapped drivers after her service life.

Things like this happened to many locomotives during thier service life. It tells their story well.

Steamtown needs to operate locomotives to interpret their park, so #3713 will serve that role.

She's not being restored becasue a bunch of buffs think she's cool... there is a difference. She has a home, and care takers.

And hopefully, we will see Steamtown preserve some other significant engines in non-operating condition.

Rob

superc@monmouth.com

> Duuuuude,

> The point is that changing drivers in her
> service life was part of #3713's history.

Duuude:

I can dig that. Its cool. My point was that the original fabric stuff depends on what you mean by original. Part of her story will be replacing stuff in the restoration-generally insignificant stuff - stuff we expect to get replaced. Cab flooring, bearings etc.

Part of her story is also being restored sometime in the century after being donated by B&M - the story doesn't end after the fan trip in 1956.

My point was some of this stuff is as answerable as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

> Rob