(Warning! I am enjoying the discussion. If you are getting any venom or anger, you are not hearing my intent. Pop a cold one and enjoy! My attitude in these posts is more like we are discussing over pizza and beer as brothers. No "war.")

So, I submit a twist on the debate and ask...

Do our trains really have any siginifcant historic value?

It is an interesting question. If operation is the best interpretation (and I am open to that argument in many cases... Chama, Orbisonia...), and by indefinite operation we know that eventually the original pieces of artifacts like steam locomotives will be the frames and bells (Boilers, cabs, pilots, etc may all eventually be replaced with new materials) are we saying the artifact itself has no value in and of itself as an historic vessel?

If that is the case, then are we saying that the operation of the artifact is of greater historic value than the artifact?

If so, when railroad preservation competes with funding for other historic resources, are we devaluing cosmetic restoration?

If the artifact has little value, and it's operation is the greater value, then is it worth it to cosmetically restore a basket case that will never run?

Should we part-out the basket cases much like a junker might part out a wrecked 1960's GTO?

Look at that C&O 2-8-4 in Virginia. Shouldn't it be scrapped on-site and the parts warehoused for the others of its class? That is, if operation is where the value comes from?

Yes, you could move it to storage indoors, but if it is in such bad shape that it is beyond means to restore, and a cold locomotive has no historic value according to many here, then lets kill it to save the rest of the herd. Right?

I don't believe that myself, but you could make a compelling argument that we are already doing this.

Each day hundreds of irreplaceable artifacts rust outdoors, we are one step (or many steps) closer to thinning the herd.

But, if only operation has interpretive or historic value, then these rust buckets must fall in one of two categories: either they are operation candidates (and thus have value) or they are junk.

If they are junk, then we are saying that the 4-6-2 rusting in your local park is no better a display than a Ford F-150 up on blocks. Not many parks have one of those.

Intersting questions. no?

Rob Davis

superc@monmouth.com

Okay, since this is a cease fire situation I will respond.
I think you are probably not going to find the perfect answer to this host of relevant questions.
Rebuilding a steam engine and spending $1 million dollars to get it steamed up from a city park is totally nuts if there is no place to run it. There are plenty of locos in this boat today.
As for museums and tourist railroads, each has hard decisions to make about pieces they own. On the C&TS for example they have several operational engines, but others they say will probably never run again. By the same token look at what the British did with 200 engines from Barry Scrap Yard...essentially restoring each and everyone one to operating condition, even if it meant refabricating parts. Thats dedication! Part of what makes the Bristish stuff so nice is the charm of the railroading experience when your vist a particular time. Towers and stations are in place, and a working signal system. You are hard-pressed to find that experience in the US today. Chama yard is somewhat like that along with the rest of the railroad.
To conclude, these are hard questions to answer with no rule of thumb, as each case probably has to be judged individually based on monetary and other circumstances.
Okay we can resume the war now! :)
Greg Scholl


sales@gregschollvideo.com

By the
> same token look at what the British did with
> 200 engines from Barry Scrap
> Yard...essentially restoring each and
> everyone one to operating condition, even if
> it meant refabricating parts.

Last I heard, some of the worst Barry hulks of classes represented by other better examples were considered to be parts sources to replicate missing classes. I sort of like this concept but not sure if it is practical in the US since we don't have a Barry to work from.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

I think we already have some US locomotives that are somewhat in a state of being "parted out". These are the ones dismantled by overenthusiastic volunteers who lack proper funding to make them run again.



bobyar2001@yahoo.com

Actually, many of the locomotives purchased from Barry for parts are now being restored themselves. The includes locomotives with badly damaged wheel sets and cracked cylinders.

But we should not dwell on British railway preservation because it is a far different situation than we have here.

Roger

> Last I heard, some of the worst Barry hulks
> of classes represented by other better
> examples were considered to be parts sources
> to replicate missing classes. I sort of like
> this concept but not sure if it is practical
> in the US since we don't have a Barry to
> work from.

> Dave


Belpaire@aol.com

Let me put in a word that no one has used yet: scarceity. I work every day with the British ship BALCLUTHA (built 1886) She is a Cape Horn square rigger, called by many a Tall Ship. There were over 3,000 built and today there are about a dozen. About .4% Very Historic you say!

There are about 1200 steam engines in the US out of about 75,000 built. An even smaller %. And every one has a story to tell. Weather active in
Chama (an outdoor museum), or displayed in Sacramento (an indoor museum) they all have a story to tell. Large as a Big Boy or small as a
H K Porter tank engine. They all can tell a story. Pick your kind of museum and help them! Work in the shop, Collect tickets, Process memberships, Do what ever you can! Become a member of a couple of your favorite museums; it feels good! And you might see something interesting in the newsletter that usually caome in the mail. Something to read when you can't get here to RYPN! Ted Miles


ted_miles@NPS.gov