what does more damage to the "historical fabric" of a steam locomotive.. rebuilding it, or cutting it in half???

*ducks*

This comment sure beats your photoshop work:)
Does this mean you are between CAMPS now! Better take cover chief! :)
Greg

sales@gregschollvideo.com

First of all, the discussions below are some of the best I've seen on this board or anywhere else for that matter. An exchange of ideas or opinions like this is beneficial to the railway preservation/operation field.

I think it must be first said that except for those in the field, a cold, dead steam locomotive, displayed apart from any relevant setting holds very little interest for the average person. Lets face it, that's the truth.

There are several things one can do with a steam locomotive. One can say, entomb it, as the 4501 or Baldwin 60000 were mentioned. While these cases are rare, they provide an excellent opportunity of "just of the line" examination by future generations. Secondly, one can stabilize, cosmetically restore and preserve the things, such as say the California State museum or the RR Museum of PA. Finally you can rebuild (restore not being the correct term here) it for operation. Each has benefits.

The most dramatic of he options is the third, the rebuild option. As a former fireman for several years at Steamtown, and a park ranger before that I can definitely say that the operation of a steam locomotive does more to educate and interpret than any static display ever could. I've seen the "stock" Baldwin 26, an 0-6-0, steam past a Big Boy, one of the world's largest engines. Let me assure you that no one ever paid more attention to the big boy then the smaller live engine. When a steam locomotive operates it does more to entice, enthrall, excite and yes educate than any static piece.

Also consider that most locomotive operating today are not "historic" in the classic sense. The were not the first of their kind, nor did they participate in any historic event nor are they the last of their kind. What sets the 844, 261, 4449, 2317 and so many others apart apart is that they operate. I've said it before of the (two) dozen Van Swernegen (sp?) Berkshires left the only one's we ever mention are the 1225 and 765 because they are the only ones that have operated in recent memory.

Another factor to consider is that the operators of said locomotives have perpetuated their operating careers. If history were altered and the railroads used steam propulsion longer than they did, they would have continued to change tubes, tires, appliances. If they had continued running steam long enough they themselves would have developed the high tech welding of boilers and fireboxes that operators do themselves today. A steam locomotive is designed to be altered, to have parts replaced (boilers, cylinders and frames even) taken. A good example of this is the re-build of L&N 152 in Kentucky. When questioned about the re-build in trains magazine they sated something to the effect that they rebuilt the engine (complete with new tender) as the L&N railroad would have done it. To do this to a steam locomotive today is not to destroy historic fabric whatsoever I then submit. You are simply perpetuating its original use. That is all.

Additionally steam operation brings in the crowds. As the folks at Mid Continent how their numbers have faired without steam. Places like Steamtown that have gone lengths of time without steam operation in the past have seen dramatic declines in numbers. In extreme cases the restoration of a locomotive has effectively saved whole organizations, while the loss of steam has heralded the downfall of many others.

While some operating locomotives have fallen into the "wrong hands" and suffered from it (Gettysburg 1278 comes to mind), these cases are rare and becoming even more so as the industry moves into the 21st century.

An operating steam locomotive does more to preserve the history of these magnificent machines than any static display. Even as part of the finest display a static locomotive cannot shake the earth, belch fire or pierce the eardrums like its operating counterpart. I've watched people viewing fantastic indoor displays at excellent museums like Steamtown and Strasburg, only to dash to the windows to watch a "live" engine pass by the glass. The crux of steam railroading yesterday, today and tomorrow is its "feel". Always will be.

Now that is not to say that some locomotives should not be "preserved" as static exhibits, not to be altered. Many truly historic locomotives at places like the B&O railroad museum, the Railroad Museum of PA or the California State Railroad Museum fall into this category. This preservation also has a vital place in out industry and should not be ignored. Who amongst us could justify replacing the boiler on the "CP Huntington" at Sacramento? Perhaps the unique history of the 7002 should have remained unaltered. If the original D&H "Stourbridge Lion" were still existent, then it would/should never be rebuilt to operation. Static displays put in a context setting, such as the RR museum of PA are absolutely fantastic. besides the equipment, the little touches like lit marker lamps, luggage carts and a shoe-shine stand there add so much to the interpretation of these pieces. While many railfans and historians might not get that much out of a sectioned steam engine, believe me, for the general public, it does more than any complete static full size engine or model could do to illustrate the inner components of an iron horse.

In my opinion both lines of thinking have merit and there is equal room for each. The trick I would say is to know which school of thought should be applied to a particular item.

Respectfully,

Dave Crosby

I agree with everything you so elequently mentioned. One thing seems to be the issue of the spliced loco. Here is a suggestion for the future. Why not use some modern techology and simply video or DVD one of the existing sliced locos and make a display Kiosk(spelling ??) for display in some museums rather than actually splice another loco. You could spend some dollars on a wide screen TV, have it narrated, and it would actually save some money not having to cut the engine, and have a real person there to interpret. The same purpose could be acheived without distroying whatever historic fabric there might be. Then the engine could still be useful as a regular display piece. Just a thought. Otherwise you pretty much echo what I have been saying.
Steamingly,
Greg Scholl

Fund raiser videos-Crew autographs

sales@gregschollvideo.com

Lets not forget the old golden rule. He who supplies the gold makes the rules...

It's not a popular position to state, but the reality goes like this:
If I have a lokey (or if I should buy, beg, or steal one) and I have the money to do it, I can section it, restore it, stuff and mount it, let it rust, or cut it up for scrap. Now, if you don't like what I'm going to do with it, then you should step up and make me an offer that I can't refuse for it.

Yes there probably is quite a bit of short sighted, even "criminal" waste involved with such a private ownership scenario, but would we REALLY want a nationalized collective situation with a bunch of political appointees pulling ALL the levers?

very well stated - thanks for the effort.

JimLundquist55@yahoo.com

> Another factor to consider is that the
> operators of said locomotives have
> perpetuated their operating careers. If
> history were altered and the railroads used
> steam propulsion longer than they did, they
> would have continued to change tubes, tires,
> appliances. If they had continued running
> steam long enough they themselves would have
> developed the high tech welding of boilers
> and fireboxes that operators do themselves
> today. A steam locomotive is designed to be
> altered, to have parts replaced (boilers,
> cylinders and frames even) taken. A good
> example of this is the re-build of L&N
> 152 in Kentucky. When questioned about the
> re-build in trains magazine they sated
> something to the effect that they rebuilt
> the engine (complete with new tender) as the
> L&N railroad would have done it. To do
> this to a steam locomotive today is not to
> destroy historic fabric whatsoever I then
> submit. You are simply perpetuating its
> original use. That is all.

Yes, but even I, a member of the KRM do not completely agree with the above logic. The changes made to 152 were done to allow it to run in mainline excurision service, something we haven't done in 12 years. I for one think it is time to put the smaller, original tender back on (A welded tender from a 4-8-2 never looked right in my opinion anyway), put the two one-lung air compressors back on, restore the cab awning, and put it back into an "in service" appearence. However, I am a member of a small minority over this one.

wilkidm@wku.edu

> Yes, but even I, a member of the KRM do not
> completely agree with the above logic. The
> changes made to 152 were done to allow it to
> run in mainline excurision service,
> something we haven't done in 12 years. I for
> one think it is time to put the smaller,
> original tender back on (A welded tender
> from a 4-8-2 never looked right in my
> opinion anyway), put the two one-lung air
> compressors back on, restore the cab awning,
> and put it back into an "in
> service" appearence. However, I am a
> member of a small minority over this one.

David:

Thank you! You answered a question I was going to ask (whether the 152's smaller tender still existed or whether it was scrapped.) I believe that this in-service tender actually came from an engine that L&N had purchased used (GM&O?) and eventually applied to the 152 when the other engine was retired. At least I think that's what it said in the story in TRAINS some years ago on the restoration of the L&N Pacific. Now here's my two cents; PUT IT BACK ON! Along with the old one-lung air compressors, cab awning, etc. It doesn't have to be done right away, but how about a future date to aim for? That way those who want to keep its unauthentic (current)looks can have a little more time that way, but a move to authenticity becomes a KRM policy.

I'd like to hear what others think.

Les Beckman (HVRM)

midlandblb@cs.com

I have a definite soft spot for 152 since I did a charter train in 1988. I had forgotten about the old tender. I do think the current one looked pretty nice with it though, and on the mainline trips I am sure it was a welcome addition. They also used an extra water car and diesel assist on the regular trips as well, so at least we have gotten rid of those two items already.

Here she is exiting Frankfort Tunnel in 1985. We had to walk through the tunnel to access.
Greg Scholl

Enjoy!
http://www.gregschollvideo.com/images/ln152ky.jpg


sales@gregschollvideo.com

> I have a definite soft spot for 152 since I
> did a charter train in 1988. I had forgotten
> about the old tender. I do think the current
> one looked pretty nice with it though, and
> on the mainline trips I am sure it was a
> welcome addition. They also used an extra
> water car and diesel assist on the regular
> trips as well, so at least we have gotten
> rid of those two items already.

> Here she is exiting Frankfort Tunnel in
> 1985. We had to walk through the tunnel to
> access.
> Greg Scholl

> Enjoy!
>
> http://www.gregschollvideo.com/images/ln152ky.jpg

Greg: I don't argue that the "new" tender doesn't look nice but that it was not on the locomotive when in regular service. The "old" tender looked good too and in fact, as I recall the old in-service photos had "character." With todays attitudes toward the railroads toward private locomotives on "their" main line, the greater capacity of the "unauthentic" tender behind #152 becomes a moot point. On the normal museum run, the "old" (authentic) tender has more than enough capacity. David Wilkins states that the old tender needs work to restore it. So why not do just that toward a future replacement? And then keep the "new" tender on the side in case attitudes toward main line steam change down the road? No one says that tenders can't be changed out as circumstances change! And restoring 152's old tender (and making the other changes David mentioned) so that the public can see her as she appeared in regular service seems like the right thing for a railroad museum interested in historical preservation to do.

BTW Greg, the videotape jacket you included was nice but did not show the tender very well. Better would have been the photo from the "152 SUSPENDED IN TIME" video.

Les

midlandblb@cs.com

I guess we could start an entire debate about all the engines that are not authentic anymore, and should be modified back to whatever era or class they really should be. Examples are many in this instance, like the Grand Canyon engine, the Chinese engine in New York, and others. Heck I think the 614 even has a tender off a NYC engine does it not!!??? One of the southern engines had a tender from someplace else too I believe...maybe 2716...am foggy on this, but somehow a tender in Birmingham got used someplace...Craft you out there!!??

As for the photos, these I post are handy since they are on my web site for the videos. There is a nice image on the back of the "!52 Suspended in Time" that shows the tender broadside with the number on it.

I suspect cubic dollars is the reason behind not doing everything perfectly prototypical anymore. While it would be nice to see more authentic livery, I am not going to be overly critical of the situation, since each situation is different. I do think that a lot of owners feel they MUST change the names to THEIR new railroad, when in fact I think they might find it really doesn't matter that much, and that keeping the original name for historical purposes just might create as much good will over the long haul.
An example is 261, which never changed its name simply because it ran on other railroads.

Again this debate is never ending, and there is only a right answer to whomever is the man or woman in charge and those who carry the purse strings.
GS

sales@gregschollvideo.com

Actually 614 has its original tender. If I am correct, Ross did buy a NYC Mohawk tender, but intended on using it as a water tender. Ross did lengthen the coalboards on the 614 when he restored it, and thus giving it the non-C&O appearance. 2716 has always had her tender, it did pull around an ex-L&N 2-8-4 tender as a water car.

wilkidm@wku.edu

> Actually 614 has its original tender. If I
> am correct, Ross did buy a NYC Mohawk
> tender, but intended on using it as a water
> tender. Ross did lengthen the coalboards on
> the 614 when he restored it, and thus giving
> it the non-C&O appearance. 2716 has
> always had her tender, it did pull around an
> ex-L&N 2-8-4 tender as a water car.

4501's small tender only lasted a year or so before it was replaced with one that was reportedly off of a C of G loco (a 4-8-2 maybe?) I only saw her in June of 1967 with the small one, so I would say it happened sometime in late '67 or early '68?
Don C.


old_fxrs@msn.com