In the post just below on structural questions of cab unit diesels, Todd Jones of IRyM raises the question of what the opinion is of painting a piece of equipment for one railroad into another railroads paint scheme. Todd says that the question should have its own thread so I'll start it and see if it goes anywhere.

First of all, this has obviously been done in the past. A couple of quick examples are EMD E-units painted for the Erie; Milwaukee EMD F-units painted for the Monon and a private companies Alco diesel switcher painted for the New York Central. I myself am not extremely happy with this practice because somewhere down the road, the original origin of the unit may became "forgotten" and the "replication" eventually thought of as "reality." IF it must be done however (and I understand the reasoning behind it), then at least give the locomotive an "incorrect" number. For example, the two "Erie" E units mentioned are numbered 834 and 835 whereas the Erie's REAL E-units ended with #833. At least then when future historians in the 22nd Century try to find "in service" photos of XYZ Railroad #999 and can only find photos up to #998, then the truth will finally dawn.

My opinion.

midlandblb@cs.com

I think the approach of numbering a restored "stand-in" unit with a false number to represent something that is no longer with us is an excellent interpretive approach PROVIDING the interpretive signage accompanying the vehicle clearly notes that it is indeed not the original unit, but that it represents something else. Ethically, to avoid misleading the public would seem to be correct thing to do. Simply just say what it is supposed to be and what it was originally. The public is very forgiving if you are clear and forthright with them. The vehicle's accession file should also include similar documentation to avoid corrupting the provenance for future visitors and staff studying the collection.

K.R. Bell

> I myself
> am not extremely happy with this practice
> because somewhere down the road, the
> original origin of the unit may became
> "forgotten" and the
> "replication" eventually thought
> of as "reality." IF it must be
> done however (and I understand the reasoning
> behind it), then at least give the
> locomotive an "incorrect" number.
> For example, the two "Erie" E
> units mentioned are numbered 834 and 835
> whereas the Erie's REAL E-units ended with
> #833. At least then when future historians
> in the 22nd Century try to find "in
> service" photos of XYZ Railroad #999
> and can only find photos up to #998, then
> the truth will finally dawn.

> My opinion.

> I think the approach of numbering a restored
> "stand-in" unit with a false
> number to represent something that is no
> longer with us...

This is done quite often, and not just in railroad preservation. The link below is to a site listing all of the existing B-17 Flying Fortresses. Scroll down and you'll notice many of the aircraft are "stand-ins" for those lost in battle. The "nose-art" depicting one famous plane, painted on another, which may have sat out the war, or not been built yet.
As long as the viewing public are somehow made aware, it doesn't seem to be a problem.



Heavy Bombers
sjhussar@aol.com

Amen. remember, Es and Fs are just '57 Chevies and apart from paint and some minor shop mods like grabirons and light placement pretty much alike. Nothing magic or unique about them. This can be the only means of replicating classes for some roads for which none remain.

Leave good records and mention the units real history and its stand-in status in your public interpretation by all means. It can be a great way to introduce the public to the difference between steam and diesel design and construction as a custom VS stock manufacturing process.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> This is done quite often, and not just in
> railroad preservation.

Steve,

Thank you for the B-17 link. I have bookmarked it for future study, as I am an avid warbird enthusiast.

Repainting a diesel to represent a fallen and otherwise extinct flag is a good way to introduce the public to an engine and railroad they would otherwise never know. Just make sure you provide adequate signage to let them know it is a re-creation.

kevingillespie@usa.net

Interesting to note that MILW 33C has worn "another railroad's paint scheme"
its whole life, the Armour Yellow, gray, and red of Union Pacific. I assume it will be restored into those colors- I don't believe Milwaukee had any E9s in Hiawatha orange, did they?

> Amen. remember, Es and Fs are just '57
> Chevies and apart from paint and some minor
> shop mods like grabirons and light placement
> pretty much alike. Nothing magic or unique
> about them. This can be the only means of
> replicating classes for some roads for which
> none remain.

> Leave good records and mention the units
> real history and its stand-in status in your
> public interpretation by all means. It can
> be a great way to introduce the public to
> the difference between steam and diesel
> design and construction as a custom VS stock
> manufacturing process.

> Dave


davew833@yahoo.com

> Interesting to note that MILW 33C has worn
> "another railroad's paint scheme"
> its whole life, the Armour Yellow, gray, and
> red of Union Pacific. I assume it will be
> restored into those colors- I don't believe
> Milwaukee had any E9s in Hiawatha orange,
> did they?

hehehe Much as I would like to paint it light grey with the orange lightning stripe, it is going to be painted in it's proper Yoopers yellow and grey.

All of the MILW E9's came painted this way so there is no latitude in paint schemes for these.

If only 33C and 37A were E7's instead.....

Todd Jones

Restoring MILW E9 33C
milw104c@charter.net

> Amen. remember, Es and Fs are just '57
> Chevies and apart from paint and some minor
> shop mods like grabirons and light placement
> pretty much alike. Nothing magic or unique
> about them. This can be the only means of
> replicating classes for some roads for which
> none remain.

I'm surprised that there are no "nays" on this subject. Granted, E's and F's are fairly common so as long as they are not heavily modified to match a certain road I have no problem with changing paint schemes to that of another road.

However, what about more uncommon subjects? Say a Lima switcher that toiled for Armco Steel being painted for a road (NYC?)that operated like models? How about a South Shore "Molotov" painted for Milwaukee.

Todd Jones

Restoring MILW E9 33C
milw104c@charter.net

I have no problem with replicating one diesel unit with another (especially where an abundance of one road exists and none exist from the road you want to replicate). A correct replication, however is more than a paint job, entailing modification of all the small details that varied from one railroad to another. Modelers have been doing this for years with common diesel models and there is a whole industry devoted to producing "detail" parts for modification. A true exterior restoration of a historic unit to its original paint scheme should also add/remove those items that are appropriate for the era depicted.



bobyar2001@yahoo.com

> I have no problem with replicating one
> diesel unit with another (especially where
> an abundance of one road exists and none
> exist from the road you want to replicate).
> A correct replication, however is more than
> a paint job, entailing modification of all
> the small details that varied from one
> railroad to another.

While I agree that this makes a "replica" more realistic, I'm not sure that this should be standard practice. Paint is fairly easy to either remove or simply cover over, hence a unit painted unprototypically can always be returned to strictly historically accurate appearance. When you start altering detail parts that may be unique to that road, though, don't you set yourself up to be unable to ever return it to historically accurate configuration? Parts can get lost, sold off, thrown out, etc. While this hasn't been mentioned in this thread, I would submit that perhaps a factor in painting a diesel for another road should be the ability to eventually return it to "original" condition if priorities change.

BTW, Todd, funny how you keep mentioning painting South Shore "Joes" for Milwaukee Road. Getting your hopes up?


Frank Hicks, IRM

Frank@gats.com

Most of the parts I'm referring to are bolted on, and thus fairly easy to change out again. Yes, there should be extensive documentation as to what is being done, and careful storage of what is removed, perhaps in a multi-organization "parts pool" (most likely a boxcar at some museum). Let's face it, there are more Milwaukee Road FP7s and Burlington E8s and '9s extant than there is a need for. Personally, I'd like to see a Rock Island FP7 in the classic Rocket scheme and a Warbonnet Santa Fe E8m or one from the Mopac, Frisco, Atlantic Coast Line, Seaboard, etc.(none of these exist anymore), rather than see these go to scrap. Also, I believe that well-done replicas are better than some units seen in model railroad-like schemes on dinner trains. When the magic day comes when we restore a complete California Zephyr trainset, the two B units for the WP segment will have to be replicas, as the original ones are long gone. Fortunately, Portola Railroad Museum has already obtained them.

While I agree that this makes a
> "replica" more realistic, I'm not
> sure that this should be standard practice.
> Paint is fairly easy to either remove or
> simply cover over, hence a unit painted
> unprototypically can always be returned to
> strictly historically accurate appearance.
> When you start altering detail parts that
> may be unique to that road, though, don't
> you set yourself up to be unable to ever
> return it to historically accurate
> configuration? Parts can get lost, sold off,
> thrown out, etc. While this hasn't been
> mentioned in this thread, I would submit
> that perhaps a factor in painting a diesel
> for another road should be the ability to
> eventually return it to "original"
> condition if priorities change.

> BTW, Todd, funny how you keep mentioning
> painting South Shore "Joes" for
> Milwaukee Road. Getting your hopes up?
> :-)

> Frank Hicks, IRM


bobyar2001@yahoo.com

Hi Bob,

What you are talking about is just good practice in historic preversation of almost any industrial archaeology artifact: ships, trains, planes or cars.

I make my living documenting a historic collection; we have to change things to keep the weather out and the hull floating. But we write down everything we do. Even what kind of paint and when it was put on. TM

ted_miles@NPS.gov

Hi,

Your question brings to mind another question that I'd like to here an opinion on.

Many units, wether they were locomotives or rolling stock, were sold to shortlines after serving on class ones. These second hand pieces of equipment, might have been the shortlines only surviving example. So, when they are preserved, why are they repainted in the class ones scheme rather than the shortline scheme?

I am a fan of the shortline and I don't like to see the shortline history lost and forgotten to reproduce a class one RR that may have 50 or so pieces of equipment already preserved.

I would provide some examples, but I don't feel that's necesary. This doens't just go for diesels either. There are steam locomotives that have been done that way too.

Stuart

Mid-South Rail Heritage Foundation
gnufe@apex.net

Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive

Here in San Diego, we wish to present San Diego's railroad history. So, while the AT&SF has an ALCo RS-2 for many years switching the passenger trains at the Santa Fe Depot, that unit #2099 (the only one for Santa Fe) is long gone. What to do?

We acquired a RS-2 and painted it AT&SF #2098 - looks great and works very well of our use.

JimLundquist55@yahoo.com