The term "stand-in" is good, and "reproduction" applies as well. After all, you are creating something which looks like an original. Reproductions, copies, facsimilies and duplicates are items made to closely resemble something else.

The word "fake" has an accusatory tone that reproduction and replica do not. For something to be "fake" I think there needs to be the intent to deceive the viewer regarding the item's real origin and identity. I don't think you're trying to do that.

In a completely different genre of preservation, vintage warbirds have been restored and repainted with "nose art" from aircraft lost in combat. The term "stand-in" is often used by these similarly addicted enthusiasts.



http://www.armyairforces.com/b-17restored.asp
SJHussar@aol.com

In the maritime field there have been many replicas; mostly reproductions that may or may not be very well researched.

the reason behind them is to show and operate something that is long gone or is too fragil to
go out on the ocean.

in the case of the John an engine that is 150 is indeed too rare to operate and the Pennsylvania RR built a true replicas of it to be operated. I have seen it close enough to touch and feel the heat at the recent Railfairs in Californa.

I suspect that some higher up in the Pennsylvania Parks System handed down that decision. Anyone who works at the museum knows that one of the best Steam Shops in the world is across the street and has been taking care of it for years.

Just my thoughts as a member of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania

Ted Miles

ted_miles@nps.gov

The John Bull replica has it's own history. It was built in the steam era by railroaders 60+ years ago and is an artifact in its own right(IMHO). However it would be sad if Mr. Bell were the last person to ever fire her. I fear that the hands-on knowledge of operating these old machines is eventually going to be lost, mainly to federal regulations. That would be a shame.


SJHussar@aol.com

The Museum's decision to retire the replica was based on the ethics of simple artifact preservation. Since the John Bull replica's boiler is of a lap seam design, under the new steam rules the Museum was faced with having to reboiler the engine with a modified welded boiler design in order to keep the engine serviceable. Although the Museum does not presently have the financial resources to undertake this measure, other important criteria entered into the equation. Since the engine is an accessioned artifact (not a consumable "for use" object) over 60 years old in age, built by a now-defunct historic builder (PRR Altoona Shops), its status as an antiquarian transportation vehicle required special consideration. Even the replica is now an historic object and has a history of its own worthy of preservation! Completely replacing the boiler would be, in a very large way, devaluing the replica as an historic artifact--an important ethical consideration we have felt is important to preserve. I understand the motivation of some railroaders is to run historic vehicles, but summarizing what Erik said previously in this thread, the Museum has chosen to take the high road and err on the side of long-term artifact preservation by not running the replica any longer. Whether it's good or bad to run an artifact is irrelevant; we have decided to be responsible caretakers of our historic collection by not running them. Museums have an ethical responsibility to preserve and protect the historic integrity of collections foremost; that is a basic museum-field tenant we have chosen to abide by. Operating artifacts can sometimes be a consumptive, destructive act and must be considered carefully. Consumable "for use" vehicles fill the need to run. Historic material evidence erased by a careless restoration can never again be recovered, and is forever gone. Tread softly, but always use common sense.

> Y'know, I have more than a little bit of a
> problem with this.

> I readily admit that it would be foolish to
> try to fire the original again, especially
> when there's a perfectly good replica.
> Changing boiler tubes -- even firebox sheets
> -- is, to a steam loco, the equivalent of
> replacing your radiator hoses, belts, and
> tires on a car. Adding a sight glass is like
> updating your computer's OS version. It's
> all routine maintenance. Now, if the whole
> boiler had to be replaced, I'd say put it up
> and leave it put up -- if it wasn't already
> a replica. But to mothball an otherwise
> sound engine -- particularly one with very
> little real historical revelence in itself
> (see below) -- because doing routine
> maintenance would "destroy its historic
> fabric" strikes me as taking
> "preservation" to a truly
> ridiculous extreme.

> Back in the 1980s, Model Railroader had a
> series of poems by a fellow named Walt
> Bartlett. One of them summed up my feelings
> rather well:

> The Collector has class,
> The Collector has brass,
> And all of it's locked in a case.
> Though his locos will run,
> To him, that's no fun,
> He'd rather they sat in one place.
> It should be a sin,
> There's a motor wihin!
> And it's there for a reason, doggone it!
> I suggest in this verse,
> That his brass be dispersed,
> And given to those who will RUN it!

> I feel that way abut steam engines. If it's
> really so old and fragile that doing routine
> maintenance would destroy something of true
> historic value (such as the original JB's
> copper flues), by all means stuff and mount
> it. But if the engine can be operated with
> relatively minor changes for modern
> conveience/safety, IT SHOULD BE.

> We're talking about a REPLICA here. NOT THE
> ORIGINAL. The replica was built so you could
> see the original IN OPERATION without
> actually risking the original. A replica, by
> its nature, DOESN'T MATTER HISTORICALLY. To
> say it does is denying the original purpose
> of the replica and actually insulting the
> people who built it.

> I get pissed at the City of Charleston for
> having the Best Friend stuffed and mounted,
> too. I want to get that thing on
> "my" railroad so bad I can taste
> it. It's a damned REPLICA people, not an
> original artifact. A replica is NOT an
> artifact, nor should it be! Replicas are
> meant to be OPERATED so people can
> experience on a visceral level what the
> original was like. Run the wheels off it,
> then stick 'em back on and run it some more!

> Since the John Bull replica's
> boiler is of a lap seam design, under the
> new steam rules the Museum was faced with
> having to reboiler the engine with a
> modified welded boiler design in order to
> keep the engine serviceable. Although the
> Museum does not presently have the financial
> resources to undertake this measure, other
> important criteria entered into the
> equation.

"We can't afford it" *is* a valid argument.

> Since the engine is an accessioned
> artifact (not a consumable "for
> use" object) over 60 years old in age,
> built by a now-defunct historic builder (PRR
> Altoona Shops), its status as an antiquarian
> transportation vehicle required special
> consideration. Even the replica is now an
> historic object and has a history of its own
> worthy of preservation!

Here's where RMPA and I part company. I do not believe that a replica can be a historic artifact, no matter who built it. Especially when the original still exists. This attitude, in my not so humble opinion, is insulting to the folks at Altoona who built the thing. The replica was built to be operated so that people could experience the John Bull under steam without risking the original John Bull. This makes it a consumable, not an artifact. The men who built the replica would be insulted by the Museum's attitude -- at least I would if I were one of them.

> Whether it's
> good or bad to run an artifact is
> irrelevant; we have decided to be
> responsible caretakers of our historic
> collection by not running them.

But a replica is by definition a consumable and not an artifact, so this argument is irrelevent.

> Museums have
> an ethical responsibility to preserve and
> protect the historic integrity of
> collections foremost; that is a basic
> museum-field tenant we have chosen to abide
> by. Operating artifacts can sometimes be a
> consumptive, destructive act and must be
> considered carefully. Consumable "for
> use" vehicles fill the need to run.

No argument here, at least to a point.

Certain parts of a steam locomotive, whether the overall engine is an artifact or not, are consumable. These include flues, superheater elements, tires, and brakes. Changing these is like changing the serpentine belt, brake shoes, and radiator hoses in your car. Replacing flue sheets or firebox sheets is like replacing the timing belt or chain in your car -- expensive and more difficult, but still something that will have to be done eventually. To put a locomotive up because you can't afford to replace the back flue sheet is valid, but to put it up because replacing the flue sheet would diminish the artifact historically is pure, unadulterated BS. Putting that same locomotive up because you'd have to replace the whole boiler *is* a valid reason to take it out of service on historical grounds. The boiler's outside barrel is historic, its guts aren't.

I also believe that calling a replica a historic artifact is stretching things to the breaking point. Again, I point out that in this case, the original is extant. The replica has no valid purpose as a display object when the original is just a couple hundred miles to the south in Washington. Therefore, the purpose of the replica must be operation in place of the original. Ergo, the only valid reason for not operating it is that keeping it in service exceeds the available funds.

The South Carolina Railroad Museum
mconrad@compuzone.net

> Putting that same locomotive up because you'd have to replace the whole boiler *is* a valid reason to take it out of
>service on historical grounds. The boiler's outside barrel is historic, its guts aren't.

> To put a
> locomotive up because you can't afford to
> replace the back flue sheet is valid, but to
> put it up because replacing the flue sheet
> would diminish the artifact historically is
> pure, unadulterated BS.

I let my emotions get a bit out of control here. Erik quite rightly sent me an email offline chastizing me for the above statement. While I will not apologize for the sentiment, I could have put it quite a bit more politely. To anyone who was offended by the clumsy way I tried to make my point, my sincerest apologies.


South Carolina Train Stuff
mconrad@compuzone.net

> Boy, Matt, tell us how you really feel...
> :-)

I just reread this post. I'll try to avoid letting my fingers get ahead of my brain this time.

> The conservation/operation debate has been
> waged often on the Interchange. You state
> very clearly the case for operation. Others
> have stated the case for conservation in the
> past.

You missed my point. I'm actually in favor of conservation if operation will truly damage the artifact. But the machine we're discussing here isn't an artifact, it's a replica. Apples and oranges.

> In the end, the owner/custodian of the
> artifact decides how to preserve and
> interpret it, and that's about all there is
> to it IMHO. There is no one right answer in
> my book, only different groups making
> different choices in light of their
> different priorities, missions, and
> philosophies.

Again, it's not an artifact. It's a replica. Whatever "history" the replica supposedly has is completely beside the point and doesn't add up to ONE bean, let alone a hill of 'em. It's not an original locomotive. It was built to take the place of the original locomotive in operation. So the operation/conservation debate is utterly irrelevant.


South Carolina Train Stuff
mconrad@compuzone.net

Why is this a "slippery slope?" Granted the statement referred to is an overgeneralization when removed from context. But if you apply common sense and logic to each individual case, that broad generalization is probably valid most of the time.

A lot depends on the locomotive in question and the circumstances. For example, were I in charge of the B&O Museum's William Mason, I wouldn't think twice about giving her a whole new boiler to keep her running (I'm ignoring cost issues here for the sake of argument), since she's already on her second boiler anyway.

Would I replace SCRM's Hampton & Branchville locomotive's boiler to get her steaming? I'd have to think long and hard about that one because this engine has the original pressure vessel installed by Baldwin in 1927.

Would I reboiler the Best Friend replica in Charleston? Absolutely -- not only is it also on its second boiler, it's a replica, and a replica with a lot of very obvious differences from the original too boot.

Would I reboiler the ORIGINAL John Bull? Not in ten million years!

Like all sweeping generalizations, you have to keep what I said in context and look at it with some common sense.

South Carolina Train Stuff
mconrad@compuzone.net

> The term "stand-in" is good, and
> "reproduction" applies as well.
> After all, you are creating something which
> looks like an original. Reproductions,
> copies, facsimilies and duplicates are items
> made to closely resemble something else.

> The word "fake" has an accusatory
> tone that reproduction and replica do not.
> For something to be "fake" I think
> there needs to be the intent to deceive the
> viewer regarding the item's real origin and
> identity. I don't think you're trying to do
> that.

> In a completely different genre of
> preservation, vintage warbirds have been
> restored and repainted with "nose
> art" from aircraft lost in combat. The
> term "stand-in" is often used by
> these similarly addicted enthusiasts.

This has been my thought all along, Stephen. I expected someone to come in with guns blazin', and the "fake" designation in this example appears totally off base. We are not talking about butchering up an artifact. In fact, all that was mentioned was a paint scheme to make it look like an identical piece of equipment owned by another railroad.

I did not say if the history of the car would be public or not, so the possibility of "deception" is fair game; however, why deceive the public about something like that? What would be the point? Further, even if the public was not fully advised of the "true" identity of the artifact, would any real harm be done? Bon't get me wrong, I am not advocating misleading exhibits. Although, most of the public would care less about the actual, factual history of a freight car than what it is painted to represent for the purpose of interpretation in a museum.

Now, if the artifact is one-of-a-kind, or perhaps the last of its kind known to remain, the topic becomes more edgy.

In the example, I mentioned one of 2 boxcars being painted to represent a car of identical design owned by another railroad (of regional interest). Seems to me that by going ahead and spending some money on the artifact now to make it a "stand-in", rather than letting it continue to deteriorate because you already have one, means that it might be available to trade to another museum at some time in the future. It is preserving multiple artifacts rather than only one, yet providing a visual diversity in the museum.

This thread is so far down the list I don't expect much more comment, but thanks for your input.

ssyfrett@bellsouth.net