Les, you may be thinking about two 0-6-0's, one UP and one SP, on display in Ogden, Utah, with a bronze plaque that mentions the Golden Spike. They were pictured coupled pilot to pilot on page 64 in Ron Ziel's 1963 book "The Twilight of Steam Locomotives." Are they still there?

G.W. -

Yes, those may be the two I'm thinking of. I've seen Ziel's book, so that's where I might have seen the photo. Would be interesting to know if they are still there, or if not, what eventually happened to them.

Les

I believe UP 0-6-0 No. 4436 is still in Ogden. Is that the one in question? I don't know about the SP 0-6-0 though.

-Philip Marshall

The following was taken from Utah rails

UP 4436 was originally a coal-burner and was origianlly equipped with 4,500 gallon slope-back tender, like the other Class S-5 switchers. At some point after January 1938 and before January 1943, its tender was swapped for a 7,000 gallon Vanderbilt, the type which it currently has. Gordon McCulloh's research suggests that at the time of the tender swap, this engine was also converted to oil fuel. The standard "switching oil tank" (narrowed at the top for visibility) holds 2,420 gallons of oil.
UP 4436 worked in Nebraska until the WW II era when it was moved to the Portland, Oregon area; moved to Evanston, Wyoming, after 1949 at the same time that most other steam locomotives were moved east from the Northwestern District; still in operation Evanston as late as October 1957 (likely the last steam locomotive assigned to Evanston); retired by UP in February 1958; donated to City of Ogden, Utah, and displayed with SP 0-6-0 1297 at Affleck Park (display dedicated on July 18, 1959); moved to Ogden Union Station in 1993

Link is http://utahrails.net/up-steam-roster/up ... 962-17.php


With more here http://utahrails.net/ogden/ogden-museum.php

1297 survives today in Farmington, NM

Robby

The point of Promontory is that for the first time, the nigh impossible was easy. Nobody cared about a couple of commuter ferries. Considering the previous best options - a six month sail in which you got to see penguins, or a tropical safari across Nicaragua, nobody cared about a 20 minute ferry ride in Omaha and a daytrip in the Delta.

Robby -

Thanks for passing this info along.


Les

Dear Mr. Hees

The frustration of what is historic come out of long term struggles with this question. Mr. White knew that the master mechanics in charge of EP&SW #1 never lifted the whistle and the bell and replaced everything else. Being unique in that regard the result is you see today the locomotive that was constructed in 1857. It is the same boiler, frame and many other parts. Changes do include removal of a water pump, and the addition of an extended smoke box, knuckle couplers, and air brakes. The replicas themselves have never done anything but be proverbial stage props in the telling of the story of a national accomplishment. Is the replica of the John Bull historic? If so how historic is the replica and why?

By the measure of other post the only thing that is important is if the locomotive runs. So following that standard Grand Canyon Railway 4960 with chinese water pump, Chinese lubricators, lempor exhaust, a Soo tender, 26 air, and a host of other changes better represents a CB&Q 2-8-2 than the other 4 that still exists that are on display because it operates. 4960's tender from the 1960s is gone but that doesn't matter 4960 operates. Ask a CB&Q fan about how they feel about the changes. In the push for the locomotive swap on the C&TS the statement was made that they wanted a "San Juan locomotive" never mind that the 483 was given the same alterations as the 9 k-28 set up for the "San Juan". Apparently there was no consideration to the role 483 played in the end of operations on Cumbres.

The visit of AT&SF 3751 to Grand Canyon Railway in 2002 created an interesting conversation with one of my fellow employees. If I remember correctly He had piloted 3751 from the depot to the shop. He was used to 24 and 26 air. Both of these air brake systems have self lapping independent brake valves. With the air system on the 3751 it was a not a self lapping independent brake valve and this surprised him because he was not a railfan, he was working at GCR to both feed and be near his family. Some will say "So what does this matter In the end you still need the same pressure to stop a locomotive. But the actions of bailing off the independent air is different. How you adjust the braking pressure on a light engine move imore steps. If you place the automatic air into quick charge on a number 6 you have to watch closely for an overcharge where the 24 still feeds thru the feed valve. In the end the finesse is different.

Will Ambrose former Santa Fe employee who set up the simulator for the training of Santa Fe locomotive engineers once told me that when firing a 4-8-4 powered passenger east out of Flagstaff toward Winslow the engineer had laid his coat over the independent. Headed down the grade at trackspeed the tender and first car separated. The 8 ET system took a long time to reset for them to apply the engine and tender brakes. They traveled six miles before stopping in the middle of Canyon Diablo bridge. His pounding heart was impart due to the fact it was the older canyon Diablo bridge where the bridge had a gauntlet track on it for the two mains. The engineer had block the independent into release so he did not have to constantly release the engine brakes when the train brakes set up. How he blocked the independent was not with a coin or a fusee cap because you push down the independent like the 24 or 26 but another method to hold it to the release position.

The historic districts in many communities focus on architecture. Is it the view of an old structure that is important or the human activities that occurred within it? Is the type of construction unique or only of a certain period? In the discussion of what is historic on the Cumbres and Toltec one of the more interesting items was the view from Terrace Ave of the yard. What is in or happens in a railroad yard that is so visually important? Is it the train sitting in the yard? Is it the passengers milling around? Is it the architecture in the yard? Or is it the way a railroad yard changes thru the coarse of the day as things happen that was what they wanted people to see? Changing things like how a locomotive is lubricated so grease instead of oil eliminates or at least changes activities such as oiling around.

I have told this story before but it bears repeating. When having one a city board meeting for Southern Pacific 3420 in El Paso, Texas, there was a map of the mission trails historic district. Around the Socorro, Texas, Mission there were several other buildings defined as historical. At looking at those buildings my father realized that one of the buildings identified as historic was constructed within the past 20 years (at the time of the meeting) and that the pic up truck we had driven to the meeting was used to haul the building materials. The building was constructed by a former New York cop who stated if he did the construction right no one would remember in thirty years when the building was constructed and they would consider it historic. He was off by 10 years. I will not get into how many times the Rio Grande River destroyed the oldest missions in the US. What you see today is not what was originally built.

My initial interest was in seeing a locomotive operate grew into an interest in working on a locomotive. Overtime I began to understand more about the technology different locomotive represent. It is only with latter locomotives that we see continuous cast steel frames, roller bearings, and other features. A locomotive like 3420 has seen a number of changes over the years. There are a reason for the changes but what are they and why. Every piece of railroad equipment has a story Starting with the with how technology developed to create the piece of equipment, to the way it was both correctly and incorrectly operated and repaired to how technology continued to evolve to make the old obsolete.

For me preservation is about telling an accurate story about the past for current and future generations. That means that a train ride is nice but what is the history of the route, equipment, and effect on the territory the railroad operated? My concern is what is seen as the story and how is it perceived? For me ignorance to history and changes due to non historically documented reasons work to create confusion and misunderstanding. If we are not preserving artifacts, the skills needed to operate and maintain equipment of that era for our fellow human bearings then why are we doing this?


Robby Peartree


PS. a little info on SP 1297
http://www.steamlocomotive.info/F62002.cfm

History is also about telling future citizens accurate stories about what's currently the present - and the replicas we build to tell that story or the alterations we make to create objects to use to tell that story tell us now that we find that story worthy of being told, which tell future people what we thought now. History is this here now thing, not just those old things, and not just things but cultural references, ideas and concepts.

I think Robby has put his finger precisely on something critical to this, and the other, discussions.

"Preservation" in this context really isn't about 'do we preserve the original fabric of an operating locomotive' or 'do we restore an artifact to as-built vs. representative operating vs. 'concours' condition'. It's not about telling stories or making interpretations or keeping museum content or displays 'socially relevant', either. Preservation is about information.

If we keep the full history of a locomotive, including its change history, we can -- at least in principle -- reconstruct it to any intermediate state. Or we can write stories, produce interactive exhibits and attractive graphics, etc. that tell about any aspect or era we want. But when that information is lost, or corrupted, or improperly restored, we lose the ability to do some of that.

This is one reason, perhaps the primary reason, I advocate that anything being done to historic equipment be fully documented, and as much of the 'removed' material kept as possible. Sure, it would be nice, if ATSF 3463 is converted to a Rocket Ship Galileo, to ensure that it is restored to full Ripleyhood when their project is done. But it is more important in my opinion to assure that all the information to do so, and as much of the original fabric as possible to do so, is properly kept against that day.

With respect to Promontory: if I remember correctly, that is the historic location where the double-tracking of the Pacific Railroad commenced. That, too, is a valuable story to provide visitors... but not the principal point of having a commemmorative site at the location. Note that it's as important to preserve the folklore associated with history as it is to preserve the original 'events' and paraphernalia themselves ... and as history moves forward, there is more and more of this, including the detail history of museum activity itself, that enters into the 'historic' part of historic preservation.

Much of this won't be of interest to many museums, in that it won't bring in more visitors, or increase the satisfaction of museum-goers or even many in the research or scholarly communities, or make for more sales at the gift shop. Nor is it a prima facie requirement to stabilize and make display-ready everything in a museum collection ... let alone serve as an excuse for that most vile of things in my opinion, "deaccession" for any purpose other than to give an artifact to a specific group or entity that can and will 'preserve' it or its associated history better or more appropriately. So I don't expect to see this idea fully implemented, or even accepted as a particular institution's policy.

However, I think it remains both an objective and a good 'general rule' if we have to have a single working definition of what 'preservation' entails.

With respect to Promontory, it is the location where the original alignments of the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific connected creating the first transcontinental railroad link across North America.

Preservation is a component of historical interpretation. But it is not the only way to tell a historic story to the mass population. The best way can be to use many different media -- artifacts, restored structures, photos, replica structures (more recreations than restorations), audio visual formats, and sometimes just words.

Are we preserving artifacts and then using them (or trying to use them) to tell a historical story; or are we telling a historical story and using artifacts as one of many components? Is this a "chicken or an egg" question or is it one illustrating the growth and maturity of museums and exhibit sites?

What better way to preserve information than by telling a story with it? This is how entire belief systems have been maintained for millennia........ and generally presented using multiple forms of media.

The best way to preserve "information" to support "interpretation" and the telling of the story is to seek out and interview the people who designed and built the equipment.

It is too late now for the people who designed steam and the early diesels through the 1940s and 1950s, but keep in mind that many of them were still alive in the time period when some of our national railroad historical organizations, and even a few of the single railroad historical societies, were functioning. There are only a couple of people left now from the Baldwin, Alco and F-M locomotive manufacturing organizations. There is a lesson to learn from this for those who care to. Recently we have begun to lose the people who designed the EMD 40 series and Dash-2's, and the GE "U" series and subsequent GE Dash models.

It wasn't that these designers had anything against talking to railroad enthusiasts, many of them were never asked. Some of them were very accessible, like Fred Tromel of Alco, a principal designer of the 251 engine, who served as a volunteer at the Schenectady Public Library after his retirement.

A few of them got interviewed, most did not.

PC

I agree with you, it has been difficult to find the names of thoes involved in the building of the F40PH and I would like to have heard the storys behind the locomotive.

Max Ephraim was the Chief Engineer at EMD in the late 1970s when the F40PH was being developed. He retired in 1983 and passed away in 2001.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995 ... ive-diesel

PC

I was being humorous. I thought it was well-known that the two crews kept building right past each other when they 'met', continuing to earn the daily bonuses for construction, until higher-ups got wind of this and formally arranged to link the two ends with the 'golden spike' ceremony... See why it's valuable to remember these things?