In the thread on Promontory Summit locomotives I asked what made the locomotives historic? . The link is here

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39011

So far there has been no answer.
Previous to this thread I asked what is preservation and you can see in this thread

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36465&p=213477#p213477

It has occurred to me that in preservation to first understand what we are preserving we must first understand what is the significance of our desire to do so that will drive our efforts. Is it the excitement we feel when a steam locomotive roars by with a tonnage train? Is it the act of an accomplishment of building the first transcontinental railroad. Is it preserving the story of how our relatives lived and worked? Or is it just giving people the opportunity for a train ride?

In today's world we have efforts to change AT&SF 3463 into something it was not because they want to prove something. Southern 4501 now has a mechanical stoker applied by a museum because of what reason, historic, personal abilities, or other? Someone discussing revitalizing the SP 3420 project says we must convert the locomotive to oil lube on the driving axles. I wonder to my self have they read the AFE that talks about converting the locomotive from oil to grease lubrication to eliminate axle cutting when the locomotive is authorized for speeds over 40 mph? Is the conversion going to be like one tourist railroad where they converted to oil without re-machining the crown brasses or even telling the operating crews what was going on. We have projects to build this or that locomotive while locomotives from that era are either unknown or ignored. Is it because they are from a railroad that few follow, there is no model of that particular locomotive or just what? While other locomotives create massive emotional responses like UP 844 and PRR 1361 that civil conversation is nearly impossible. How does such "passion" help or hurt the efforts on such projects or even other projects that are affected by it? Many of us say were preserving something, but how do we know if what we a re preserving is important or even relevant? In the Golden Spike Thread paint is important. If you read other threads paint is a hot topic. Because everyone can see it or wants to see it does that make it worth preserving while other historical facts remain unknown or not even studied? Because we can not easily see something like technology does that make it unimportant? Do we ignore things we do not understand because they challenge us or do work to expand our horizons?

In 2004 at the ARM convention people were asking to help them define interpretation and one member of our group argued that we should already know what interpretation is. When others asked the same basic question then they suddenly added it to the list to "fit in". Is preservation and our activities only about social status? When I visit the C&TS I do not here a lot about interpretation in spite of the numerous things that can be used there to tell numerous stories. Instead, in too many places I see trapped leadership doing what they have always done instead of looking at things with a fresh perspective?

Today there seems to be a lot of rail fan chatter. We should do this and we should do that but the real statement is you should do this because I want to see it. It does not matter if it is historic or not. It does not matter that I can document it never existed or happened because I want to see it. Is preservation a fantasy world where we finally get to do something we always wanted to or is it the effort to preserve what did happened, how it happened, or what it was like.

So I ask you what is important to railroad preservation. Is it the equipment, the impact railroading had on society. its impact on minority groups and their struggles, the development of a nation or area or even in some cases how development froze for a while due to economic issues? Just what are we preserving and why?


Robby Peartree

A great question Robby.

I have wondered if any of the executives of EMD or ALCO in the 1940s had lived long enough to participate in RYPN, whether people would have listened and learned from them or just argued with them.

PC

I must have missed the question on whether the Jupiter and 119 are "historic". I'll opine on both questions.

While the two Promontory locomotives are definitely not original to the time period, they are historic by association. They are a representation of a world-changing event that is comparable to the moon landing in social, environmental and technological impact. Also, I have noticed that the majority of visitors to Promontory were not yet born when the locomotives were built (I am one of them); even a good number of the paid staff likewise are too young to have been present. For them, the locomotives have become historic through time. They are approaching the 50 year mark, and most of the steam locomotives that were preserved by my preceding generation were either of that age or younger and already considered "historic". I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, but these two locomotives were also among the first new, standard-gauge steam built in the U.S. after dieselization had been truly established. Now we are seeing more - Kloke, Steam into History, the WW&F - several organizations and companies are constructing brand-new steam locomotives based on historic design.

On the other hand, any work done on the Jupiter and 119 cannot be considered "restoration" or "preservation" but rather "routine maintenance". They have been in continuous use since their construction, never retired, never statically displayed. They are working locomotives just as the hundreds of now-preserved ones once were.

Who really are the people that care if 4501 has a stoker or not? Who are the people that care if there are 14 rivets in the side sheet instead of 12? How many of those people are out there and why should all of us go to great lengths to satisfy them, when the vast majority don't care and just want to see a steam train, or ride in a caboose, or have some sort of appealing rail equipment to photograph?

Will all of this historical information be of any value to anyone in the future, aside from modelmakers and locomotive restorers? Is our pursuit for historical accuracy really serving the public or is it serving our perception of what the public should want, when in fact most of the public barely know steam locomotives and railroads exist?

I'm not advocating abandoning the pursuit of historical accuracy, but I am saying that our culture is changing, and the number of people with any sort of true appreciation for historical accuracy is dwindling.

Personally, I am more interested in providing a railroading "experience" than I am in making sure that all the right rivets are in the right places, while the public is going to be saying, "what is a rivet?"

Take a look at the list of topics to be covered at the Spring ATRRM meeting that was distributed via email this morning. These questions are being specifically addressed - it seems we may be maturing at last.

You start with the mission which is the story you decide you want to tell. Then, you produce the script and set design and list of props you need to set the stage on which you tell the story - this is the strategic and tactical part of getting the story into tellable - better yet experiential - form.

If the story as about the technology, strict accuracy in fabric and craftsmanship is a requirement. What a rivet is becomes an integral part of that story. If your story is the linking of the coasts by rails, rivets are just details in the set dressing, so the fact that the boilers of the JUPITER and 119 reproductions are welded not riveted becomes inconsequential.

Most of us got stuck with a lot of metal crap on wheels grabbed without a story being first defined, and a lot of that crap has become sacred relics to be retained at any and all costs whether it contributes to the telling of the story or not. Growing up means redefining your collection through the filter of the story - and taking appropriate action.

You have to divide your world into two segments. Operation and restoration.
IMHO restoration is a cosmetic preservation of what the item was when in service, unless you want to backdate to as built. Correct paint, lettering, jacketing and NO whitewalls or running board edges if it didn't originally have that in service.
As for operation, there are things you must do in today's world to make operation possible. I remember the hand wringers and naysayers bleating about us changing out the 6ET to a 26 brake on 1522. Complained about the firecracker antenna on the cab roof, the oil fill pipe at ground level, and countless other little things. Mind you, these were the "experts" and wouldn't hear that it was necessary to operate on today's mainlines. Electric speedometer? OMG! Additional mechanical lubricator? Blasphemy. Radio? That's it, I'm outta here. You should have heard the whining when we converted the pilot, trailing and tender trucks to roller bearings.
You have to decide which road you are going to take and act accordingly.

Dear Frisco 1522

I'd complain about changing from #6ET to 26. 26 best place is in the scrap pile of bad ideas. I have changed out more automatics on the road than I even wanted to do (i think we changed 12 in a 4 month period). The system has problems when you carry a spare on the tender. Further the minimum reduction with the UC valves at GCR was often too much. At least with the 24 or a six you could match what the train wanted to do and not be stuck with an over engineered seal prone piece of garbage. I did more sea sawing of the brake valve with 26 than I would have done with 24 or 6. Further if operating is the goal then why call it a restoration. It should be a rebuild. Operation preservation would be bringing back as much operational practices as possible. A change of things just because the host railroad has lost the institutional memory of working with 6 ET or plain bearings causes a loss of understanding for the next generation on what it was like operating locomotive in 18XX or 19XX.. In spite of a great advertising campaign railroads still use plain bearings today in every locomotive they use. 6 ET still follows the same principles that the 26 does. What are they teaching locomotive engineers today?

My current favorite is the limiting of draw bar swing particularly between a locomotive and tender. You see how much stretch braking has disappeared and a lack of understanding of how locomotive draw bars are suppose to have tension on them. When a locomotive and tender comes a part at speed it says a lot no matter how it is spun.

Robby Peartree

Something you should also bear in mind is that for the general public, we are often replicating the past in general, rather than something specific. As somebody else mentioned, you have museums and you have operating railroad. Museums should be concerned about the artifacts history and present it accurately. Operating railroad can also do that, but they may also choose to simply provide a train ride. It's all about your goals.

I recall riding the Knox and Kane in the 1990's. I was one of only a few people on the train that realized the locomotive was new and built in China. In fact, while telling my son that the locomotive was only a few years old and made in China, a fellow passenger assured me that wasn't possible. Only asking the conductor convinced him that it was true.

Most of the passengers didn't know, or care. It was like going for a horseback ride, or going on a sailing ship. You were experiencing life the way our grandparents did. The exact horse (of flesh or iron) didn't matter, the experience was about the same, and close enough.

The answer to your first question, in my opinion, is that there is, in fact, little or nothing about the locomotives at Golden Spike. They are NOT artifacts they are props, used in a show of a historical nature.


I believe, Mr. Peartree, the answer to your second question primarily goes back to money. Some of it goes to who is interested in various projects. If the individual(s) interested is/are a good salesman, the project is more likely to wind up in the spotlight and thus receive more money. There are many fascinating pieces of equipment which are worthy of preservation but, there are not as many people with the means or inclination to save these things. Just like everywhere else in life, the one who screams gets the attention. People with money to spare don't typically go looking for a railroad preservation project to throw it at. They give it groups who market donors effectively.

On a similar note, the average person doesn't go looking for railroad museums, they stumble across them (ads, signs and in person). One of the most important goals railroad preservation groups must set is getting people through the door. If you have an immaculately restored / preserved locomotive, coach, etc. what good is it if no one ever sees it? Railfans are like movie critics, though very vocal, they make up a very small percentage of the paying public, so why would do things to suite them when your bread and butter doesn't care. The public at large doesn't turn out to pay to see static displays. Over half the people that move through a successful (growing or at least break even) railroad museum don't really know what they are looking at until they read the sign in front of it. Even more of the patrons (including the average person with a decent interest in trains) don't know the specifics of each piece of rolling stock (colors, stokers, coal, oil, etc, etc.)

Purists often forget that museums ARE in the entertainment business. If Mom and the kids aren't interested, the family isn't going. If the entertainment you provide is an area to walk through, look at and read about static equipment then you effectively provide a picture book. On the other hand if you provide a ride or opportunity to see equipment in motion then your product is similar to a movie. To take it a step further a "hand on the throttle" or simulator experience then it becomes more like a video game. Movies and video games sell but, sadly books just don't sell like they used to.

Making slight alterations to locomotives doesn't ruin them, when compared with leaving them out to rust in a park or in a scrap yard. Most things have to earn their keep. If putting a stoker on 4501 allows it to run and have a second/ third career then what's wrong with that? If it doesn't run it will sit. Trains are made to run. Museums don't run on hopes and dreams or even historical accuracy. They run on money and volunteers. Running trains make more money and get more volunteers and visitors. The sentiment that "well that's not 100% accurate so we can't do it" is killing museums. Someday the ultimate choice for many pieces of rolling stock will become "Do we make changes and fix it up or cut it up." Sure, there are units that are rare unmolested survivors. If they are presentable they should be left alone. If you want someone to see them you ought to make them a part of a more interesting presentation for the average person.

Historic to me means something that has a true connection to the past. Kind of like "George Washington slept here". A rusty piece of iron you pulled out of the ground is historic if you feel it has a tangible and emotional connection to something you want to remember or commemorate.

The Promontory engines are not historic, because they have no connection to the events and are not from the era. They are however valuable props, that serve to accurately convey an educational message of historic events. Think also of the term "historic fabric", which means we want to preserve original components, because these are the true evidence of past events and practices. No matter how good our replicas, they are not "historic fabric", because they are not unaltered evidence from the past.

If for some reason the Golden Spike park were forced to close and liquidate, I would be disappointed, but not offended if the locomotives were sold to some guy for his backyard railway, or put on display in a Vegas casino.

In contrast, the recent sale of Mississippi from Chicago offends me. That is original fabric, and we have no idea where it is (China?, Japan?). The York on the other hand, has less historic value, but has some historic value for its connection to the later railway fairs.

One thing to remember is that there is no single definition of "preservation" that can be agreed upon. Another is that, in a very real sense, "where you stand is where you sit" in many contexts - even the small number of posts on this topic so far shows that dramatically.

What we are 'preserving', in my opinion, if you have to come up with a one-size-fits-all definition, is both the substance and the context. I pointed out that in architectural preservation it may be impossible to "preserve" all the significant details in the built environment - you then use models, photographs, etc. to show the details that the principal artifact no longer possesses. We have the choice then to do a 'concours' restoration on a locomotive vs. "preserving" it in typical working condition ... depending on what your particular priority or penchant might be ... as long as you don't irrevocably destroy knowledge or ability to re-create details of the alternatives.

In the example of 1522, sensible changes were made to better suit the (all too temporary!) mission of running big steam 'out in the world'. If the original state of that locomotive is adequately known, and any 'removed' or changed bits are documented, and if at least in principle you can 'put it back as it was' (for any operational definition of 'as it was' you value) you have not Compromised Historical Integrity ... at least in my historian's opinion ... but you certainly have a 'bullier pulpit' to show why operational steam is a wonderful thing.

In practice, of course, all too often things like money, time, available skill, or egos get in the way of theoretical completeness or even integrity of the work. Those are the times someone has to figure out ow to 'defuzzify' the full set of actions that would comprise "preservation" so as to obtain the priorities that have to be applied to a particular artifact or holding. There might be a common rubric we could develop to do that -- there are certainly policy documents that set out to establish that, and our currently-somewhat-deprecated efforts to evolve a 'best practices guide' for steam-locomotive work are included -- but very often how 'preservation' gets defined is going to be some version of 'the person with the gold makes the rules' and you will have to fall back on honey rather than vinegar in order to change those priorities...

In many instances trains are restored, or put back into service, because we simply like them and have the ability to do so. When you take a good hard look at what happens at many tourist railroads and museum you see plain and simple entertainment. A scenic train ride, a place to take the family for a couple of hours, just another entertainment option not much different than taking the kids to a minor league ball game or a waterpark. That is not a bad thing, just the reality in many places.

Everyone has their own angle and their own opinion on how and why things should be done. The main thing I see is that so many are doing something. Something is better than nothing in most cases. The thing I like about this little corner of the internet is so many people here are getting something done and not just watching.

After all these years, you've finally said something I agree with 100%.

Congratulations.

Respectfully disagree. You can - in an insular and controlled environment - exactly duplicate the operation of a steam locomotive (or anything else) entirely accurately maintained or restored to its original operating condition duplicating the craftsmanship and materials in use at the time to the greatest extent achievable with provision of the most context possible. If we decide to do so in environments in which regulatory or other influences forbid it, that's our decision - which is to also make alterations necessary to achieve the other goal. Everything in life is a trade off. Imagine if Jupiter and 119 replicas ran not adjacent to a modern visitors center with air conditioning and indoor plumbing and automotive access, but only a long wagon ride away from everything with no conveniences apart from those that were there in 1869. Only foamers would attend and they would complain about other things not being accurate.

Again, choose what's important and act according to those choices. It isn't a guarantee of success, but it provides a basis for everything you do. If that choice is a result that's not entirely authentic, fine - so long as it's purposefully and rationally made at the beginning.

One man's opinion:

Preservation,

That's a loaded word.

Preservation usually means to preserve an item just like it was when it was used in daily service, or daily use. Yes it does take into account that during its life, it can have been rebuilt, overhauled or modified to suit the needs of its owner. CF7s or ICG GP10s are perfect example of that, and are just as historically significant in its rebuilt version, than a non-rebuilt. Do remember that what is historically significant may not be necessarily beautiful - railways don't care about that!

So let's continue this.

First and foremost, what is the piece going to be used for?

-Daily operation for the interpretative side of a museum?
-Will it be started up once or twice a year to demonstrate what it looked like, sounded like and smelled like when it was in revenue service?
-Daily service on a tourist railroad?

If a piece is going to be in daily service, it will require maintenance. Maintenance often enough requires replacement of components. if you are replacing a component by one which is same (brake valve, air compressor, bearing, etc), then you are retaining the basic fabric of the piece. Each time you replace a component with something more modern or less labour intensive to use, you are moving away from that fabric. At some point, whomever owns that piece has to make that difficult decision of what they are and what they want that piece to be. Not easy i agree.

One of the contributor to this tread said "Who cares?" about the fact these mods are being done, in the interest of operation.

Actually, we who know about this, should. Same goes for those who are involved in the preservation of any piece of equipment. We are the custodians of railway history and as such, it is in our collective interest to preserve the technological history that railways have generated over the years. It is also in our collective interest to document this history, so that current and futur generations of people can discover what really was a steam locomotive and how labour intensive they were to operate for example.

We do also need to have operating examples of various equipment to show people "what was". Sights, Sounds and Smells are the best way to show "what was".

At the end of this, we need to say that preservation is more that just an accurate coat of paint. It is not desk top control equipped F-unit or a oil-burning converted steam loco - just because it's better for maintenance.

Len Thibeault