I was at the NMAH the other day, and I noticed something about the John Bull that I wanted to ask about. They have a video of the locomotive in operation in 1981, and there appear to be two levers on the footplate that move back and forth while the locomotive was in motion. Is this part of the valve gear?

Also, looking at the real John Bull made me wonder how accurate RRMPA's is? Besides the use of modern materials, how faithful of a replica is it?

david.wilkins@bardstown.com

>this is probably a question for Kurt Bell to answer.

But one part of it is this. The RRMPA's replica is more accurate than the original because the smokestack is an element from one of the Fairs. It is a copy of the stack on "Locomotion" an early British engine that has itself been replicated.

The real John Bull never had that stack, it was someones itea of "olde tyme". John White's booklet on the engine can give more details, if you need them.

ted_miles@nps.gov

> there appear to be two levers on the
> footplate that move back and forth while the
> locomotive was in motion. Is this part of
> the valve gear?

The thread below, and this one reminded me of the confusion over the terms "replica" and "reproduction". In researching this I've found that a replica is a near exact copy made by the original artist, or in this case the manufacturer. A reproduction, is something created by someone (specifically not the original artist) to look like the original. The "Rocket" therefore is a repica, and the "John Stevens" and "York" should be classified as reproductions.

David, are these the levers/rods your asking about?




SJHussar@aol.com

Hmmm.
The original John Bull was shipped as a kit and assembled by the Camden and Amboy.

In 1940, PRR's Altoona Shops were the successors to Dripps' C&A shop of 1832.

Then is the engine built by the successor shop to the one that assembeled the original a replica or a reproduction?

The world wonders.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

> Then is the engine built by the successor
> shop to the one that assembeled the original
> a replica or a reproduction?

Think of it as the second engine in the "John Bull" class . . .

JAC

Yes, those are the levers!

david.wilkins@bardstown.com

I mostly fired, sometimes ran and usually "braked" the "John Bull" replica in 1999 for Railfair '99, Steamtown "Railfest '99" and Altoona August '99 visits, as well as the Museum's Member's Day in Sept. '99, and found the experience both intriguing and enlightening. Yes, those operating levers are used to engage the drophook valve gear in forward, neutral or reverse position. Each lever must be manually adjusted to disengage the valve links from the valves, realigned, then the hooked links are dropped (by feel or noise) into the new position. Jack White instructed me and Steve Meola, our engineer, in the finer points of working the valve gear and even gave us pointers on how to stop the engine using the operating levers--interesting stuff! One had to stand clear of the levers since they rock back and forth in a sicissors like motion and could cause bodily harm if left unmonitored. A few other "factoids" about the replica: the paint on the replica matches a sample found on the original; through the graces of Jack White and Bill Withuhn, the replica was returned to its "supposed" late 1830s appearance. The replica has more appurtances and design elements (i.e. stack, front pilot truck, livery)that reflect its early appearance than how the original at SI presently appears. Jim Boyd pointed out to me how exacting the Altoona folks made the engine--there is a an imperfection in the frame on the fireman's side that precisely matches an imperfection on the original! How's that for details? We mostly burned cut oak (except in California where we burned poplar), much of which remained stacked in a huge pile alongside Steamtown's roundhouse long after our departure; I think most of it has now been consumed by 3254. In Altoona during our 1999 visit we met one of the men who helped build the replica in 1940 and he remarked that the engine was virtually unchanged since he last seen it brand new. He even got a partial turn at the throttle under engineer supervision. The replica was permanently retired from service in September 1999; the chief reason is that the costs of boiler compliance with the new CFR49 Part 230 plus its status as an accessioned, irreplacable PRR replica (read: artifact "fabric" preservation), now over 60 years old, forced us to make this hard decision in the interests of proper artifact preservation. The engine was slated for an appearance at the B&O Museum's "Fair of the Iron Horse" at Baltimore this summer, albeit as a static display, but for obvious reasons this was "naught to be." "John Bull Jr." (as Bill Withuhn likes to call her) now reposes quietly on track 3 in RSH with C&A coach No. 3, a fitting tribute to the PRR's ancestor road. Sadly, I can say that I was the last person ever to fire the "John Bull" replica.

K.R. Bell
RR Museum of PA

> I was at the NMAH the other day, and I
> noticed something about the John Bull that I
> wanted to ask about. They have a video of
> the locomotive in operation in 1981, and
> there appear to be two levers on the
> footplate that move back and forth while the
> locomotive was in motion. Is this part of
> the valve gear?

> Also, looking at the real John Bull made me
> wonder how accurate RRMPA's is? Besides the
> use of modern materials, how faithful of a
> replica is it?


http://rrmuseumpa.org

> Sadly, I can say
> that I was the last person ever to fire the
> "John Bull" replica.

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!

The South Carolina Railroad Museum
mconrad@compuzone.net

I have no firsthand experience at all on this subject; but the book "Iron Horses" by Michael Del Vecchio on pp 26-29 mentions that when the Smithsonian Institute fired up the original "John Bull" in 1980, it

"...proved once and for all that the replica was indeed a faithful representation of the orginal, those who see the replica run are getting a faithful showing. Both locomotives even shared the same quirks (sticking valves and stopped wheels, just to name a few)."

It goes on to say that the "Johnny Bull" (which they claim is the nickname for the replica "John Bull") "... is operated for special occasions." It is a shame that is no longer true; perhaps it is time to build yet another replica? :)

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a


Surviving World Steam Locomotives
james1@pernet.net

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

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.

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.

Let a thousand flowers bloom.

eledbetter@rypn.org

> It goes on to say that the "Johnny
> Bull" (which they claim is the nickname
> for the replica "John Bull")
> "... is operated for special
> occasions." It is a shame that is no
> longer true; perhaps it is time to build yet
> another replica? :)

YES! YES! YES! to a new replica......... Long overdue. Look how much mileage the NRM in England gets out of its "Rocket" replica....

However, I think I remember Jack White wryly commenting on the possible return of the steamed John Bull "original" after the 1981 150th anniversary runs: Basically, he reportedly said, "I won't rule out steaming it for its 200th anniversary in 2031, but then again I won't be in charge, either!"

lner4472@bcpl.net

> It goes on to say that the "Johnny
> Bull" (which they claim is the nickname
> for the replica "John Bull")
> "... is operated for special
> occasions." It is a shame that is no
> longer true; perhaps it is time to build yet
> another replica? :)

Why build another replica when there's already a perfectly good one sitting in Strasburg, with one of the best steam shops in the WORLD right across the street? That's just wasted resources. Railroad preservation has few enough resources as it is without that kind of pointless duplication.

I have less of a problem with taking an old locomotive out of service because it needs heavy work, such as was done with the 1223 and 7002 (although quite honestly I do think that was a bad call as well). But it just really makes me cringe when somebody calls a replica -- especially a replica of something that still exists in its original form -- a "historic artifact." Nobody can convince me that a replica can be an artifact. A replica is a replica and should be treated as such.

I'm under no illusions that my grumbling in public will make the Powers that Be in Strasburg change their ill-advised decision. They own the thing and I do not. What I do hope to accomplish with these posts is to hopefully prevent other replicas from beng taken out of service based on the misguided actions of RMPA.

The South Carolina Railroad Museum
mconrad@compuzone.net

OK, so if a "replica" is an exact copy, and a "reproduction" is a copy (not necessarily exact) made to look like the original, then is "stand-in" the correct term for taking an existing piece of equipment and making it look like an original? For example, you have a boxcar, same design and overall appearance as owned by multiple railroads. It was built for railroad "ABC", but you already have the same type car restored for that line, and for some diversity, you want to paint it for another railroad to which the car never belonged. Does paint or other minor modification make it a "stand-in" or would it be considered a "replica"?

Stephen Syfrett


ssyfrett@bellsouth.net

Does paint or other minor
> modification make it a "stand-in"
> or would it be considered a
> "replica"?

Sorry...closing should be "stand-in" or "reproduction"?, not "replica"?

> Stephen Syfrett


ssyfrett@bellsouth.net

>Does paint or other minor modification make it a "stand-in" or would it be considered a "replica"?

Perhaps "fake" is the word your're looking for.

Damaging a useful artifact -- which after all cannot be replaced -- to make an approximation of another object involves a dangerous, slippery slope.